(Continued from previous page)
The need for a new courthouse “has become much more compelling because of the discovery of very serious safety and hazardous cond
itions,” Martinez told Putney and Glenna Milberg in October. “It isn’t just the structural problems with the beams, that 92 percent of the beams are corroded, sitting in pools of water. But they also have discovered black mold throughout the building and friable asbestos.
“In 2008, we didn’t know the building had asbestos, friable asbestos, dangerous asbestos,” Martinez said, repeating that word three times like a drum beat. “You have a situation where you have a very dangerous structure used by the public on a daily basis.”
Lobbyist/attorney Jorge Luis Lopez and other lobbyists involved, some of whom I’ve been told had conversations about the referendum last spring — though it was presented at the last minute to the county commission so they could get it on a low-turnout ballot with as little vetting as possible — should also be questioned under oath.
Read related story: Miami-Dade: Trust us with $400 million for new courthouse
“has become much more compelling because of the discovery of very serious safety and hazardous conditions,” Martinez told Putney and Glenna Milberg. “It isn’t just the structural problems with the beams, that 92 percent of the beams are corroded, sitting in pools of water. But they also have discovered black mold throughout the building and friable asbestos.
“In 2008, we didn’t know the building had asbestos, 
friable asbestos, dangerous asbestos,” Martinez said, repeating that word three times like a drum beat. “We didn’t know the building has black mold.
“You have a situation where you have a very dangerous structure used by the public on a daily basis,” he said, estimating the traffic at a good 3,000 a day.
– See more at: https://politicalcortadito.com/2014/10/28/courthouse-tax-debate-scare-tactics-vs-common-sense/2/#sthash.5KQ3VpOg.dpuf
“has become much more compelling because of the discovery of very serious safety and hazardous conditions,” Martinez told Putney and Glenna Milberg. “It isn’t just the structural problems with the beams, that 92 percent of the beams are corroded, sitting in pools of water. But they also have discovered black mold throughout the building and friable asbestos.
“In 2008, we didn’t know the building had asbestos, friable asbestos, dangerous asbestos,” Martinez said, repeating that word three times like a drum beat. “We didn’t know the building has black mold.
“You have a situation where you have a very dangerous structure used by the public on a daily basis,” he said, estimating the traffic at a good 3,000 a day.
– See more at: https://politicalcortadito.com/2014/10/28/courthouse-tax-debate-scare-tactics-vs-common-sense/2/#sthash.5KQ3VpOg.dpuf
People need to be held accountable. Especially those who are officers of the court.
Maybe Soto was lied to as well. By whom? Who knew what when?
Wednesday, the chief judge issued a statement indicating she was not moved by the county’s findings.
“Yesterday and today, we’ve had active water leaks due to rain in courtrooms on two floors while court was in session — including the historic courtroom on the 6th floor,” Soto wrote. “We need a long term solution. These are not appropriate conditions under which to serve this community.”
Soto said that the mayor’s memo actually validated her earlier arguments. “The building has many serious issues that the county is spending a lot of money to remediate, but we’re concerned that these fixes are not long lasting.”
And there is no doubt that is true. The conditions at that courthouse are reprehensible and someone still needs to be held accountable for letting it get that way. And she is right about quantity too: They need more space for the growing needs of this county. Not just at the civil courthouse but at the criminal courthouse (more on that later).
Well maybe if that would have been the crux of the courthouse tax campaign, the people would have bought into it.
But, that’s not what Soto’s desperation message sounded like during the “save Cielito Lindo” campaign, which was also a lie since the county has the funds to fix Cielito Lindo and the bond was really to build a new building.
“They’ve told us that if there is a hurricane warning
we need to evacuate this building and we can’t return unless a structural engineer says it’s safe and the air quality is tested throughout the building,” Soto said, in the PAC video ad that promoted a yes vote with a sense of urgency.
Certainly some county officials need to be questioned about why the plans they had were not made public. Lee Solomon and his boss, at the very least. Did he lie to the mayor, who told us that there were no plans in play for a new courthouse?
Maybe someone ought to ask Gimenez — who changed his mind at the last minute and supported the referendum he was going to recommend against — what he knew and when.
Read related story: Recall reason #17: Mayor Gimenez flip flops on courthouse tax
At the very least, the mayor must have known that the sky-is-falling campaign for the yes vote was wrong. 
His memo Tuesday indicates that a study of the columns in April of 2014 — the same one that recommended evacuation in the case of a hurricane — said “we don’t have immediate concern about collapse.” How come Gimenez never said anything? How come he didn’t ask his pal lobbyist Lopez to tone it down? How come our strong mayor stand by and let the voters be hoodwinked?
“Clearly the administration knew that the campaign for the bond was misleading the public by saying that the building was sick,” said Regalado, who at one debate was told that she would have “blood on your hands” if the measure did not pass.
Ladra called the mayor’s office. His spokesman Michael Hernandez said the mayor supported a vote in favor of putting the referendum on the ballot (he also said publicly he would vote for it) because something needed to be done to address the need for more space. It was based on the fact that the historic courthouse on Flagler Street was built in 1928 when the county, now home to 2 million people, had a population of 200,000.
“It was not just about the physical state of the structure,” Hernandez said.
Still, you know what? I’d feel better if the mayor’s statement was also taken under oath.
Pages: 1 2
Courthouse clean bill of health begs questions, investigation added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
Thanks for your response. I only have time to address some of your replies.
