Talk:Biscayne Landing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.
PEER This article is currently being peer reviewed.


Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on February 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Evolving Real Estate Project

The Biscayne Landing article has been edited with the most current information on the community, under the direction of its developers, Boca Developers, and the former executive director of the North Miami Community Redevelopment Agency and current director of the “Redevelopment and Revitalization of Southeast Florida” Project Frank Schnidman. For more information on the project, please visit http://www.cuesfau.org/cra/.

Because Biscayne Landing is still under construction, with its first towers to be completed soon, this article will be regularly edited to reflect the latest changes to the master-planned community. --Johnpdavid 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not meant to be used to advertise development projects, please do not remove sourced edits that point out negative aspects of this project.--RandomStuff 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Johnpdavid - Again, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure. I have suggested multiple times how you can make edits within wikipedia guidelines if you feel the article is POV. Using a sock-puppet account and your alternate ip address was not among my suggestions. Please do not just copy/paste pr material into the article and remove any valid/sourced portions that do not favor your marketing standpoint. Regardless of the account name/ip address you use, please source any new information, do not remove pertinent sourced material, and do not include non-encyclopeadic marketing snippets in the article. Your contributions to make this article NPOV are welcome, but again, please keep your contributions within wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. RandomStuff 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article has been updated to make the POV brochure text from the developers NPOV.--RandomStuff 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Threats thread from user talk page

Legal threats reguarding this article by the PR firm representing Biscayne Landing may be found at User_talk:Marketingsupport .

I have reposted legal discussion from user MarketingSupport on this page, below, as it is pertinent to article:


Thanks. --User:Marketingsupport


RandomStuff-We would like to work with Wikipedia to make sure all salacious and libel comments are removed from this entry. While we have no issue with posting the articles and external links for anyone who wishes to read them, we do take exception to people who obviously have a bone to pick with the City of Miami and falsly paraphrase or omit factual information from sourced materials in order to cast dispersions on this project and the site.

For this reason, we would like to pursue a course of copyright infringement as owners of the name Biscayne Landing and have all references to Biscayne Landing be removed from Wikipedia and this entry be deleted.

Again, I am available to speak anytime. --User:Marketingsupport

Thanks.

[edit] Legal Threats

My edits to the page where sincere attempts at npov, and sources where cited. This is more about the community risks of Munisport, your project is unfortunately affected since it is being constructed prior to cleanup of the site. Munisport has a long history of (illegal) pollution and dumping, and according to some reputable sources the site has never been properly cleaned. There have been many documented instances of political/financial considerations in re-classifying polluted sites and fudging results, this site included. If you were to sue me for libel/slander, you know full well that there are reams of documents that would be entered into discovery and the public record showing, among other things:

  • Initial reccomended cleanup of Munisport never completed
  • city or developers could have cleaned up property by removing all toxic waste for approx. $25-30 mil, but chose not to take this route
  • delisting was contested, with documetation that the testing was never thorough enough for a site with the contaminants documented to have gone into Munisport

If you were to be foolish enough to pursue your threatened action against me, your legal team could be presented with filing cabinets full of documentation of everything that has gone wrong with the Munisport site prior to Biscayne Landings project, from illegal and unsupervised dumping to testing irregularities. If, on the other hand, your claim is that the article and citations are correct and the only violation you claim is "Copyright Infringement," a few pointers:

  1. You posted your rendering on wikipedia under Creative Commons License Public Domain, you cannot revoke this license.
  2. You contributed to the article, as did John Paul David, read wikipedia licensing re: posting/copyright.

