Residents mourn the city’s removal of an old oak tree
Morningside neighbors aren’t just angry about Miami Commissioner Damian Pardo’s pet sidewalk project and the 75-year-old oak tree that was cut down without warning — they’re lawyering up.
Residents of the historic bayside neighborhood sent a formal legal warning to City Hall Wednesday, telling Mayor Francis Suarez, the city attorney, the city manager and Pardo himself — as well as cc-ing a bunch of county officials — that this concrete crusade for sidewalks could cost taxpayers up to $93 million under Florida’s Bert Harris Act, which protects property owners when government projects wipe out their property values.
That’s right. A sidewalk project that could bankrupt the city. Because in Pardo’s world, Instagram posts and civic club meetings count as “proper notice.” Pardo said in his social media in July that there had been “extensive outreach” on what he calls the “sidewalk safety project” — because inserting that middle word helps sell it — and that it would be focused on pedestrian safety and “tree preservation.”
An independent appraisal sought by homeowners says the project could slash property values by 10%–30% across 200 homes in Morningside — an average 20% haircut that translates into tens of millions in lost equity for residents.
But wait, it gets worse.
Read related: Miami commissioners vote to negotiate sale of historic Olympia Theater
Three of the impacted homes are in the Morningside Historic District, where the city’s own laws require heightened review. The current design shoves sidewalks within feet of bedroom windows, rips out swale vegetation and increases flooding risk. Great planning, right?
“This Project will deprive owners of the privacy they have long enjoyed, will remove vegetation which has been a great amenity to the area, and in general, will destroy the character of the entire neighborhood,” wrote attorney Kenneth G. Oertel in the letter. “This Project is completely opposed by a majority of directly and many indirectly affected residents in the Morningside community; it is unnecessary and a waste of public funds.
“Properties along the proposed route will suffer permanent loss of privacy and parking, and in some cases, the sidewalk will encroach their residence within inches of their windows and habitable living spaces. The affected residences will no longer benefit from swale vegetation and hedge buffers, both of which currently shield children, pedestrians, and drivers from conflict zones. The elimination of these elements heightens risk to pedestrians and exposes homeowners to decreased utility, increased noise, and greater intrusion. The proposal also introduces new elements of risk by creating unmarked crosswalks.
“When a governmental agency considers a public works project, it often undertakes a cost-benefit analysis. In this instance, the “benefits” are non-existent; the cost implications are monumental. I wish the City to reconsider whether this Project is justified,” Oertel wrote. “The unwanted work combined with the potential liability to the City appears to be risky and one-sided.
Translation: More legal bills for the taxpayers.
Read related: Courts killed Miami commission’s election shuffle, but city wants a do-over
Then there is the fact that the city didn’t even bother sending direct legal notice to property owners. Instead, they relied on flyers, social media and the Morningside Civic Association (MCA), a volunteer group with zero legal standing to bind residents.
“While the Morningside Civic Association is a non-profit Florida corporation that exists to promote the general betterment of the community, it is not a homeowners’ association and does not have authority to make binding decisions on behalf of individual property owners,” the lawyer states. “The directly affected residents, those whose homes, driveways, hedges, and swales abut the proposed sidewalk routes, were never given formal legal notice or engaged in a proper consultation process, despite being the parties who will suffer the most immediate and measurable losses.
“Instead, the City relied on the MCA for outreach, which effectively bypassed the homeowners whose property rights and values are at stake. This failure of notice and engagement undermines the legitimacy of the process and compounds the exposure the City now faces, as the sidewalk project threatens to degrade the historic character of Morningside and substantially reduce property values for directly impacted.”
Ladra would go a step further and say the MCA served as a convenient go-between. Or so Pardo thought. Because he made it evident that he doesn’t care what the residents think when city crews came and ripped out the old oak tree on Northeast 50th Terrace for no good reason while the homeowners were away. The homeowners and their neighbors were devastated.
The suspected 75+ year-old live oak was chopped down last weekend after the city pushed through conflicting permits. First, an arborist report on June 2 said the tree was healthy but had to go to make way for the proposed sidewalk. Then, three weeks later, a new permit magically declared the same tree “sick” — a claim Pardo himself promoted on Instagram.
This tree here does not look sick. But the photos of the discarded tree parts are absolutely sickening.

