Early voting has started, and election day is not far off, so here are some thoughts, in the third and longest of three parts, on the upcoming election.
Part 1: Federal and State non-judicial offices and state referendums
Part 2: Judicial elections and judicial retention elections
Part 3: Coral Gables Commission & Miami-Dade County referendums (coming soon)
This prospect of doing a voter guide including the Coral Gables Commission was so depressing that it put me off the entire enterprise which is why this guide is so late this year.
County Referendums
So let’s start with the easy parts, the six, count them six, County Referendums. TL/DR: NO on 4 & 6, Yes (especially) on 1 and also Yes on 2 & 5. No recommendation on 3, sorry. The tough part, the Commission races, is below.
And, Yes on the School Board referendum.
Here’s why:
County Referendum 1 would establish an independent salary commission with members appointed by the chief judge of the local circuit court, the state attorney, the public defender, the head of the county ethics commission, and the inspector general. Current pay is insanely low at $6,000 per year. One consequence of this change would likely raise it to the county ethics commission pay scale, currently $127,779/year. Crazy low salaries ensure only rich people can afford to serve, and also that everyone has a distracting day job. Crazy low salaries raise the odds of bribery and if not that then conflicts of interests. This is a strong YES from me.
County Referendum 2: Require at least one-year residency to run for County Commissioner. This is a housekeeping measure to fix an arguable loophole in the current Charter. Vote YES.
County Referendum 3 would allow the County Commission to line up special elections for mayor or commissioner vacancies with other scheduled elections when the vacancy happens because someone resigned to run for another office. This saves money, but also allows for more political manipulation as to timing which may result in a seat being vacant longer. I don’t really have strong views here. No?
County Referendum 4: Poorly drafted. Supporters claim it cleans up issues to reflect that four county offices are now elected, including Sheriff and Tax Collector. But it messes up things for employees in a department who might want to run for boss. On balance this isn’t helpful. I suggest you Vote NO.
County Referendum 5: The “Miscellaneous Matters and Technical Changes” label is vastly unhelpful, but broadly accurate. It fixes place names, grammar, and allows for wider forms of public notice when state law allows them. Sure, why not. Vote YES.
County Referendum 6: Expanding Allowable Advertising at Parks. You kidding me? While I get the argument that sponsors of events want credit, and that allowing more signage can provide revenue, this amendment is so vague it allows the Commission to allow ads where they like and of any size. Vote NO.
The School Board Referendum would keep the existing property tax of one mill ($1 for every $1,000 of taxable value) for Miami-Dade public schools, including charter schools, from July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2031, earmarked for staff and teacher salary plus quite a lot for school safety. Not a tax increase, but the stopping of a tax decrease – which would hit teacher pay hard. Vote YES.
Coral Gables Commission Groups I, IV & V
There are three seats on the Commission up for election including the Mayor. And there are city charter amendments too.
Let’s bite the bullet and do the Commission races first.
The past two years have been the lowest point in the history of the Coral Gables Commission since I started following local politics some thirty years ago. The past was not necessarily wonderful, commonly being dominated by a mix of country-club Republicans and Realtors but there was, within that limited circle, a spirit of civility and cooperation. (As one of my sons said, “You don’t realize the value of not rocking the boat until someone tries to capsize it.”)
Today’s reality is just ugly and there have been times when, maxed on national political horrors, I can’t even bear to keep current with the local tempests. The Commission is polarized between on the one hand the pro-Mayor Lago and largely pro-development majority, and on the other hand the somewhat incoherent minority. As the face of the majority, Lago has been anything but civil, and seems to me to be as much about his political ambitions as anything else. It’s all quite sad. A plague-on-both-your-houses sad.
I would say that, abstractly, steering between allowing all development and being a NIMBY is the most urgent issue facing the Commission, with the lurking danger of Amendment 3 taking a big bite out of revenues being the next big issue. But that said, the City’s hands regarding development are more tied than previously due to state laws overriding local zoning powers to allow much more building than previously. One way or another, we’re going to get a lot of it.
So in fact, my voting recommendations are primarily shaped by three issues:
- Will the Commission have people on it who will stand up to the Lago steamroller, not just on development but other issues too?
