Call To Action: Miami-Dade to Consider Bovo Amendment Tomorrow
Tomorrow, at the regular meeting of county commissioners, the “Bovo Amendment” will be considered. The Amendment seeks to remove a safeguard contained in the overnight camping ordinance that would require homeless who are sleeping overnight on public property, be afforded the opportunity to go to a homeless shelter before being arrested.
In other words, Miami-Dade wants the ability to arrest homeless sex offenders on sight. More specifically, since the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust Chair could not find a solution to the transient sex offender problem in 10 years, his solution is to put them back in jail!
The result will be that registrants who are living by the tracks at NW 71st and 36th court because they HAVE to be there (they are on GPS or were sent there by probation) will be given a choice of leaving (and getting arrested for violating the residency restriction or absconding) or staying (and getting arrested for violating the overnight camping ordinance).
If you wonder how this paradoxical situation was created and is allowed to exist; look no further than lobbyist Ron Book, who is the architect of these SORRs (the reason why all these guys can’t find reasonable housing) and the same person the county placed in charge of finding the solution. The same man who publicly calls these individuals “Monsters” and said, “I don’t care if they have to live under a bridge or if they have to live somewhere outside Florida” is the one who is supposed to be helping them. Ron Book is a significant campaign contributor to the Miami-Dade County commissioners, which enables him to abuse his power and influence for his personal vendetta.
Although we foresee how this vote will go, it’s still important that our voices be heard for the record, so that if (more likely, when) we need to sue over this ordinance or add these facts to the existing lawsuit, we will have done everything possible to put the County Commissioners on Notice of the issue and afforded every opportunity to avoid it.
At the bottom of this post is a link to FAC’s letter sent to the commission.
The meeting information (if anyone can attend or speak) is:
| Date/Time: | January 23, 2018 9:30 a.m. – |
| Address: | 111 NW 1st Street 2nd Floor Commission Chambers Miami, FL 33128 |
if you would like to prepare a statement for the record, you can send it to Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners, c/o Daysha McBride ([email protected]) and be sure to ask that it be referenced, for the record at the meeting, and given to the Commissioners in anticipation of the County Commission Meeting to be held on 1/23/2018.
Please copy your local media or forward our letter to them. It’s important we bring as much attention to the issue as possible.
January 22, 2018
Board of County Commissioners
Miami-Dade County
Stephen P. Clark Government Center
111 NW 1st Street, 2nd Floor Commission Chambers
Miami, Florida 33128
RE: STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 21-286 OF THE COUNTY CODE
Dear Ms. McBride:
I respectfully request this letter be submitted to the members of the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners in anticipation of tomorrow’s regular meeting, and be made part of the public record.
We write in strong opposition of the proposed Amendment to Section 21-286 of the County Code. We have previously written twice concerning this issue. Copies of our prior correspondence are attached to this email for your reference and for the record.
As you are aware, the Florida Action Committee, Inc. (FAC) is a not-for-profit public safety advocacy organization. Our concern is both for the individuals who were legislated into homelessness and forced to live transient, as well as the community in those areas in which they are clustered. Our membership is comprised of your constituents and citizens of Florida in other Counties, who have an interest in the above-referenced matter.
The Amendment you will be voting on is not about doing what is right for the citizens of this County or in the best interest of public safety. It is about the continued unfair influence, lobbyist Ron Book leverages against politicians in this County and in the Florida legislature, as well as the blatant conflict of interest that exists within the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust.
FAC members were appalled watching the webcast of the Public Safety and Health Committee meeting last month, during which this Amendment moved forward. It was not lost that Ron Book had contributed thousands of dollars to the commissioners involved. Sponsor Esteban Bovo has taken in over $2,500 from Ron Book’s Lobbying Firm plus $1,000 from each of Ron Book and Patricia Book, individually.(1) Co-Sponsor Jose “Pepe” Diaz, who gushed praises of Ron Book received $2,500 from Pat Book, $3,000 from Ron and $5,000 from Book’s lobbying firm.(2) Even chairperson Sally Heyman, who seemed to “get it” but reluctantly voted in favor of the amendment, received significant campaign contributions from the Books.(3)
Our objective is not to point fingers, but to point out the obvious to members of the public who will read this. Campaign contributions are clouding common sense. The Homeless Trust Chair has a clear conflict of interest in this matter; the underlying ordinance causing the homelessness is named after his daughter!