“I never saw this removal posted online, nor was a large, green Intended Decision poster placed on the tree to notify the public and to allow for an appeal,” wrote Morningside activist Sandy Moise to the city Monday, requesting the arborist’s report. “Furthermore, Commissioner Pardo did not include this tree when on June 24, 2025, he posted the Tree Removal Permit Updates on his Instagram.”
Moise said the residents had previously voiced their opposition for removing this specific live oak to Pardo and Charles Alfaro, the assistant director of the city’s resiliency and public works department. “They claimed their sidewalk project was removing, ‘just one tree.’ We asked for a root bridged to be used instead of removing this tree, or to install the sidewalk around it.”
She had written already to Florida’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Wilton Simpson to ask for the state’s intervention in another case where the city removed a perfectly healthy state-protected Mahogany. So, this is not an isolated incident. It’s a pattern, she says: The city has falsified tree conditions on Intended Decision notices — claiming disease or poor condition when both the city’s arborist and independent arborists confirm they are healthy. It removes trees without following the public notice pattern. And last, but most egregious, the city actually causes mechanical harm to existing trees through maintenance practices, including weed-whacker scarring on roots.
Another tree was cut down in July after the city said it had been hit by lightning twice in a year. So, then, why not get a permit? Think about it. Because that would eliminate any chance for the public to appeal or for an independent arborist to inspect the tree and recommend preservation options. Which is exactly what they did.
Oooops.

Read related: Miami tree removal ordinance changes unnecessary and tainted by lobbyists
Johnson also wrote Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava to ask her office to review the plan to see if the city had violated any interlocal agreements regarding traffic calming and to provide assurance that further construction activity will be suspended until the proper process is followed. “The actions of the City of Miami, as led by Commissioner Pardo and Public Works, reflect a disturbing pattern of government overreach, misinformation, and disregard for statutory obligations,” she said. “Miami-Dade County leadership must intervene to ensure that resident rights, environmental protections, and lawful governance are respected.
“This is not simply about one tree. It is about a pattern of disregard for the law, abuse of power, and erosion of public trust.”
The county’s chief operating officer, Jimmy Morales, said he would forward it to the regulatory department to follow up.
It is hard to trust the government when there are so many shifting stories. The city says the tree was sick when it clearly was not. Pardo also the tree removal was a mistake. But only since it was supposed to be cut down later. “It certainly shouldn’t have happened now,” he said on an Instagram post, feigning uprise. It was a longterm plan. Is that supposed to make us feel better?
Pardo and Ralph Gonzalez, the city’s arborist, scrambled on social media to promise the tree will be replaced with other two or three native trees that will provide “similar or better canopy” — in the “near future.” Key word: Future. Like maybe in 15 or 25 years, when they’re fully grown?
“We understand the gravity of the situation,” Gonzalez said. “And our top priority is replacement of this missing canopy with two or three Floria native species of equal size if not greater.”
Residents call it deception. And Ladra has to agree — nothing says “greenwashing” like killing a healthy century-old oak for a sidewalk that nobody asked for and that residents are actually fighting against.
The contradictions don’t stop there. Court transcripts show the city’s own engineer admitting that sidewalks could be built by the road — but that option was “too expensive.” Yet City Hall keeps claiming safety is the reason for pushing concrete closer to homes. Pardo, meanwhile, boasted about his “innovative” use of MCA meetings and door-to-door chats as public notice. Neighbors called that a flat-out lie.
Jessica Johnson, one of the residents now leading the charge, summed it up: “Because of Commissioner Pardo’s poor planning, lack of proper notice, disorganized communications, and failure to follow statutory requirements or basic standards of care, residents are terrified and feel unsafe in their own homes. The sloppy and sacrilegious killing of this century-old oak tree is symbolic of Pardo’s policy in Morningside.”
The Bert Harris Act gives residents the right to compensation if government actions wipe out their property value, even without a constitutional taking. That means if Pardo keeps pushing, the city could be on the hook for tens of millions in damages — all while destroying one of Miami’s most historic neighborhoods.
This isn’t a sidewalk project anymore. It’s a sidewalk scandal. And it could become the most expensive concrete pour in Miami history.