To begin, I am not a stakeholder: (a) I mediate and arbitrate cases, and rarely need to go the building but for a few minutes; (b) I am not a stakeholder: I am not a lobbyist or anyone who seeks to male a dime on the project.
That being said, my point is that you took a County Hall report as if it had the veneer of an independent study.
It was not independent–it sought to cover up and obfuscate, the same fault you seek to vet out.
There are alot people getting sick in that courthouse. It does not reflect the needs of what this community needs. The volume of people using and needing to use the building; Judges cramped into and juggling court rooms…..that is a big point.
So, no hard feelings: We can keep debating the issue and hope you keep on vetting the truth, but a report from the same County Hall you often and accurately assail…
.Elaine….as they say in my home town of Miramar, Cuba… “Por Favor”!!!!
Saul, I love it when you participate. But I think you need to read this post again because I CLEARLY say that a new courthouse is needed not only because of these deplorable conditions, which are unacceptable but could be fixed, but mostly because we have outgrown the space.
The point is that that was NOT the gist of the campaign mounted by Building Blocks For Justice (which is a misleading name, too) or the advocates of the courthouse tax. Theirs was a shrill, “sky is falling” message that smacked of scare tactics. A couple of times, advocates said someone was going to die. One said that he had nightmares about the building collapsing on hundreds of people. The report clearly states that is not the case.
I have been to the downtown courthouse multiple times. I have seen the mold and the water collecting around the beams or pillars in the basement. I have smelled the mildew. I have asthma and I wouldn’t want to work there. But how many other county buildings are like that? Have you been to the courthouse at the civic center? Or the jail lately? You don’t have to go involuntarily. Take a tour. The situation is worse. But the population there, the stakeholders, if you will, do not have the million dollars that attorneys raised to push this referendum on us in a hasty and misleading way.
You compare this to the Titanic and say that the judiciary community did not sit on the deck and do nothing while it sank. I respectfully disagree. Because this was not a sudden crash with an iceberg. This was years and years of neglecting compounding damage. And who was on the deck?
Are you disagreeing with me that someone needs to investigate how this happened in the first place? How was the damage allowed to get this bad?
And you think it’s okay that lobbyists were talking about the referendum in MAY but it didn’t get to the commission until the very last meeting to get it on the November ballot (read: = no time for discussion, community input)? You think that was coincidence?
It is my job, my role to question these so-called coincidences. And just because I question the validity of the process doesn’t mean I question the merits of the project.
I believe I am more objective on this matter than you are. From your earlier comments on this subject, it seems you are a stakeholder who just wants it to get done. I agree that the situation must be addressed and that a new courthouse is eventually needed. I did not agree with the tactics used to get $400 million determined by who and for what? Exactly. Maybe we will need a special bond to finance it after all. But we need more details. And the matter has to be addressed holistically.
Thank you again for sharing your opinion. I am glad you are still reading the blog.
But, no, I am not backing off.
Love, Ladra
The Nassau County Courthouse in Fernandina Beach, Fla., was built in 1891 and is still in use. The tragedy of our courthouse is that is was not maintained even though funds were available to do so. That is also the core of this conspiracy concept.
Elaine: As a constant vigilant of the ever self serving (i.e, cover thy tuhas) reports at County Hall, regarding hot button issues, I was surprised that you drank the Kool-Aid TM that was served in the report regarding the Courthouse. If ever you came across a report that was self serving, motivated by blame shifting, and a whitewash of the facts–that was it.
When an esteemed investigative reporter accepts it at face value, it really is surprising. The premise of your posts and the sentiment of your readers, in many instances, is not a reflection of the fact that an 80 year old building, built to serve the needs of a few hundred thousand residents 80 years ago, is somehow a proper place to conduct important civic business for millions of residents, but rather a knee-jerk bashing of Constitutional Officers and officer of the Court, as well as the public that needs those facilities.
You besmirch the Judiciary for being pinned into a position of forcing the political branch of government @ the County Courthouse to do something because County Hall just refused to act.
Instead of sitting on the deck of the proverbial Titanic, the jduciary and legal community took the the public. Was the proposal perfect? No. Was it well intentioned? Yes. Does the problem exist? FOR SURE.
Take a step back. Forget about the venom toward the Court and Attorneys that ooze from your postings and reader responses. Why don’t you take some time and speak to the clerks, bailiff’s, Judicial Assts who have to deal with that building.? Get an objective response. Go floor by floor (for instance try to the 10th Floor) where the mold and mildew is overwhelming. And take a trip to the bowels of the courthouse and see ground zero for yourself.
The vigilance of investigative reporters like you is crucial, and you do much to bring out issues that otherwise would be kept in the dark. You have a right and responsibility to be cynical, but respectively, not in the broad brush fashion I opine is being published by you on this matter and your readers.
The public, Judges and Jurors have a right to have an efficient court system with adequate facilities. While the present court administration has streamlined operations, cut duplication of efforts and squeezed out every inch of use that building, its time to make a great change.
You are probably too young to remember the Decade of Progress Bonds in the 1970’s which were criticized as being a waste of money…well it was pushed through, even though not all pieces were in place, and we ended up with many of the institutions we need like the County Building, parks, libraries etc., that forward thinking and a bit of faith provided.
So maybe back off; be vigilant, but more objective. And instead of relying on self-serving reports, roll up your sleeves; tour the building’ speak to the “workers”…speak to the Jurors.
Then make an informed and fully vetted out conclusion