I think it would be more constructive to work on an NPOV factually accurate (non-PR) article, rather than to resort to threats of litigation. Your behavior is contrary to wikipedia community standards. --RandomStuff 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the legal threats part, I think you need to prove that this is indeed the same user and that "Johnpdavid" had rights to even use the image in the first place. But yes, no legal threats on Wikipedia. Sasquatch t|c 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
JohnPDavid works for the pr agency for Boca Developers - [1], I erroniously mistook this account to be a sock puppet account for johnpdavid due to shared ip addresses between identical postings, but it appears by the email address above that this account belongs to a different Boca Developement employee. According to Johnpdavid's initial postings, he was working under direction of Boca Developement when he posted the image under creative commons public domain. So it looks like Boca Developement first posted/cc licensed the photo to wikipedia through their pr firm, then retracted the license when they were unhappy with the contents of the article. If this is a legal issue, the ip address johnpdavid posted the image from is in the logs, and as an agent of Boca Developers he has the right to publish the image and enter it into CC public domain. There is legal precident that once an image is entered into CC public domain by an agent of the owner of the rights, said rights cannot be revoked. While wikipedia may decide to cave on this one, the law and past decisions are clear, and again, ip address logs of wikipedia will show that johnpdavid is who he says he is, a pr agent for Boca Developers. So the real legal action perhaps should be against johnpdavid for giving away the copyright of his clients' image while representing him? --RandomStuff 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced... I'd rather just leave the image out. Someone else can go and visit the site and just take a photo anyways should they need to... I mean... I don't feel the image is necessary to the article (if people wanted to see how the project looks like they can just click the links) and we just avoid all issues pertaining to what status the copyright is in. Sasquatch t|c 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, too much fuss over something so easily duplicated. User removed the image because I pointed out that it showed the sewage treatment plant to the north of the developement (also visible on google maps satelite view.) --RandomStuff 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to re-read my post. I never threatened "legal action", but instead am choosing to enforce our copyright of the name Biscayne Landing, which we legally own. You have not requested permission to use the name and are therefore in violation of copyright laws governing usage of the name. We request you cease and desist from using the name Biscayne Landing forthwith. --User:Marketingsupport

Ummm, I'm pretty sure you can't stop us from writing about the company. Copyright only protects against others using the name for commercial use (e.g. I opened up my own company called "Biscayne Landing"). However, we are guaranteed under the right to free speech to talk about your company all we want. This is a frivolous argument, if the article is clearly about your company you cannot prevent us from mentioning it. Using the name would clearly fall under fair use anyways. Take this matter somewhere else and stop threatening legal action. Sasquatch t|c 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • laughs hysterically* Names have never, ever been copyrightable. Trademarkable I'll grant you, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reporting on factually correct material. Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR?

If your first edit was reverting to someone else's version, does that count as one of the 3? If so, I now have one too many. :-(--SarekOfVulcan 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when combatting vandalism and blanking of pages, and nobody has issued a warning, you are ok. Otherwise, I am worse off than you in the RR count department. --RandomStuff 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message to RandomStuff and other contributors from NoMoBS

First, I am (obviously) new to Wikipedia, having been introduced to it by a concerned associate that pointed out the many mischaracterizations included in the Biscayne Landing and Munisport pages. In my shock and dismay, I began to make changes without understanding Wikipedia rules and protocol, for which I apologize. I have researched the rules and intend to abide by them.

Second, I am not the user named “Marketingsupport”

Third, when you write “Munisport has a long history of (illegal) pollution and dumping, and according to some reputable sources the site has never been properly cleaned. There have been many documented instances of political/financial considerations in re-classifying polluted sites and fudging results, this site included.” – I understand where you’re coming from. The fact that the Munisport site was ever allowed to operate (legally or illegally) as a landfill so close to a state park and Biscayne Bay is unconscionable. Equally unforgivable was the 20 years political lethargy with regard to this unclosed/capped landfill. The obvious political reality indicated by the years of inactivity is that without the financial rewards of development, there is neither the political will nor the capital to properly close a landfill like Munisport. Alternatively, three short years of development has resulted in substantial progress in closing the landfill pursuant to the Consent Decree (approximately 10% has been capped/closed as a result of development to-date). Furthermore, the only way this site will be completely closed and capped is as a result of continued development. Without development, the political lethargy will resurface and the landfill will remain unclosed. The Developer is not in any way responsible for past Munisport sins (having had no involvement with the site prior to 2002), but is attempting to be an agent of positive change by providing entrepreneurial initiative to rehabilitate the site.

Fourth, if you truly believe that Biscayne Landing is the unfortunate victim of the Munisport site’s history and are sincerely interested in providing NPOV, I have a proposal to resolve the conflict.

Since there are Wikipedia pages for both Biscayne Landing and the Munisport Landfill, I propose that all information and source data exclusively referencing Munisport should be disclosed exclusively on the Munisport page. Likewise for Biscayne Landing. Source data that specifically references BOTH Biscayne Landing and Munisport may be included on either or both pages. Proper cross-references between sites can be ensured, including specific cross-references from Biscayne Landing for category headings such as “Environmental Concerns” and “Site History.”