It’s also becoming part of Pardo’s quickly growing negative legacy, along with the election year change, the giveaway of the Olympia Theater, the change to the tree ordinance, the gentrification of Coconut Grove, the deafness on the Downtown Development Authority and the vote to dissolve Bayfront Park.
“Miami’s beauty has always been rooted in its foliage, tree-lined streets, and Biscayne Bay. Morningside, founded in the 1920s by James H. Nunnally and embraced by families like the Burdines, was built as a tropical retreat with Mediterranean Revival homes and a canopy of legacy trees,” said resident Brian Hollenbeck. “For generations, residents have protected that character.
Read related: Miami Commissioner Damian Pardo loses support, inspires recall threats
“Now, Commissioner Damian Pardo is stripping that away — cutting down protected trees and bulldozing front yards under the guise of so-called ‘safety walkways’ that have never gone through proper permits, historical review, or mitigation. He lives just blocks away, yet never notified his neighbors. Instead, he’s pushing a project that looks more like a developer’s land grab than public safety,” said Hollenbeck, who supported Pardo in the 2023 election
“With his election shuffle, the Watson Island deal, the Olympia giveaway, and now this, Pardo’s actions reek of backroom deals and a disregard for transparency. He has lost the trust of the very community he claims to represent, and residents are no longer tolerant of this version of the City’s mismanagement.
“We will hold him accountable.”
“As your elected official, I welcome criticism and accountability,” Pardo posted on the platform formerly known as Twitter in July. “However, spreading false claims or personal attacks doesn’t help move our community forward.”
Pardo did not answer multiple calls from Ladra to his cellphone and district office. He did not respond to texts sent over several days. His chief of staff did not answer calls and texts Thursday. Pardo hasn’t responded in weeks, since Political Cortadito took a stance against the cancellation of this year’s Miami mayoral and commission elections, which he had pushed for.
He also did not answer a question about why his home in Morningside, at 421 NE 51st Street, which is a stone’s throw from Biscayne Boulevard, is suddenly gone from the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser’s property search website.
That doesn’t feel transparent or accountable.
The post Damian Pardo’s Morningside sidewalks in Miami — a $93 million mistake? appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story

Miami Assistant City Manager Larry Spring, the city’s chief financial officer, announced earlier this month that he was resigning from his position, but it’s not like he has to pack up any boxes.
He doesn’t really plan to go anywhere.
The city commission could tell the city manager at Thursday’s meeting to enter into a contract with Spring as a consultant for his “expert services” on an “as needed basis.”
City rules prohibit any Miami employee, or former employee, from entering into a contract or transacting any business with the city or an agency acting on behalf of the city for two years after leaving the job. Spring’s last day is Aug. 22. The contract would become effective that very day at 5 p.m.
The city commission can waive that provision with a four/fifths vote if it is in the best interest of the city, “as in this case,” reads the resolution.
Read related: Miami CFO Larry Spring resigns from city job — for a private sector gig?
We should have seen this coming. City Manager Art Noriega made a haughty “goodbye” speech to Spring at the July 10 meeting, but hinted that maybe he would hang around City Hall in some capacity.
“The city plans on retaining Mr. Spring as an expert consultant for the City Manager’s office in order to contribute his expertise and knowledge, and assist in city budget matters, city financings, and other city projects that require his expertise,” the resolution states, adding that he will continue to work at Achievement Consulting Group, which he is listed as president of in the Florida Division of Corporation records. He’s been with the company, which “specializes in real estate development, government relations, and financial consulting services.”
So, let’s get this straight. He’s going to be — or has been — heading a company that lobbies for real estate deals while moonlighting for the city as a consultant on those very deals?
“Mr. Spring has held several executive management positions in healthcare, commercial banking, municipal government, real estate, and economic development; and… the city will benefit from Mr. Spring’s, expertise in municipal government, real estate, and economic development,” the resolution says.
You know what the resolution doesn’t say? How much Mr. Spring will be paid for his “as needed” consulting services.
Help Ladra stay on top of the Miami City Hall shenanigans. Please consider making a donation to Political Cortadito to keep the independent, grassroots watchdog journalism going. Thank you!
The post Larry Spring could get consulting gig in Miami even before he retires as CFO appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story

First step victory for mayoral candidate is appealed
The wannabe dictators at Miami City Hall just got a hard slap of reality from the bench. And Ladra is here for it.
