North Miami Beach mayor: Our side of a water dispute with neighboring Miami Gardens
As mayor of North Miami Beach, it is my duty to set the record straight about the ongoing water dispute between our city and neighboring Miami Gardens.
There's been a lot of emotion, plenty of speeches, a news story about possible rate hikes for water service, an opinion article published in the Miami Herald and even some political theater — but the truth still matters at the end of the day.
For over 70 years, North Miami Beach has operated the Norwood Water Treatment Plant, which we purchased and maintained long before Miami Gardens became a city.
Today, that plant serves more than 170,000 residents across the region, including parts of Miami Gardens, Aventura, Sunny Isles Beach, Golden Beach and unincorporated Miami-Dade areas like Biscayne Gardens.
We charge a 25% surcharge to non-NMB resident customers — including approximately one-third of Miami Gardens— to ensure the cost of maintaining this infrastructure is shared equitably. That's not exploitation — it's responsible governance and reflects the reality of how a free-market utility model functions. You use a service, you pay your fair share. It's simple.
Let's not forget: When the COVID-19 pandemic froze the economy and families were struggling, NMB stepped up. We absorbed delinquencies, halted shutoffs and kept our utility running smoothly for every customer — without compromising service or safety. While other systems faltered, not one household went without water on our watch. We didn't ask for a bailout; we sacrificed and honored our commitment to the community.
Now, there's a push in Tallahassee to strip away the surcharge, through SB202/HB11 — but only for one city. Let me be clear: You can't rob Peter to pay Paul. A blessing for one group cannot become a burden for everyone else.
If this legislation passes, the loss of roughly $5 million a year — including over $100,000 in annual surcharge revenue from the Hard Rock Stadium alone — will have to be covered by every other water customer. That's not justice. That's communism.
And what's worse, we're being asked to accept this while Miami Gardens continues charging its own residents a 10% utility tax — on water they don't even treat or deliver. If this were truly about helping residents save, they could start there. But it's easier to pass the buck than to cut your tax.
North Miami Beach has made every attempt to work this out neighbor-to-neighbor. We waived surcharges for government accounts. We invited discussion. We offered options. But instead of negotiation, Miami Gardens went to Tallahassee to flex political muscle.
Nonetheless, Miami Gardens has real alternatives to choose from: transition fully to Miami-Dade Water and Sewer, which already serves two-thirds of their city; build and operate their own water utility or, if they want full control, buy out NMB water treatment plant.
What they shouldn't do is try to legislate a shortcut that punishes an award-winning and successful utility to subsidize inefficiency and sidestep responsibility.
If voted into law, SB202/HB11 would set a bad precedent for government overreach. It's an unnecessary burden — another cost compounded on the backs of working families at the worst possible time.
It undermines the principles of local control, free enterprise and personal accountability. If we're going to talk about fairness, it has to be fairness for everyone — not just those with louder voices or better political connections.
As we say in church, 'What's done in the dark will come to light,' and 'The truth shall set you free.' This issue deserves light, not shadows — truth, not politics.
Michael Joseph is the mayor of North Miami Beach.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media
The Hungarian government's decision to delay a vote on a controversial bill which penalises "foreign-funded" media and NGOs does not mean that the danger to freedom of the press is over, top editors warn. The government is still committed to a "campaign to shut down, destroy or discredit certain media outlets, NGOs or people", Peter Uj, editor-in-chief of news site 444, told AFP. Critics say the bill, which they compare to Russia's foreign agent legislation, is the latest attempt by nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban to tighten his control over the central European country of 9.5 million people since his return to power in 2010. Tens of thousands have protested against the bill in Budapest, with another rally to take place on Tuesday. The European Commission has also called on Hungary to withdraw the draft, while representatives of more than 80 media outlets from 22 countries -- including Britain's The Guardian and France's Liberation -- have slammed it. The bill was introduced last month and a vote was scheduled for this week, but the ruling coalition last week put it off, saying that debate would continue in the autumn and that it wanted to review "substantive comments received" from "serious organisations" other than those protesting. - 'Devious' - The legislation would blacklist organisations that "threaten the sovereignty of Hungary by using foreign funding to influence public life". Any kind of support from non-Hungarian citizens, EU funds, or even advertising revenues from companies based abroad constitutes foreign funding, according to commonly accepted legal interpretations. Blacklisted groups would need permission to receive foreign funds. They would also be barred from receiving donations through a Hungarian income tax contribution scheme, an important source of revenue for non-profits. The legal changes could affect any independent Hungarian media outlets, with 444, internet TV Partizan and news site Telex explicitly targeted. Partizan editor-in-chief Marton Gulyas, 39, described the new bill as "devious". "The law would create economic tools to make it impossible for listed organisations to function," he told AFP. The online channel, which was founded in 2018 and has a staff of 70, was the top beneficiary last year of the income tax contribution scheme, receiving more than one million euros ($1.1 million) from over 35,000 supporters. Gulyas rejected the notion that Partizan is "foreign-funded", stressing that the channel had only applied for EU-based grants in the past two years. "Hungary has been a part of the European Union since 2004. There are no borders or customs, yet this money is now being treated as if there could be some kind of criminality involved," he said. - 'Will not back down' - Telex editor-in-chief Tamas Nemet, 44, said that advertising and reader support make up 92 percent of the outlet's revenue. "But the law would now make those unviable" through various legal hurdles and administrative burdens, according to Nemet. One of Hungary's most popular news sources with a staff of around 100, Telex was established in 2021, after Nemet and his colleagues resigned en masse from the country's then-top news site, over alleged political interference. "We can see quite clearly what those in power want, the weapon is loaded and on the table," he said, adding that the "truth cannot be banned". "We will not back down," he said, vowing to "overcome whatever they come up with to hinder our operations". Orban says the law is needed to fight the alleged spread of foreign interference and disinformation. Uj of 444, along with his colleagues from Telex and Partizan, described the bill as "absurd" and "a political weapon designed to keep independent media in constant fear and to take us out". He decried rules "worded in such a way they are impossible to comply with". The 53-year-old Uj and colleagues set up the news site in 2013. It employs about 35 journalists and has broken several stories, including a child abuse pardon scandal, which last year led to the resignation of then-president Katalin Novak, a key Orban ally. AFP partners with its sister site Lakmusz for fact-checking. ros/jza/gv/bc
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
RFK Jr. ousts entire CDC vaccine advisory committee
WASHINGTON — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday removed every member of a scientific committee that advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how to use vaccines and pledged to replace them with his own picks. The 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had been in a state of flux since Kennedy took over. Its first meeting this year had been delayed when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services abruptly postponed its February meeting. Kennedy, who was one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine activists before becoming the nation's top health official, recently took the unusual step of changing COVID-19 recommendations without first consulting the panel. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Kennedy said the committee members had too many conflicts of interest. Committee members routinely disclose any possible conflicts at the start of public meetings.