Homeless advocates have opposed this Amendment. Homeless advocacy across the country argue against criminalization. Even the Police do not support this amendment. So why is our Homeless Trust pushing for criminalization of these homeless?
It would be fine if Ron Book chose to advocate for this position as an individual, or as an officer of Lauren’s Kids, but he certainly shouldn’t be taking a position adverse to the homeless as the Chair of the Homeless Trust and in his official capacity. He is abusing his position with the County by imposing his personal vendetta against this group.
All this Amendment will do is punish those registrants who are abiding by the law! They are in one of the only spots in the County they can lawfully sleep. Most were sent to that location by probation, Many are on GPS cannot leave or they will be violated.
If you want to do something about public safety, be responsible with public funds and create safer communities, repeal or amend the Lauren Book Child Safety Ordinance so that these homeless individuals can find a reasonable place to live.
Do not allow a man who has such a strong personal bias against this class of individuals to continue to steer this ship. This Amendment will not undo the horrors Lauren endured for so long and no Sex Offender Residency Restrictions would have prevented them. Only through sound policy do we have the power to raise awareness and end the cycle of abuse.
(1) https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=6677197
(2) https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=506055
(3) https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=6415991
Miami-Dade has a serious problem that this Amendment will not solve. Roughly one-third of sex offenders in the County on probation are homeless and more than one-quarter of those not on probation are also homeless. Currently, that’s over four hundred people! With lifetime registration, no attrition, more registrants being released daily and the supply of available compliant housing diminishing, that problem will grow exponentially. Housing them in Jail will not solve the problem. It will create more problems.
We implore you to defer or reject the proposed amendment to 21-286 and afford an impartial, unbiased individual to take a stab at finding a better solution to this problem, before you impose this horribly punitive sanction on people who are merely trying to exist in compliance with the law.
Sincerely,
s/
Gail Colletta, President
The Florida Action Committee, Inc.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t know if this will be published because it seems quite a few comments I make get censored, but I have been doing my part to help the folks at the camp despite living 1200 miles away. I wish I could attend but I lack the funds to do so, but I sent a very terse letter to the county commissioners.
My beef tonight is not with FAC, but with those of you who read this but complain about what to do while not actually doing it. FAc, like my website, and like numerous other groups out there, are all grassroots campaigns. We don’t have the funds to fight legal wars, and that’s quite frankly while I have stated the legal route is our least desirable path. Bills are easier to fight than laws. Laws require expensive lawsuits, with expensive attorneys. A certain other person wants $100k to fight IML. That’s a lot to ask about a bunch of poor folks. However, here’s a bill not yet law that can be challenged with less money.
Having stopped numerous bills in various states, I know that many bills get passed into laws because no one challenged it, and many bills don’t become laws because someone challenged it. Now, from a financial standpoint, it makes sense to challenge bills than file lawsuits. Bill challenging is an ounce of prevention while lawsuits are very expensive cures (that sometimes don’t cure).
The cost of a few minutes of your life to testify against a bill is cheaper than the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of bucks it takes to file a lawsuit that could get dismissed. So why is it when I watch testimony from any legislative meetings down in FloriDUH I don’t see a room full of opponents to the law? I don’t know just how big a BOD this group has but I know lots of folks not BOD read this site. So why are you depending on FAC staffers alone to do the job? Hell, I was willing to travel to testify against these disgusting Books, and I’m just some guy collecting a $770 per month gov’t check and food stamps. I stayed at the camp a few days just to talk with folks and try to gather some resources for those in need. So why is it more of you living down there not joining the efforts in person?
We need people there IN PERSON. Like I said, I wanted to. I put myself in debt trying to do my part. I did contact the commission for what it is worth. But those of you who live close enough to drive, what is your excuse not to fight?
Thanks Derek.
The address for today’s meeting is on the call to action on our website. Let’s see who shows.
This particular witch hunt has been going on for so long now, it’s almost impossible to see where societal corrections and attitude adjustments should begin. So many oxen have been gored and left to die on public grounds that the legislative and judicial landscapes resemble a metaphorical moonscape of Berlin when the Russians finished with it at the end of WWII.
A favorite line of mine from Haklyt’s Voyages comes to mind: “Coffined in their cabins they do lie, equally grieved they are not dead and yet must die.”
FAC. correct me if I’m wrong but I believe FAC with the help ACLU already has a federal lawsuit pending on The residency restrictions that will be heard in April if I’m correct.
Correct – there is a federal lawsuit challenging the Sex Offender Residency Restriction (SORR).