- Support for Florida Constitutional Amendment 3, which I see as putting ambition and party over the interests of the City.
- Responsiveness to constituents, In this regard I sent an email (and when no response a follow-up) to each candidate asking them the following:
Coral Gables currently maintains both Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CC-TVs) that take images of cars and people in public places. The Coral Gables ALPRs alone capture literally tens of millions of images a year, of which at most only a minuscule fraction have any value to law enforcement.
In light of Governor DeSantis’s recent decision to order Flock cameras off Florida state roads, will you pledge to do the same in order to protect the privacy of City residents and visitors by eliminating all ALPRs of any brand, and removing all city CC-TVs in Coral Gables? In other words, will you pledge to cancel any existing contracts for these, order the removal of the surveillance hardware, and then not replace them with new ones?
Only three candidates answered.
Group I
Mayor Vince Lago is running for a third term against lawyer Laureano Cancio and Jackson “Rip” Holmes.
My advice is to vote against Lago. I think that claims that Lago stood to benefit financially from a recent vote don’t rise to the level of a legal violation – but the likely legal vote shows a classic disdain for both niceties and appearances. The real issue is, not to put too fine a point on it, he’s mean and sometimes rude to people who disagree with him. Lago did not reply to my emails asking his views about Flock cameras in Coral Gables.
Plus, let’s roll the tape: See my April 2025 post, Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame and the MAGAlific story about Lago vs Carrollton School of Sacred Heart (page down about halfway on the April 2021 post Who to Vote for in the Coral Gables 2021 Mayoral Election? It’s Not Easy). Not good stuff.
The problem is, if not Lago than for whom?Jackson “Rip” Holmes is a long-time observer and Commission gadfly. If anyone off the Commission has attended more meetings then I don’t know who that is. You might say he’s earned his shot. But he’s also, well, a bit strange. Over the years his big issue has been attracting a big anchor store to Miracle Mile, where he happens to have a business. And he’s more than a bit random on other things. To his credit, of the three candidates who replied, Holmes gave me the best answer on the Flock and CCTV camera issue, saying he opposes them and also CCTV. I wish that could persuade me to vote for him, but it likely won’t.
Laureano Cancio is an experienced local lawyer, and his bio says ‘safe pair of hands’. But he hasn’t campaigned hard, and hasn’t been that visible. It’s hard to endorse him too, although he may well get my vote, even without a reply on the privacy issue.
Group IV
Incumbent Melissa Castro is running against the super-well-financed Lago ally-to-be (it may not be official but it’s no secret) Nestor Menendez. Castro has not been a model Commissioner, but I will suggest you vote for her anyway. The main reason to vote for her is that she will keep alive a (loud) voice in opposition to the Lago machine. This despite the as yet unadjudicated claims before the Florida Commission on Ethics that her permit expediting business has done business in the Gables since her election, which would be a violation of ethics rules. Castro’s response is that permit matters involving the Gables are sent to another company in which she has no involvement. (Other claims of dirt being thrown around online don’t do anything for me.)
Castro was one of only three candidates who replied to my question about Flock and CCTV. Her unsatisfactory reply was very much of the trying-to-have-it-both ways variety:
[P]rivacy and public safety are not mutually exclusive. We should demand both.
That is why I am not comfortable with either extreme: unrestricted government surveillance or automatically eliminating a public-safety tool that has demonstrated legitimate investigative value.
Instead, I support a comprehensive review of Coral Gables’ ALPR and CCTV program with a very high burden on government to justify its use. If the City is going to collect information involving law-abiding residents, it should collect only what is necessary, retain it for the shortest period justified by a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, strictly control who can access it, maintain an auditable record of searches, establish appropriate limits on sharing, and impose meaningful consequences for misuse.
I also want us to determine whether less intrusive technologies or policies can give our Police Department the same investigative capabilities. If we can accomplish the same public-safety objective while collecting less information about innocent residents, that is the direction I would favor.
And if a particular camera or system cannot demonstrate a legitimate public-safety benefit sufficient to justify its impact on residents’ privacy, I see no justification for taxpayers continuing to fund it.