In a fiery ruling, hot enough to singe the mayor’s eyebrows, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Valerie Manno Schurr on Monday declared what most Miamians already knew in their gut: The Miami City Commission’s shady decision to cancel next year’s election and hand themselves an extra year in office without first taking it to voters was unconstitutional.
Basically, they tried to cancel your vote. And got caught and slapped on the ballot.
And thanks to former City Manager Emilio González, who is running for mayor, the election is back on.
Well, maybe. Fingers crossed. “While we respectfully disagree with the trial court’s decision,” City Attorney George Wysong said in a statement, “we are confident in the strength of our case and remain optimistic about the outcome on appeal.” That appeal was filed before the ruling came down based on Wednesday’s hearing. Because the city already knows the case is a stinker.
The issue is pressing, since the ballot for this year has to be ready for printing by September, so the judge has set a date of Aug. 8 to resolve it. Knock on wood.
Read related: First lawsuit filed to stop city of Miami from cancelling November election
González sued the city days after the commission voted last month to move municipal elections from odd to even years, effectively postponing the 2025 election until 2026 and extending their own terms without so much as a “¿te importa?” to the voters.
The ordinance — sponsored by “reformer” Commissioner Damian Pardo — is purportedly about increasing turnout a lot and reducing costs a little. The idea was to empower voters, Pardo said. But the change also just happened to keep voters out of the loop and ignored an earlier vote to limit terms to a max eight years by giving the bonus year to even term-limited commissioners.
“This is not just a victory for me,” González said in a statement, polishing his halo, “it is a triumph for all voters in the City of Miami and across Miami-Dade County who believe in upholding our charter and the rule of law.”
His legal team — including former Florida Supreme Court Justice Alan Lawson (the big guns) — called the move what it was: a charter-busting, power-hungry hijack. They compared it to stunts pulled in places like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Cuba — countries where elections get postponed for “reform” and never really come back.
Sound familiar, Miami?
Lawson argued that the charter — Miami’s own governing rules — and the county’s Home Rule charter say you need a vote of the people to make election changes like this. And they trump any state law the city was relying on.
But city attorneys argued that, no, no, they were just tweaking the city code. Not the charter. As if voters can’t tell the difference.
The judge did not mince her words to say that the city was playing a magic trick with, um, words.
“The City’s contention that its Ordinance did not ‘amend’ its City Charter is nothing more than semantic sleight of hand. In one sense, of course, the City is correct, it did not effectuate a permissible amendment to its Charter because the Florida Constitution and Miami-Dade County Charter do not allow the City to amend or repeal its provisions by ordinance. That can only be accomplished with a vote of the electorate, as the Plaintiff correctly contends.”
Sounds like a Catch-22: “We didn’t change the charter because that would require a vote of the people. No, we don’t need a vote of the people because we’re not changing the charter.”
Read related: Miami Commissioners pass election date change — and steal an extra year
Even Assistant City Attorney Eric Eves had to admit, awkwardly, at a hearing last Wednesday that the city’s new ordinance puts the charter and code at odds. “Yes, it conflicts with our charter. But I haven’t heard anyone claim our charter supersedes the state.”
The city and Pardo kept using the example of North Miami — where they extended terms by 18 months in 2023, and later upheld by an appeals court — to say that, well, if that municipality can do it, why can’t we? Eves suggested that Manno Schurr read the opinion of Judge Reemberto Diaz in that case and copy/paste. “There’s no need to reinvent the wheel,” he said.
But the González team argued that the North Miami case did not set a binding precedent. “There’s no procedural value whatsoever in that opinion. The issue you’re being asked to decide was not raised in that case,” Lawson said, calling it irrelevant.
Assistant City Attorney Eric Eves, Judge Valerie Manno Schurr and plaintiff’s attorney, Alan Lawson
Pero, por si las moscas, the hearing was also attended by a North Miami resident who wanted to tell the “horror story” about the change of election in that city. “We ended up with someone serving 25 years in office,” said Eileen Bicaba, president of the NoMi Neighbors Association, who last year filed a lawsuit against three council members for violating the state’s Government in the Sunshine Law.
“This was nothing short of a coup in North Miami,” Bicaba said, passionately.