The Developer (and any of its employees or consultants) will refrain from deleting source data that specifically identifies or describes either Biscayne Landing or Munisport. The Developer will also refrain from posting marketing material or any un-sourced opinions. However, sourced, factual and informative data such as: description of the public private partnership with the City, development status, a description of future projects, status of remediation and closure and information regarding LEED certification would be added as available.

All parties would work together to ensure both the Biscayne Landing and Munisport sites are strictly NPOV and properly sourced.

This proposal is reasonable, results in a more concise and encyclopedic disclosure and is entirely in conformity with the rules and objectives of Wikipedia. NoMoBS 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, on the face of it. One of the standard procedures when there are content disputes like this is to hammer out the proposed wording on the talk pages before copying it into the article. Would you like to suggest something to get started with?--SarekOfVulcan 02:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes and would appreciate your help and cooperation since my proposal involves moving info from one page to another. I'm not sure how to accomplish this without being accused of blanking or vandalizing... NoMoBS 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Just post your suggested text on this talk page or the Munisport talk page. If we can come to consensus on the wording first, there shouldn't be any issues when you change the articles themselves.--SarekOfVulcan 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NoMoBS proposal

NoMoBS: The "community" of wikipedia encourages giving users the benefit of the doubt, and presuming good intentions. While the "edit war" of the past few days was frustrating and suspicious, your explanation is plausible and constructive contributions are welcome. Kudos for the apology, reading up on the rules, and taking responsability for mistakes. There are some ties that should remain in the article because they are notable

  • largest project of kind on former superfund site
  • environmental/health issues of location
  • any plans pushed forward by the developers to avoid/change proper remediation of environmental/health hazards