So, to answer your question directly, I cannot commit to eliminating every ALPR and CCTV camera regardless of its purpose or demonstrated effectiveness. Doing so would require me to disregard documented instances in which these tools have assisted our Police Department in protecting this community.
What I can commit to is this: government should have to justify surveillance, not residents justify their privacy.
I will fight to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of our residents. And I will fight just as hard to make sure our Police Department has the appropriate and lawful tools to protect those residents from people who intend to harm them.
Nestor on the other hand didn’t dignify my emailed questions with a reply. He also refused the Miami Herald’s request to come in for an interview!!! So we can expect he’ll be real responsive as a Commissioner to people who don’t make contributions.
Thus, although I don’t think Castro’s done a good job—although not nearly as bad a job as Ariel Fernandez who isn’t running for re-election in Group V—I think she’s the lesser of two evils. Vote for Melissa Castro in Group IV.
Group V
Dominique “Nikki” Whiting vs Gonzalo Sanabria for an open seat. Whiting has an extensive political resume that suggests she will see the Commission as a stepping stone, having worked for Gov. DeSantis in various capacities. But her c.v. also sports the red flag of having worked as director of communications for evil Miami-Dade County Commissioner Esteban “Steve” Bovo.
I can get over working for DeSantis, especially for someone seeking a somewhat nonpartisan job as Commissioner. After all, DeSantis ’s the only game in that town, but any Bovo connection is enough to put me off a candidate.
Whiting did not respond to my emails about Flock and cameras. We can expect, given the establishment GOP connection, that Whiting will be firmly in the Lago camp.
On the other hand, Sanabria has a peculiar charm. He speaks his mind. He doesn’t hide from voters. He served his time as an appointee on various local government bodies. His politics are classic pre-Trump Republican: cut stuff, anti-tax. So not exactly mine. He did however respond quickly and in some detail to my questions about Flock and CCTV: he’s against Flock, and not up to speed on the cameras. He’d want to keep the ones that are justified, but would ask for evidence that they do some good. I’ll take it.
Sanabria will not be in anyone’s camp, not the pro-Lago or the anti-Lago. He’ll be in his own quadrant. It’s a much more almost libertarian quadrant than where I hang out, but he’ll be an interesting, smart, voice on the Commission. To my surprise, I’m more enthusiastic about recommending Vote for Gonzalo Sanabria in Group V than any of my other Coral Gables Commission recommendations.
Coral Gables Referendums
Referendum 1: “Shall Section 24 of the City Charter be amended to increase the threshold for public work projects requiring formal solicitation from $25,000 to $300,000, with that amount adjusted as specified in Section 255.20, Florida Statutes?”
I can’t see any reason to approve this in light of recent controversies relating to park and other projects. (Also, as I read it, the low-bidder requirement would no longer apply to projects between $25K and $300K. Why is that good?)
Referendum 2: “Shall Section 3 of the City Charter be amended to require continuous residency in the City of Coral Gables for a minimum of one year immediately preceding the end of the qualifying period for candidates running for City Commissioner or City Mayor?”
I can’t see any harm in approving this. Apparently, the City Attorney recommended this in light of issues in nearby municipalities. OK with me.
Referendum 3: “The City Charter currently provides for a two-year term for the City’s Mayor. Shall the City Charter be amended to increase the term of office for the Mayor to four years, consistent with the term of office for City Commissioners, beginning with the 2028 Coral Gables General Election with no change to the associated term limit?”
This is the important one. I admit I thought it was a silly idea to make the Mayor’s term shorter than that of the other Commissioners’ four-year term. I was wrong. It’s actually worked quite well. In the abstract you would think that as we don’t have a strong Mayor form of government (the City Manager does a lot), there’s no need for the extra accountability. But the past few years’ experience suggests it pays to keep the Mayor on a shorter leash. Vote NO on Ref. 3.
Referendum 4: “Shall the City Charter be amended to require that the sale, exchange, conveyance, or lease of ten (10) years or longer of any city-owned property used as a park, recreational facility, golf course, or open park space as of November 3, 2026, or later acquired for such use, be approved by sixty percent (60%) of the city’s voters in a citywide special election?”
I am not sure we need this, but other than adding to ballot fatigue, I cannot see the harm in it, so I’ll vote for it..