In her ruling, the judge mostly relied on one aspect: She said the city’s reliance on state law was misplaced. Perhaps a better word would be “selective.” Because the city actually omitted a tiny little wee part of the law it relied on, which reads, “The Florida Election Code… shall govern the conduct of a municipality’s election in the absence of an applicable special act, charter, or ordinance provision.” The judge’s bold letters, not Ladra’s.
The second part of the law only exists, Manno Schurr repeated, apparently for emphasis, “in the absence of an applicable charter provision.” Again, Ladra has to compliment her on the use of bold font when appropriate. In other words, you can only apply that law when the county or the city don’t have laws that conflict.
“Here, there are two charters that together apply and control: the Miami-Dade Charter and the City Charter,” Judge Manno Schurr wrote in her 14-page decision. So the state law “cannot be construed to authorize the City’s passage of the Ordinance.”
The Miami-Dade charter “unambiguously prohibits the City from cancelling an election, moving an election, or extending the terms in office for city officials without the consent of the electorate given at a properly held election,” the judge wrote. Keyword: Without.
“Furthermore, the Court will not presume that the Legislature intended [state law] to be construed as permitting municipalities to extend existing terms or change the term limits in the absence of express text granting such authority,” she writes in the ruling. Boom! She gets it.
“This omission stands in stark contrast to section… which expressly allows a municipality to effectuate ‘changes in terms of offices necessitated by . . . changes in election dates,’ provided the issue is not ‘preempted to a county,” Manno Schurr writes.
Which, as established, it is.
Read related: Miami commissioners should shorten their terms for election year change
All of this was unnecessary. Pardo could have taken this concept to the people, you know, like in a democracy. He could have campaigned for it. He already put lifetime term limits on the November ballot. It would have been easy to add the change in election year and let the voters decide. But it’s way easier to just bulldoze ahead because he “had the votes” on the commission, and, as he says, he had to seize the moment.
Who cares if people had already spent time and money campaigning for this year’s election? Ladra bets Pardo would have felt differently, however, if they had pulled this in 2023, when he was running for commissioner. Perhaps, as some critics say, extending his own term is the only way he’ll serve more than four years.
On Wednesday, Pardo posted a statement on social media that was the exact statement provided to Political Cortadito by the city’s spokeswoman on behalf of the city attorney. So it’s an echo chamber over there at City Hall. They got nothin’ to say.
Commissioner Joe Carollo, who has also threatened to run for mayor and voted against the election year change, had attorneys attend Wednesday’s hearing after they filed an amicus brief in support of Gonzalez, which is a nice change of pace. Not that González needed it or welcomed it.
Denise Galvez-Turros, an activist in Little Havana who filed to run for commission in District 3, also filed a lawsuit last week that challenges the validity of the ordinance and asks the court to find it void and unenforceable.
“This unlawful act is not merely a procedural defect. It is a calculated effort by a narrow majority of the Commission to entrench themselves in power, override the will of the electorate, and circumvent the very Charter provisions they are sworn to uphold,” wrote attorney Reid Levin on behalf of Galvez Turros.
“The people of Miami are entitled to choose their representatives at the ballot box; not have them imposed by ordinance.”
There is a little more than two weeks left before the Aug. 8 deadline to hear the city’s appeal of Manno Schurr’s ruling. Expect another round of lawyerly acrobatics from the city attorney’s office.
Maybe more excuses about turnout, costs, traffic, climate change, Mercury in retrograde — anything to avoid putting this to a real vote.
Emilio T Gonzalez v City of Miami — Judge says ordinance to change election year without public vote uncon… by Political Cortadito on Scribd

The post Miami-Dade Judge: Miami Commission can’t cancel election without public vote appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story

After what turned out to be yet another City Hall cage match between Miami commissioners Joe Carollo and Miguel Gabela, the commission voted to abolish the Bayfront Park Management Trust. Not right now. But by January of next year.
This was Commissioner Damian Pardo‘s brilliant idea. Both he and Gabela folded fast like a pair of vinyl strap lawn chairs. And they didn”t have to. It looked early on like they could have killed the whole concept of ending the Trust with a 2-2 vote because Commission Chairwoman Christine King had to leave after the lunch break. Carollo even said he didn’t want to take up the item because he knew it could be killed with a tie. Didn’t they get it? And when Commissioner Ralph Rosado said he wanted to hear the item, they had the opportunity to do just that.