One of the frustrations of Munisport, and now Munisport/Biscayne Landing is that Miami is essentially a one newspaper town, and Boca Developers spends HUGE money advertising in the Herald. The Miami Herald has pulled online archives of any article negative to munisport and Biscayne Landing (not suggesting conspiracy here, probably just Herald wanting to make large advertisers happy), so local reporting on this is now skewed and published articles factually inaccurate. In addition, at recent hearings Boca Developers have been pushing for changes in the cleanup requirements (as well as changing specs/sizes of apt units to be built) and the issues of Munisport and their past 24hr/day illegal dumping of toxic chemicals and biohazardous waste will not magically vanish, even if govt bureaucracies can be convinced to stamp the issue "closed." NoMoBS, if you are truly interested in being NPOV and factually accurate, I am asking you to please research what has really been going on with this former superfund site and the current lobbying by Boca Developers AND city officials to make sure you do not accidentally push for a "marketing" version of the development and property, as there are years of documentation of the real issues here, from Munisport to Swerdlow to Boca Developers. It is not a matter of being "fair and balanced," it is a matter of what is true vs what is "truthy". Initially, political pressure caused Munisport to be delisted and in a drawn out process the original scientific findings about the nature of the site were dramatically changed. "The site has yet to be cleaned up. The Munisport Dump Coalition, a group of NGOs and interested citizens, was able to hire competent scientists funded by an EPA grant. They could not overcome the political pressure surrounding the problem site." Politics and Science This level of political/economic pressure over-riding science is still going on today. I truly hope that Boca Developers will take the high road and remediate the site properly for the sake of Miami and future generations to live there and around the area. --RandomStuff 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Read this also, the posting and the comments, it can all be backed up: Herald Makes mistakes on Biscayne Landing article --RandomStuff 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, unless you are an environmental scientist who has either directly conducted, studied or peer-reviewed all of the environmental testing related to the Munisport, you should not be the arbiter of truth versus “truthyness”. While you seem quite knowledgeable about the site’s unfortunate past, you also seem to take information from the Herald, New Times and blogs as “truth”. As we all should know, neither the Herald nor the New Times ever let the truth get in the way of a good story. (I could also discuss the accuracies and the fallacies in the blog, but this would go on forever.) FYI, unlike most developers, Boca Developers spends a pittance on Herald ads and the Herald rarely writes positively about Boca Developers. A prime example was the recent article announcing DERM’s denial of the “in situ” groundwater remediation system. The Developer and its environmental engineers and scientists (yes, they employ scientists) spent hours with Herald reporters explaining the science behind the “in situ” system, the alleged error in DERM’s measurement technique (DERM didn’t measure at the point of treatment where it meets standard, but 30 yards downgradient where the treated water has the chance to mix with the untreated water) and the potential danger in employing DERM’s preferred “pump and treat” system (this system requires the extraction of 6 million gallons of water from the groundwater flow for treatment at any given time, thereby potentially creating a void in the limestone substrate and causing salt water incursion, which would be harmful to freshwater flora and fauna), yet the Herald only included once sentence in rebuttal of the paragraphs of quotes and explanation of DERM’s position, stating simply that the Developer disagreed. I assume you didn’t know the points I made above and I assure you there are other facts you are not aware of which is why your POV, however impassioned and well-intended, is not necessarily “truth”. Likewise, neither is mine, which is why “fair and balanced” is the only reasonable standard. I’m truly sorry that Audubon and the Dump Coalition were not successful in their goal of having the site scraped clean (although moving 6 million tons of debris from one landfill to another was never a viable or cost-effective solution, since capping closed landfills is protocol). It would have made developing the site much easier. As far as Boca Developers taking the high road, there’s a limit to what a developer can do as (1) the Developer didn’t cause this debacle and doesn’t have the financial resources to undertake its own remediation effort (lenders/investors don’t generally advance funds for non-recoverable costs) and (2) contrary to the allegation in the blog, the City has always had the environmental cleanup responsibility (as well as the County in this regard) as such responsibility resides with the landowner and the Developer doesn’t own the land. The Developer is an agent for the City in the remediation and closure effort. The County grant ($31 million, not $49 million) is the City’s, not the Developer’s, and the City and County mandate how the cleanup effort proceeds. Nevertheless, the Developer will cap and remediate the landfill pursuant to the Consent Decree – or whichever way the County mandates and pays for. As far as me personally, I have done a lot of research and I still can’t say I know the “truth”. You say “Initially, political pressure caused Munisport to be delisted and in a drawn out process the original scientific findings about the nature of the site were dramatically changed.” I’ve been told that the initial science was exaggerated to get the site listed on the Superfund List in order to get federal funds for the cleanup – then, shortly thereafter, the Regan Administration cut CERCLA funding, thereby leaving the City’s greatest asset with a Superfund designation and no money to do anything about it. Which is true? Are there elements of truth to both stories? I don’t know. What I do know is that Munisport has a controversial history that should be factually disclosed on the Munsiport page and that Biscayne Landing is a truly unique New Urbanist development that is unlike anything else in South Florida, that it is at the forefront of green development, that it is a massive infill project that helps reduce urban sprawl, that it is a model for addressing the affordable housing crisis, that it is being developed on a landfill and it will include groundwater remediation and landfill closure as well as wetlands restoration – all should be factually disclosed on the Biscayne Landing page. Neither Wikipedia page should be a lobbying forum used to promote an agenda, whether it is to sell condos or to change the remediation and closure plan. NoMoBS 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you requested that, at a minimum, the following links be included in the Biscayne Landing Site:
  • largest project of kind on former superfund site
  • environmental/health issues of location
  • any plans pushed forward by the developers to avoid/change proper remediation of environmental/health hazards