The SORR is the reason why large groups of individuals are clustered where they are.
@Mike
I’ve been an active member with fac for about 5 years. I have been to the Miami homeless encampment numerous times I see what’s going on there rest assure fac is doing all that can be done also Mike I was a donor in the ex post facto case and the internet identifier case also was involved in fundraising for those two cases that was mentioned above buy fac my suggestion is donate that’s how it works. Like fac said it’s not their first rodeo.
Don’t patronize me. I know how it works too. You have no idea of where my activism comes from. I have been involved in this fight since 2003.
I have been told that lawyers won’t do anything for us in Florida unless they get paid, but I don’t see a weekly post asking for donations in active cases. It’s worth it to keep everyone updated on how much money we have/need and keeping everyone informed as to what direction we are headed.
FAC keeps us advised with the bills each calendar year…..why not with lawsuits. We stand to gain if everyone knew what was going on.
Mike, please take a few deep breaths. DS is very involved and valued. We should not be disrespecting each other.
We have the ACLU already representing us in a HUGE case! Florida Institutional Legal Services picked up another and the Florida Justice Institute is co-counsel in our Internet identifier case. These organizations are not getting paid. In fact, they front costs that we’d never be able to afford even if we applied our entire year’s budget.
If you can find other lawyers who will take these cases PRO BONO, great! Please tell us about them, because we’ve not found any willing to not only eat their billable hours, but cover filing fees, expert witnesses, depositions, transcripts, etc.
We regularly reference our active legal cases and the information is all publicly accessible. These are federal cases and on PACER. We give at least as much “talk time” to legal as we do to legislative.
If ANYONE, absolutely anybody, wants to get involved and help find attorneys, legal aid organizations, law school clinics, etc. who are willing to take on one of our cases for free. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE get involved and help find them. Reach out to [email protected] and volunteer.
involved?
I think what Mike is asking for is transparency not only in the cases being pursued but also financial statements of FAC quarter annually or at least annually.
Lets assume, after an initial consolation, the legal committee agrees a challenge has legs. Now lets further assume there are 650 members in FAC. a one time special assessment of at least $100 brings in $65,000.00. Realizing more than half the members can not afford this assessment, let alone a burger and fries, perhaps 10 or 20 members would be willing to contribute $1,000 or more.
The legal committee needs funding. An escrow account could be set up, if not done so already, requiring two signatures, that of the President and Treasurer of FAC. for any authorized disbursements.
I am a card carrying member of the ACLU as every member should be. What about FAC? Surely a significant annual contribution to the ACLU from FAC would be greatly appreciated and helpful.
A separate account should be set up for the collecting of administrative costs funded by the membership dues.
There is power in numbers. And as DS said and to which I agree, we need to take our fight to the courts. I could have went to this County meeting, however it would have been a fruitless endeavor bringing unwanted attention and perhaps retaliation my way. If and when the residency restriction falls transiency among RSO should plummet anyway.
The fight is against the SORR. Let them have their show. I refuse to be their star.
So I agree with FAC that we can’t afford to challenge every B.S local ordinance. Our focus and resources must be directed at both State and Federal levels, that which will give us the best bang for the buck.
I don’t want to hear that!!! All you have to do it ask for donations for a specific cause.
So your telling us that YOU DIDN”T contact a single attorney to help the registrants of Miami in this matter?
You say a lawsuit will only affect just Miami-Dade…..guess you did not hear that it would set a precedent and in this case it would have taken the fight right to the door of Ron Book, the biggest pain in the a## for all RC’s in Florida.
…..”don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.
Of course we did. We are in continuous contact with several lawyers and two people from the ACLU spoke at the last hearing on this amendment, which took place last month.
If you re-read the post above, you’ll see that we wrote, “if (more likely, when) we need to sue over this ordinance”.
We are not sitting idly by, but we’re also not going to raise thousands of dollars in days. If you can make that happen, great, but this isn’t our first rodeo. It took us months to raise the retainer for the Internet Identifier suit and over a year for the Ex Post Facto. Both those cases directly benefited registrants across Florida and we had to plead for donations.
We do not have a fundraising committee, we do not have wealthy benefactors that support our cause. We have hundreds of similarly situated individuals who can afford to send in small amounts which are huge to them and we appreciate every penny we raise.
On the flip side, Ron Book gets millions from the State and County (his salary for serving on the homeless trust, funding for Lauren’s Kids, etc.)
