For Whom I Would NOT Vote In The Coral Gables Election

Following a process of elimination, I would not vote for the following:

I would not vote for Mr. Slesnick.  He has had 10 years in government and has led to city to its present state.  We lived with a corrupt and unethical city manager, we had taxes increased even in bad times, we saw the virtual collapse of the Country Club and, of course, we have the still secret audit of the Biltmore lease, and unrestrained support for city unions and pensions.  Add to this a poorly run IT Department and EDEN software, a weak Finance Department and a widely criticized Building and Zoning Department.  You have  here a good number of reasons to end the Slesnick Era.

I would not vote for Mr. Rosenblatt.  His program is to continue more of the same with lots of sponding on rehabilitating Miracle Mile (where he has a business), settle the Biltmore lease and keeping taxes low.  I am glad to know that taxes are low and, presumably, potentially could be raised just a little more in the future.

I would not vote for Mr. Sanabria.  He is supported by the Fraternity of Police who are completely and virgorously defending the benefits of good salaries and even better pensions that they have acquired over the years with the acquiescence of the mayor and city commission.   I don’t believe that Mr. Sanabria can be counted on to defend the voters against more taxes and fees.

We need three strong votes against more taxes for the future–we will not get them from Commissioners Anderson, Kerdyk and candidate Sanabria, so electing Mr. Sanabria would be budgetary lethal for the taxpayers of Coral Gables.

I might not vote for Mr. Kedyk.  I don’t see that he has contributed any heroic measures to the city (I know that many don’t agree with that view), and he has clearly voted for taxes, but not as many taxes as Mr. Slesnick might desire, nor more than Mr. Cabrera would have wanted.  The facts are that he has consistently voted for taxes.  He never raised a voice against the former city manager, had no problem to approve the UM Grid and he has been relatively quiet about the Biltmore, the Country Club and similar issues.  He is not a reformer and we need real reforms in the organization and financial management of the city of Coral Gables.  Almost certainly he will be elected so one should be careful about the other candidates that you vote for, if you want real reform and to reduce your taxes.

I might not vote for Mr. Quesada.  He appears to be a nice enough fellow, but he is a totally unknown quantity in the city.  He seems like the continuation of the Slesnick-Kerdick-Withers coalition and  the business-led support for the unbridled commercial growth of the city, which sucks in police, fire protection and other resources away from the residents and taxpayers who are having a hard time paying their taxes and fees.

Urgent!: Danger of Damaging Florida’s Urban Growth Managment

As a member of 1000 Friends of Florida, I am publishing this for your urgent consideration.
Thank you.
Stephen McGaughey
CoralGablesWatch.com

 

Protect Citizens’ Rights!
Please Call Now to Oppose HB 7129

Your calls are needed to oppose the damaging HB 7129, which was released by the House a few days ago. This bill undermines Florida’s landmark growth management system, essentially returning this state to the “anything goes” era of the 1960s and 1970s. Among other things, this damaging legislation undercuts the rights of citizens to appeal inappropriate local government planning decisions, weakens the ability of local governments to charge developers for the costs of new roads and schools meaning that taxpayers will further subsidize new development, allows large-scale development without any certainty that conservation lands will be preserved, and seriously curtails state review of local plan amendments.

1000 Friends of Florida and the Sierra Club do not support this bill, and The Nature Conservancy has strong concerns. Please contact your Representative now! Tell him/her that growth management is essential to protect the state’s drinking water and quality of life. Ask them to stand up for Florida’s citizens and oppose HB 7129.

Find your Florida Representative. Once you’re on that page, click on the “Find your Representative” icon and enter your address.

Please also share this alert with your friends and associates. We need as many calls as possible!