And they blew it. Damn newbies!
Read related: Miami’s Ralph Rosado aims to kill the Bayfront Park Trust for Joe Carollo
In the end, the Trust was finished with a surprising 3-1 vote. Surprising because Carollo voted against it and Pardo and the new Bayfront Trust chair, Gabela — who had been fighting for the Trust’s survival somewhat aggressively — voted for the abolition. Next year, the management of both Bayfront Park and Maurice Ferre Park — and the millions that Bayfront takes in from vendors and events — will be in the control of the city manager’s office.
Or something. They have six months to figure it out. Maybe they can vote to reinstate the Trust, instead.
Rosado, elected last month to replace the late Manolo Reyes, was the one who sponsored this item. But alert readers might recognize it as a stunt Carollo pulled in February. That was one month after he and the city were sued by two whistleblowers who were forced to resign from the Trust after they found financial discrepancies that indicate fraud and abuse by Carollo, who was the chairman for the past seven years. There is no way the two things are not related.
Rosado said it was his own idea. He’s been watching the Bayfront Park Trust for years and it’s an embarrassment, he said. It’s a distraction and a black eye on the city of Miami.
But Carollo first proposed this in February, right after he was accused of using the Trust funds as his own personal political piggy bank. And his accusers have the receipts.
Also, Rosado he had just told the commissioners to give the Miami Downtown Development Authority a chance to address issues that were brought by residents who don’t want to be taxed anymore so that the agency can just give the money away to billionaire brands like the UFC and FC Barcelona, while paying bloated salaries for duplicated position.
So, the DDA, which was established in 1967, deserves another chance. But the Bayfront Trust, created 20 years later in 1987, does not? Check.
Carollo, who was removed as chair earlier this year after the allegations of his abuse of the funds surfaced, claims the park flourished under his management. Millions in revenue! Events galore! The fountain danced! And the grass practically trimmed itself!
Read related: Commissioner Miguel Gabela set to expose more Bayfront Park Trust issues
But Gabela has launched an investigation and financial audit into the Trust’s finances under Carollo’s leadership, which might be why he wants it abolished now, not later. It’s hard to interview witnesses if they are scattered to the winds.
It was hard to watch Gabela cave in to Carollo, especially after he was so vehemently against the abolition. Turning up the volume and getting personal with jabs — he flashed a picture of Joe in his wifebeater shirt and reminded folks about that arrest — it almost seemed at one point that he was going to throw a chair.
Carollo accused Gabela of trying to politicize the Trust and stage a personal vendetta. Gabela countered by pointing out the pile of lawsuits, the whispers of mismanagement, and the fact that an actual forensic audit is in motion something that would normally make most public officials go quiet, but not Carollo, whose middle name might as well be “Litigation.”
It’s all gotten so familiar, you could almost set your watch to the shouting.
The post Miami Commission ends Bayfront Park Management Trust in surprise vote appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story

Their vote to change election year is illegal, he says
What is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis waiting for?
Last week, DeSantis said that he could suspend the Miami city commissioners who voted to move the election from odd years to even, effectively cancelling this November’s mayoral and commission races, and giving themselves an extra year in office. This, even though State Attorney General James Uthmeier had warned they could not do that without first going to voters.
Three commissioners voted last month to move the elections to coincide with midterm and national cycles to (1) save at least $200,000 a year and (2) increase turnout quite a bit. At least that’s what they say. The move gives Mayor Francis Suarez and Commissioner Joe Carollo, who were termed out this year, another 12 months in office. As if term limits were mere suggestions. It also gives Commissioner Christine King, who was up for re-election this year, another year before she has to campaign.
Carollo, who has threatened to run for mayor this year, voted against it. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. So did Commissioner Miguel Gabela. And these two rarely agree on anything.
Read related: Miami Commissioners pass election date change — and steal an extra year
King and commissioners Damian Pardo and Ralph Rosado voted for the change. They would be the ones eligible for suspension, if DeSantis makes good on his threat.
“The reality is local governments have to abide by Florida law,” the governor told CBS4 News Miami. “Could it come to the point where commissioners can get suspended? The law does provide me that as one of many recourses.”
