Pinecrest leaders have been good village stewards. Referendum proposal would be damaging | Opinion

If you have driven through Pinecrest recently, you may have noticed our community is dotted with Vote No and Vote Yes signs. This is an aberration for our serene, family-friendly village.

At issue is whether Pinecrest will defend 27 years of successful land-use regulation by its elected volunteer Village Council. Or will the village upend its charter and switch to an untested system? This radical alternative would require that virtually any definition change to our land-development regulations be put to a village-wide vote, with a 60% supermajority needed to pass anything. Meaning, if 59.99% of us like some something, and 40.01% do not, then the minority wins. That is not democracy. That is minority rule.

The proponents’ ostensible — but false — motivation was that the council was going to permit high-rises in Pinecrest. But no high-rises are coming. In November, just three months ago, council voted unanimously to maintain our four-story limit on U.S. 1, ban hotels and protect our single-family homes. Miami-Dade County had passed an ordinance requiring every municipality to come up with a plan to support the rapid bus transit system. Pinecrest met the county minimums and maintained its traditional four-story limit.

And then a weird thing happened.

Rather than accept this outcome as a shared victory, referendum proponents sued the village in a convoluted effort to stop council’s second and final vote on the matter. The village prevailed in court — at the expense of residents’ tax dollars. The council took its final vote in December — banning hotels, maintaining four stories and protecting residential zones. Again, it was unanimous: 5-0. The court case has since been dismissed.

Is this referendum really about high-rises or is this just a partisan effort, led by a failed council candidate who lost by more than 20 points in 2020, to stir up anger and outrage in Pinecrest?

The proposed change to disrupt our representative government would only lead to dysfunction. Our zoning and land-regulation code would become stuck in the mud. It could only harm our property values, not to mention our sense of community — something we have built successfully for 27 years.

Triggered special elections would cost the village $68,000 minimum. And this referendum is just one taste of it. As of Feb. 6, it has already cost taxpayers $115,000 — and counting. That figure does not even include staff time spent on the matter. Nor does it account for staff time and efforts diverted from core government functions.

Every former Pinecrest mayor opposes this referendum. Indeed, two of them are founders and architects of our charter, our constitution. The entire elected council opposes it.

We are witnessing an ugly moment in our village, one that I thought was reserved for national debates and not idyllic communities like ours. We are watching fear-based politics used to exploit how residents vote.

This is our home. It is up to us to see our way out. It is up to us to bury this unhinged referendum with a decisive vote.

We inherited the charter from our founders. We are entrusted with securing it for future generations. Pinecrest is not broken. Our charter doesn’t need fixing — and neither does Pinecrest.

I ask fellow residents to vote No on March 7.

Shannon del Prado is a member of the Pinecrest Village Council, Seat 3.