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 →
what is this “cielito lindo”? I have lived in this county since 1948 and never heard that term until recently.
Newsflash, The Miami Herald is reporting that a Judge has ordered a deposition on the condition of the courthouse. You want to lay blame? Look no farther than the City of Miami for not inspecting the building, and the County for not following up.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article3439270.html
Oh, and it seems dubious at best that the main criticism is from someone who was fined $5,000 for “sloppy bookkeeping” during her father’s campaign.
Mansion of law? Really? The present courthouse has 21 courtrooms for 41 judges. That results in a delay of Civil, Probate, Guardianship, Baker Act, Marchman Act, Foreclosure cases. Is this acceptable? No. No refurbishment of the current courthouse will result in more courtrooms. A Master plan in three phases was submitted to the commission IN 2007 – 2008 detailing the needs of the third branch of government, nothing was done. The Fence has been around the courthouse for a DECADE, in preparation f0or repairs that were never started, much less completed. Mayor Gin=menes submitted a detailed memorandum AUGUST 21 to the commission detailing the costs and site proposals to the Commission, and they claimed this was “out of the blue”, really? A citizens oversight committee was formed by the commission on October 7th. Ms. Regalado referenced NONE of these facts in her numerous posts. Maybe a little homework is needed on her part on this issue.
The scare tactics being employed by the salespeople, lobbyists and judges to sell this $393 Bond issue are deplorable. Who is being paid to shill this scam? Who stands to benefit if it passes? Educated voters are voting No.
Do the background of this PAC and you will find many of our mayor’s friends. The involvement of Marcelo Llorente brings up an interesting scenario. Here is another relative of Simon Ferro in the mix of our government. Gimenez knows the referendum for the courthouse will probably not pass but meanwhile he is sneaking the FIU referendum without opposition. In the end MCM Construction and the Munilla brothers will make millions in county contracts.
The historic courthouse, 73 West Flagler, looks just fine. If some fancy judges and lawyers want it fixed more they should ask Miami-Dade County their landlord to do a better job. The taxpayers, most of whom never visit 73 WF, are fed up. Lobbyists like Jorge Lopez need to stop lying to voters. I will vote No.
Very accurate. The two female judges and the male lobbyist ramming this scam down the throats of the voters are using scare tactics. Extortion. There is no plan on the promoters website. No budget? The Miami Herald is recommending a No vote on #169.
Raquel Regalado for future Miami-Dade county mayor???? She sounded great on the tv show, seems to know what she’s talking about. She might just be our first female County mayor in the future.
The $1.1 million spent on this campaign should be publicized front and center as shameful. What is the Voter’s recourse for ballot wording that lies?
Lawsuit? Filed at this courthouse?