Well, tick, tock, Ron.
Apparently, the “law and order” governor suddenly remembered the Florida Constitution exists after the public outrage reached DEFCON 3. Ladra can’t help but wonder what political pressure he’s getting. Because it’s not like he didn’t know this was coming. Back in April, the governor said he was “highly skeptical” of the proposal to change the election — which, in Tallahassee-speak, is what you say when you know it’s wrong but don’t want to get your boots dirty just yet.
Why didn’t he act then? Why wait until the ordinance passed? Hmmm. Could he have been waiting for the veto deadline to pass before so he could include Suarez in the suspensions? After all, by signing the legislation, Suarez has endorsed or, effectively, voted for it. And DeSantis is not a fan of Baby X. Not because they were both vying for the presidential nomination — Suarez was just posing — but because the Miami mayor once boasted he voted for Andrew Gillum.
But Suarez didn’t veto the ordinance. And his suspension sounds like a good idea — until you realize that could leave Joe Carollo, the vice chair of the commission, free to appoint all the replacements all by himself. Shudder.
So why has the state not taken any legal action? After all, it is another available recourse.
In fact, the only one who has sued so far is former City Manager Emilio Gonzalez, one of 10 announced mayoral candidates, who has asked the court to weigh in on the ordinance’s constitutionality. His lead attorney is none other than former Florida Supreme Court Justice Alan Lawson — so, you know, not some guy with a fax machine. “The City of Miami Commissioners unconstitutionally bypassed the democratic will of the people in a way that the Florida Constitution, the Miami-Dade Charter, and the City’s Charter expressly prohibit,” Lawson wrote in the complaint.
Read related: First lawsuit filed to stop city of Miami from cancelling November election
Translation: This isn’t just shady and self-dealing, it’s illegal. And it’s especially offensive in a community like Miami, where many voters have been stripped of their ballot box power before. In the lawsuit, Lawson compares Miami to lawless governments in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. The city’s attorneys took issue with that in their motion to dismiss.
“As for inflammatory hyperbole and political rhetoric, the complaint references ‘regimes’ like ‘Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, or Cuba’ to argue the City lacks a legal basis to move the date of elections by ordinance. What purpose does this serve? As far as the City can tell, none — except to distract from the weakness of plaintiff’s legal theories,” wrote Assistant City Attorney Eric Eves.
But even AG Uthmeier made the connection in a social media post: “Home to thousands of patriotic Cuban Americans who know better than most about regimes that cavalierly delay elections and prolong their terms in power, the City of Miami owes to its citizens what the law requires.”
Only in Miami, when politicos aren’t out screaming “comunista” at each other, they’re scrapping elections.
There’s a hearing on the Gonzalez lawsuit and the city’s motion to dismiss next week (July 16). Meanwhile, there are 10 mayoral candidates and eight commissioner wannabes in limbo. Should they be knocking on doors? Should they be binging on Netflix?
DeSantis can end all this nonsense with a flick of the wrist. Then Miami voters can have an election in November for the mayor and four commissioners.
The post Tick, tock, Guv: Ron DeSantis threatens to suspend Miami commissioners appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story

Expect lawsuits and challenges to follow term extension
Most people think that moving the city elections in Miami from odd to even years, to coincide with the midterm and general election, is a good idea to both save more than $1 million a year and, more importantly, boost turnout from the low two-digits to more than 65% or 70%.
But there is a better way of doing it than what happened Thursday, when three commissioners voted to cancel this November’s election for mayor and commissioner in dictricts 3 and 5 and move it to 2026 — and, effectively, give themselves an extra year in office. Which, by the way, could be a violation of the city’s own charter and Miami-Dade county’s ethics laws, which prohibit electeds from voting for anything that benefits themselves — like an extra year in office and the salaries and benefits that provides.
They each just voted to give themselves an extra $100,000 or so. Ladra smells a Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust investigation.
Read related: Miami Commissioners pass election date change — and steal an extra year
Expect lawsuits and injunctions to stop the ordinance from taking place. The Florida Attorney General had said earlier in the week that the state would not stand by and allow this without going to a public vote. AG James Uthmeier‘s office has not returned calls for reaction to Thursday’s vote. Probably too busy planning and boasting about Alligator Alcatraz (more on that later). Other candidates have also said they were preparing to take legal action.
