I’m surprised it’s not in a mailer already, but look for one in which 
proponents of the new courthouse tax on the ballot Nov. 4 say the building is unsafe because of the asbestos.
That’s one of the arguments made by former U.S. Attorney Roberto Martinez, who went on This Week in South Florida earlier this month to debate the issue with the self-proclaimed opposition spokeswoman, Miami-Dade School Board Raquel Regalado.
Ladra thinks he lost miserably, even with the scare tactics. But he did better than lobbyist Jorge Luis Lopez did with The Miami Herald editorial board and Bernadette Pardo.
There have been a barrage of different debaters for the pro tax side against Regalado, who has become the go-to girl for the anti side. And none of them — except Lopez, who went up against her twice — are repeats. Seems nobody wants to go against her more than once. Because Regalado basically calls them out on all their false and exaggerated claims, asking legitimate and important questions about alternatives that they cannot answer coherently.
Read related story: Black Dems join Raquel Regalado as courthouse tax critics
In fact, rather than answer the questions and gaining support for their measure based on their demonstrated need, the proponents of the courthouse tax — Lopez, Martinez, Chief Judge Bertila Soto, super attorney Eugene Stearns and others — go to great lengths to scare people with their tales of mold and asbestos and structural damage. While nobody is going to say that the building is not in deplorable conditions and that the county needs to take responsibilit, find out how it got that way and make sure that doesn’t happen again, say, with any new buildings, what the campaign for the courthouse tax does not say is that:
- People do not work on the floors where the mold was found and that is why the whole probate department was moved.
- The asbestos is minimal and is found in more than a dozen other county buildings and county administrators have a program to remediate it as the need arises, but it does no good to disturb the asbestos, which is in the pipes, insulation and floor and ceiling tiles, until it is disturbed and has the potential to go airborne.
- Some of the columns that look like they deteriorated were actually carved out so that inspectors could test the rebar and support beam within.
A recent post-it note on the El Nuevo Herald that arrived on
doorsteps went so far as to say that a vote for the tax was a vote for justice. Really. I kid you not. “Si por la justicia.”
What’s an injustice is that the Building Blocks for Justice PAC — which has spent $1.1 million on their campaign (more on that later) — can get away with that.
You know why they use these sound-good, feel-good terms and slogans, even though they have nothing to do with the question before voters, don’t you? Because they have no really good argument to promote this with.
What can they say? That the judges and lawyers want a shiny, new, state of the art $370 million, 625,000-square-foot building built by us, the taxpayers? That they have no idea where this building is going to go? That the $370 million price tag was determined by a developer that at one point wanted the project? That they are going to abandon the historic Flagler Street courthouse known as Cielito Lindo because they have outgrown it and it has no value for them?
None of those are good campaign slogans. “Yes for justice” is. So is the theme of Cielito Lindo, played up in the video ad and on Cuban radio arguments about the bond issue, of which only $25 million is going to the old historic courthouse. And they don’t tell you that the money is there already. Isn’t it always?
What they also don’t put on their advertising or post-it notes: That they don’t care what happens to Cielito Lindo. Martinez told Michael Putney earlier this month that the historic status of the building did not limit its use — or even prevent it from being torn down.
“It could. I’m not saying it should. Probably what the county can do in the future is sell it,” Martinez said. “It could be an attractive sale.”
Could that be what this is all about? Nah, I keep forgetting, it is about the construction of a $370-million mansion of law.
There’s more. Please press this “continue reading” button to “turn the page.”
Pages: 1 2
Courthouse tax debate: Scare tactics vs. common sense added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