Among other things, this problematic legislation:

Curtails citizen rights to participate in the local planning process–It includes a number of provisions making citizen legal challenges of inappropriate local plan amendments virtually impossible. It applies the very difficult “fairly debatable” legal test to all citizen challenges, making successful appeals unlikely. It repeals Rule 9J-5 and the associated years of legal challenges that have bolstered the rights and ability of citizens to file successful legal challenges. It prohibits DCA from intervening in any third party challenges to plan amendments, and restricts appeals of detailed special area plans (DSAPS) associated with sector plans to court challenges only. It also requires DCA to review all of its pending judicial proceedings within 60 days to justify either their continuation under the changes made in this bill or have them dismissed. Finally, it prohibits local governments from adopting any process similar to the recent Amendment 4/Hometown Democracy amendment.

Will result in citizens subsidizing new development, even that which is unneeded and financially infeasible—The proposed legislation eliminates the requirement that plans and plan amendments be “financially feasible,” and weakens the requirement that developers show the “need” for new development to justify making amendments to the local comprehensive plan. This is particularly egregious in an era when irresponsible overbuilding has had devastating results for so many Floridians. It weakens concurrency requirements that new development pay for associated roads, schools and other costs, which will result in citizens underwriting many of the costs of new development.

Undermines state review of plan amendments—Early growth management efforts in Florida failed because there was no oversight of local government planning decisions. The 1985 Growth Management Act established state review over local comprehensive plans, but this legislation undermines state review. Among other things, this legislation inserts a nearly impossible to overcome “balancing” provision that says that any plan amendment that “on balance” promotes parts of Chapter 163 and/or local comprehensive plan policies can be approved even when adverse impacts are documented to state resources. It adopts an “alternative state review” (ASR) process for all plan amendments, which means that DCA will not comment on most plan amendments, and will have only 30 days to present comments on those it chooses to review. It also limits the ability of DCA and other state agencies to comment on amendments to local comprehensive plans. DCA comments will only be required for amendments within areas of critical state concern, sector plans, new plans for newly incorporated areas, EAR based amendments, and rural land stewardship areas.

Allows large-scale development without any certainty that conservation lands will be protected — The legislation revises large scale sector and rural land stewardship plans without any certainty as to when conservation easements will be recorded

Has devastating results for Florida — The effect of these changes is to minimize state review and comment, emphasize and give deference to local decisions, and make it practically impossible for citizens and third parties to successfully challenge plan amendments. This is a return to the 1970s when development interests were unchecked, public resources were being exploited, and growth controls were minimal. We have seen the results of that approach, and we continue to pay for the many mistakes made with that system. 1000 Friends fears that we are about to repeat this sad part of our great state’s history.

 

Plan for Charter Reform Needs Real Mayor (“Braman for Mayor”)

If you haven’t seen this in today’s Miami Herald, “vale la pena” read this letter on plans to improve the charter, a plan that is not a radical change, but a step toward modernization of a failed political system in Miami-Dade.

A few weeks ago, Norman Braman and I prepared and released a proposed “Covenant with the People of Miami-Dade County” that outlined eight specific ideas for charter reform. The notion of calling it a “covenant” was to signal that we believe the people are tired of political “promises” made by candidates for office — which are seldom kept after they are elected. Almost every candidate to replace Alvarez has expressed a general commitment to “charter reform,” but this “people’s revolution” should not be placated by generic political rhetoric. The voters of Miami-Dade need to insist on specific commitments to specific reforms and to do so in a manner that ensures accountability. We need any candidate who aspires to be our next strong mayor to covenant with the people for meaningful charter reform.

via Next, reform Miami-Dade County charter – Letters to the Editor – MiamiHerald.com.

More On Why Not To Privatize Municipal Services

…privatization often does not solve cities’ budget woes. Research shows that when municipal services are contracted out, costs can actually increase while service quality suffers. Sometimes these cost increases are experienced as contract cost overruns. Other times a city may fail to take into account “hidden costs” such as the administrative costs of seeking proposals, evaluating bids and monitoring the work. Hidden costs for the community can include reductions in wages and health benefits under private contractors, which drive more people onto public assistance and bring down wage and benefit standards in the field and in the community.

via Municipal Services | In the Public Interest.