But if this stands, voters will have just elected Ralph Rosado, who voted in favor of the change, to a five-year term. Chairwoman Christine King, who also voted for the change — surprisingly, since as a lawyer she usually likes to avoid legal challenges — won’t have to run for re-election until next year. And Commissioner Joe Carollo, who voted against it, is not termed out this year, but next year. The first terms for Commissioners Miguel Gabela, who voted against it, and Damian Pardo, who sponsored this ordinance and was the third vote in favor, would be five years long as their re-elections are moved from 2027 to 2028.
Which brings up another point, this change flies in the face of the decision that voters did make in 2012 to limit terms to a total of eight years. With this change, every single one of the commissioners up there, whether they voted for it or not, could get nine.
Or would they be barred from running again after serving the first five years?
Expect at least one of the legal challenges to be based on that.
Which leads us to the better way: Rob Piper, the leader of the 2020 recall effort against Carollo who is, or was, running for commission in District 3, said Thursday during public comments that he would be willing to shorten his term by a year if voters passed the change on the ballot. “But cancelling the election is undemocratic,” Piper said.
Former Commissioner Ken Russell, who is, or was, running for mayor told Political Cortadito that he would, also, take a year off his term if voters approved it beforehand. The petitions circulated by Stronger Miami include a change in election year taken to voters and starting in 2028. “If voters say yes, they understand that means truncating the terms,” Russell said.
Former City Manager Emilio Gonzalez, who has also filed papers to run for the mayor’s seat, has publicly said he would be willing to serve a shorter term if it was the voters’ wish. In a text, former Commissioner Alex Diaz de la Portilla said he would be “good with anything the people decide.” Keyword: People.
Miami-Dade Commissioner Eileen Higgins, who has also filed to run for mayor this year, said she, too, would take a year hit.
“Every resident deserves a voice in shaping our future, and that starts with fair elections and transparent leadership,” Higgins said in a statement provided to Political Cortadito. “That’s why I would support reducing the new Mayor’s term by one year and moving the election to 2028 to achieve optimal voter participation.
“As Mayor, I will propose this within my first 30 days in office, to let voters – not politicians – make the decision at the ballot box in 2026. I’m ready to cut through the dysfunction and build a safer, more affordable, and responsive Miami.”
That’s really the only way to do this without disenfranchising voters. Nobody elected Carollo or Pardo or Rosado or King or Gabela to serve a five year term. If they put the change on the ballot, with the change taking place in 2028, voters could be informed that anybody elected in 2025 or 2027 would have truncated terms. That sounds infinitely more fair and appropriate.
So why not do that? Pardo has said that he had to hurry because the appetite to make this change was now, not later. But that’s without even taking it to a public vote, That’s not a good enough reason. Does he just not want to shorten his own term by a year? Because if he were re-elected in 2027, and they went this way instead, his term would end in 2030.
Others say that Pardo wants to run for mayor himself next year.
Either Pardo or Rosado or King — one of the three who voted for this monstrosity — should bring it back for reconsideration and vote against it so that this much more equitable and reasonable model can be taken.
Read related: Miami election change to 2026, term extensions hinge on Christine King
This is not Haiti or Venezuela.
Stronger Miami, the newly-formed coalition of residents and community-based organizations collecting petitions on the change in election, as well as expanding the commission to nine districts and putting fair districting into the city code, issued a statement calling this vote an example of “backroom politics” and political manipulaiton.
“Extending elected officials’ terms without voter approval is not reform—it’s disenfranchisement, plain and simple,” the statement reads.
“We are especially concerned by this decision’s apparent intent to benefit term-limited politicians under the guise of administrative efficiency. Democracy is not an inconvenience. Elections are not optional. The people of Miami deserve a voice in shaping their future—not to be sidelined by those in power.
“This vote underscores the urgent need for Stronger Miami’s proposed charter amendment, which offers a clear, community-led path to genuine reform. We will continue to mobilize, organize, and advocate until every Miamian’s vote—not just those with political connections— is protected and respected.”
 
The post Miami commissioners should shorten their terms for election year change appeared first on Political Cortadito.

Read Full Story