If you think we have reserves with which to hire attorneys or a network of lawyers ready to represent us for free, you are sadly mistaken
Why didn’t FAC get a lawyer (or the ACLU) to put an injunction against Dade County? It seems that with a looming case about to begin this year, an injunction would be the very logical thing to do. It would prevent the politician’s from getting rid of a situation they helped cause while continuing to add new facts to the suit.
FAC is a not-for-profit group that is dependent entirely on member donations. We do not have attorneys on staff and we do not have funds on reserve to retain them.
We raised money for the retainer in our Internet Identifier challenge and we raised money for the Ex Post Facto lawsuit (the retainer for which was just paid last month).
We don’t have funds with which to challenge this County Ordinance and if we started raising the funds, the amendment would be passed long before we raised our first $1000.
The other thing to keep in mind is that this is a County Ordinance particular to Miami-Dade. It’s not in place for other counties (unlike the Internet Identifier law, which is state-wide or SORRs, which exist across Florida). If we bring an action, it needs to have some benefit to the majority of our members, otherwise we’re creating a situation where we apply state-wide donations for local use. It’s similar to the scenario in Duval, where they have the Halloween sign ordinance.
The ACLU already represents us in a challenge to the SORR and our local chapter has their hands busy with the trial in that case, which is very quickly approaching.
Agreed, this ordinance ordeal with Miami Dade is petty and limited to just one county. I wouldn’t even bother. Let them have their day in the sun. (They are going to regardless what anybody says) Their minds are already made up. They just want to look like their having an official meeting about it so they can look like they’re useful. (They’re not)
I would rather concentrate the resources we have on a Federal law suit. A Federal lawsuit win can wipe these petty little ordinances across the State and benefit everyone within the state. The 11th circuit court of appeals already sent it back to the District court and that was due thankfully because of the 6th circuit court ruling which had the backing of SCOTUS and the SG-DOJ, and other rulings cited by the 11th from its other sister courts.
I don’t know about anybody else here, but I see this particular battle already” halfway won ” with regards to SORR. The Internet Identifier is also halfway won I would think because of the SCOTUS Packingham ruling where 1st amendment rights are protected and the right to be anonymous as well. Let’s get the other half to both and win it for good. Best of luck to the ACLU and their attorneys.
@ Mary
Mary I agree with you100% about the internet identifier case as far is the other case is going to be tougher because the SCOTUS did not hear the 6th circuit appeal they left it kind of Open Season for the other courts but it does help with a favorable outcome for the 11th circuit. Me being a good poker player that I am I bet you’re right. Now as far as Miami-Dade County Commissioners I think that Ron Book will be put in his place and the ordinance will be not be passed, but I don’t win every hand in poker.lol
@DS
Have a little faith 🙂
I see it differently. I think both issues or cases can be easily won if the courts only follow the law and recent rulings by SCOTUS and other Federal courts.
Anything that is not aligned with 2003 Smith V. Doe should not exist. That includes residency/proximity restrictions and internet identifiers ( among many other things, but I won’t get into that ) When courts rule, they follow that 2003 ruling as a guideline. It’s how the 6th circuit ruled, it’s how SCOTUS checked to see if that’s how the 6th circuit ruled and it’s how the SG briefed it to SCOTUS that indeed that’s how the 6th circuit ruled. The 6th circuit judge said it in her opinion that Smith V. Doe is not a blank check for politicians to keep mounting future laws onto it. The 6th circuit got it correctly(Solicitor General’s opinion to SCOTUS), which is why SCOTUS didn’t touch it. They have thousands of cases presented to them. They are not going to accept a case just to agree with a case. The Packingham case was different because it’s never been done before(first amendment rights on the internet not just for sexual offenders but for everyone else in general)
The Snyder 6th circuit ruling bypassed by SCOTUS is the precedent for other courts to follow which is what the 11th did when they remanded back to the lower district court. The lower district court can disagree all they want, but then it can be sent back to the same higher court that remanded it in the first place. I actually wished it did. That way if they rule in our favor, Georgia and Alabama can get rid of this ridiculous mess as well. There is also a similar case to the Snyder case in the same 11th circuit court pending(in Alabama).
I believe it’s the McGuire case. Should be an interesting and important case to follow.
Nothing is ever guaranteed, anything can happen, but the outcome looks a lot better than it did more than a decade ago for RSOs.
@Mary
I agree with you completely. 😄 right now I’m vacationing in the 6th circuit. Oh what a relief it is flop flop fizz fizz…
@DS
lol, Glad you are. Enjoy it. 🙂