I will be sure to include then im my proposal for the Biscayne Landing disclosure. In the interim, I propose a truce on edits to Biscayne Landing for a few days until I get back to you... NoMoBS 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Question: What do you assert is the "proper remediation of environmental/health hazards"?
NoMoBS, your post is a little long to respond to, better not to bury the issues in nitpicking but concentrate on real documented issues. I am posting on known and documented facts only. Over the years, I have spoken directly to environmental scientist who have either directly conducted, studied or peer-reviewed all of the environmental testing related to the Munisport, I am trying to convince some of them to pitch in on these articles. I am not including "smoke" in my postings (the types of details a lawyer would use to confuse the jury from dealing with the main point) Munisport site condition was not exaggerated to get on the superfund listing, you shouldn't even have mentioned this patently false and unsourced allegation. There is plenty of documentation (more in print than on the web) on the 24 hr/day illegal an unsupervised dumping that went on during the dumps operation, and workers of the dump at the time have admitted on record to dumping large quantities of drums of toxic chemicals as well as hospital waste, the proper testing/removal of which was never done. (few toxins between friends) (the drums pose a larger problem in that eventually they will rust, leaking their contents). I will look into the possibility of OCR for this information, but this will take a while. In the meantime, call Audubon, perhaps they can provide you with more documentation on the issues. The consent decree reached recently still falls short of what was determined to be needed initially, and at recent hearings there have been attempts by city/developer to modify the cleanup requirements (I am sure this information is available internally for you). Already, Swerdlow's initial promise of affordable housing on the site was changed, so there is precedent of agreements not being kept on this development project to date. But that's not in my area of concern, I am only concerned about the pollution from this site and the effects on residents if it is not remediated. I am aware of all of the details of the "in situ" plan, it is scientifically flawed for the issues of this site and if you do not know that you should talk to independent scientists (not Boca payed "experts") so that you are better informed. If time permits, I will OCR the reams of physical paperwork on these issues so that it can be sourced/linked on the web, in the meantime perhaps you can track down Audubon or the lawyers for the community groups for more documentation. They would be in a better position to give you more of the documentation of the true and documented condition of the site. Also, I believe the numbers where <$40 mil to move the contaminated dumping to a proper site. Hopefully other users will pitch in here to make this a factual article, A NPOV factual article IS the final goal, which we will all work to achieve. --RandomStuff 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I do NOT use smoke or subterfuge and I am not a lawyer - don't be insulting. You might as well have accused me of being a politician or a televangelist. (In the interest of clarity and civility, the first two sentences are meant to be facetious.) I started to point out several inaccurate statements in your post above, I but decided to do so would be pointless. What is clear to me, is that you are far more informed about what has happened on site in the past (although I have also reviewed a substantial amount of historical data) and I know far more about what's happening now. What's also clear is that both of us have a clear COI (I've already acknowledged that I have a COI on my talk page.) Nevertheless, you did not give a clear answer to my question: What do you assert is the "proper remediation of environmental/health hazards"? The question is germane to the proposed modification of both pages. NoMoBS 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for the offence, NoMoBS, it is wikipedia community standards to give all users benefit of the doubt, I am still stinging a little from Marketingsupport's threats and over-enthusiasm. I do not have a COI, I didn't even intend to contribute this much to the article, but my postings kept getting challenged by Marketingsupport, so I had to dig around the internet a lot to refresh my memory. I know more now about munisport than I did when it was active! My initial knowledge came from a member of the homeowner's association in my neighborhood who was very active with cleanup attempts during the heyday of Munisport, and I attended a few public meetings where this stuff was being hashed out because I wanted to understand how concerned I should be about the issue. I had thought this was a long dead topic, and now munisport has popped into the news again, so I was putting everything that I had learned here for everybody's reference. I had spoken with the scientists about this ages ago, as had many people in the neighborhood, it was a very big deal back then. I know one person who used to be involved with this, and I am trying to get them to contribute their large knowledge to the article (so far without luck, not everyone is internet savvy!) As to proper remediation, I will see what I can find out for you (looks like I am becoming active in this now, I was just an observer back then!) . Hopefully some others will join us and play along! --RandomStuff 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Good news, NoMoBS, I finally tracked down someone who knows more about this than me, and they say that the current remediation plan is sufficient. Sorry I fought so hard, I am not a scientist and the research I was doing, as you pointed out, was based partly on blogs. That would explain why I couldn't find more internet backing for my initial misunderstanding. I'll try to NPOV-itise my contributions a bit and bow out of this article, moving on to other Miami articles. --RandomStuff 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] crystall ball, notability, factual accuracy, and neutrality

  1. This article fails to claim notability that would warrant inclusion in wikipedia. If we were to include articles on every local housing development, we would have millions of useless pages.
  2. It reads to something close to a brochure, or at least as original research. This needs to be fix to meet encyclopedic standards.
  3. This project has not been built yet, as such it describes events in the future. Until it is finished it must note this.
  4. It completely fails to be reliably and verifiably sourced.

--Cerejota 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

this article might be notable if you consider it is built on a controversial former superfund site, which some say has not been fully remediated. Check some of the older edits, they seem well sourced. Possible problem is POV, though. If this does make notability due to being on a former superfund landfill, it should also contain info on what remediation is being done currently to ensure it is safe. Older versions of this fluctuate between a "hit" piece and pr spin, would be nice if there was a happy medium. --Zeke pbuh 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)