I would like to hire a UM 2L to be my research assistant for 10-15 hours/week during the coming semester. If things work out we might continue into the summer, and/or next year. The work primarily involves assisting me with … Continue reading → The post Research Assistant Wanted appeared first on Discourse.net.
<img decoding="async" data-attachment-id="22331" data-permalink="https://www.discourse.net/2013/02/jotwell-needs-a-summer-student-edtior/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m/" data-orig-file="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m.jpg" data-orig-size="240,183" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":""}" data-image-title="Help Wanted" data-image-description="" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m.jpg" data-large-file="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m.jpg" class="alignright size-full wp-image-22331" src="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m.jpg" alt="Copright 'brizzle born and bred' Some rights reserved, https://secure.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/" width="240" height="183" srcset="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m.jpg 240w, https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/6136653327_508c6f0e25_m-150x114.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 240px) 100vw, 240px" />I would like to hire a UM 2L to be my research assistant for 10-15 hours/week during the coming semester. If things work out we might continue into the summer, and/or next year. The work primarily involves assisting me with legal research and other academic work relating to privacy and/or artificial intelligence, but also helping out on other random things. I need someone who can write clearly and is well-organized. The pay of $15 / hr is set by the university, and is not as high as you deserve, but the work is sometimes interesting. If this sounds attractive, please e-mail me a note with the subject line RESEARCH ASSISTANT 2026 (in all caps), followed by your name and including the following: Where you saw this announcement How many hours you would ideally like to work per week (10-12 is quite normal) When you are free to start. Your phone number and email address. Several times you would be free to meet for a zoom interview in the next week or so. If you happen to have any experience with programming, Unix, or system administration, please mention that, as I can use that; I may even have a second job available for someone with these skills. But please don’t be deterred from applying if you don’t happen to know about those. Please attach: A copy of your resume (c.v.). A transcript of your grades (need not be an official copy). If you have one handy, also attach a short NON-legal writing sample. If you have none, I’ll accept a legal writing sample (whatever you do, though, please don’t send your L-Comm memo as it’s too hard to tell how much they’ve been edited by your instructor). I look forward to speaking with you. The post Research Assistant Wanted appeared first on Discourse.net.
Trying a different widget–with too many pictures of me. Still looking for a good one: The post What I’m Posting on Blueskay (2) appeared first on Discourse.net.
Trying a different widget–with too many pictures of me. Still looking for a good one: <rssapp-list id="pwiI5yfiU9hnoUfl"></rssapp-list> The post What I’m Posting on Blueskay (2) appeared first on Discourse.net.
Testing out a widget…which doesn’t seem quite right… The post What I’m Posting on Bluesky appeared first on Discourse.net.
Trump’s Proclamation Setting a $100,000 Fee for the Entry of H1-B Visa Holders to the U.S. rests on Debatable Foundations
The claimed authority in the Proclamation on “Restriction On Entry Of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” for the $100,000 immigration fee on H1-B visa holders is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Here are the relevant bits of those … Continue reading → The post Trump’s Proclamation Setting a $100,000 Fee for the Entry of H1-B Visa Holders to the U.S. rests on Debatable Foundations appeared first on Discourse.net.
The claimed authority in the Proclamation on “Restriction On Entry Of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” for the $100,000 immigration fee on H1-B visa holders is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Here are the relevant bits of those two code sections: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. … 8 U.S.C. § 1185 (a) Restrictions and prohibitions Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful— (1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe; …. I see three legal issues: First whether 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) has an “intelligible principle” defining the President’s authority; if not, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) would be an unconstitutional delegation of power. Here the purported principle is whether “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”. That may seem vague and general, and it is, but probably not more so than other things that have been held to be an intelligible principle. A slightly harder question is whether the imposition of a $100,000 fee on H1-B entry to the US exceeds that delegation? Alternately, are aliens incapable of paying the $100,000 fee the sort of group that constitutes a “class of aliens” as contemplated by the statute? They may be a social class but that doesn’t seem to be what the statute contemplates… Second, is this a lightly disguised tax as opposed to something contemplated by the statute? This is akin to the claim now before the Supreme Court in the appeal of the Federal Circuit’s decision in VOS Selections Inc v Trump as to whether IEEPA empowers the President to set tariffs where it nowhere mentions them. Third, is the $100,000 per entry or re-entry a “reasonable rule” under 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)? I think this is very doubtful. But even if it is reasonable, one still would need to explain why a lack of authority under § 1185(a) would limit the argued authority in § 1182(f). I think this could be an occasion for application of the General/Specific Canon (approved by Justice Scalia, no less): “If there is a conflict between a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision prevails (generalia specialibus non derogant),” but I’d defer to people who know more about immigration law than I do. The post Trump’s Proclamation Setting a $100,000 Fee for the Entry of H1-B Visa Holders to the U.S. rests on Debatable Foundations appeared first on Discourse.net.
On this day back in 2003 I decided to start blogging. I though thefore today would be a good time to repost the first serious blog post I ever made, even though it only appeared after about a week. “Rose … Continue reading → The post Looking Back, and Forward appeared first on Discourse.net.
On this day back in 2003 I decided to start blogging. I though thefore today would be a good time to repost the first serious blog post I ever made, even though it only appeared after about a week. “Rose Burawoy, Political Scientist” was written in the shadow of the Bush administration’s decision to create and populate the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay put an American citizen accused of terrorism in solitary confinement a Navy Brig with a trial or even access to a lawyer. Even so, those were somewhat more innocent times, but I think the post has resonance today. Here it is: Lately, I have been thinking a great deal about something grandmother once said. Rose Burawoy was born in Bialystock, then a thriving metropolis with a substantial Jewish population. She told me once — exactly once, as she never mentioned it again — that she remembered ‘the Cossacks’ running through and killing people in a pogrom when she was a child. She described it as something that had happened to other people, perhaps not far away, not as an eyewitness. (And, indeed, there was a pogrom in Bialystock in 1903, more killings in the area in 1920, and a pattern of killings and other anti-Semitic incidents in the 1930s ). In the retelling at least, my grandmother seems to have been as bothered by what she saw as provincialism, and was happy to escape to the bright lights of Berlin. Her life, and marriages, would later take her to Paris, and London, where she lived when World War II began, and finally to New York, where I think she was happy to be. This geography explains something my grandmother once said that I find myself thinking of fairly often these days. I vividly recall my grandmother — alone in the family — objecting when I first said I wanted to become a lawyer. Don’t do that, she said. Why not be a doctor? Or a businessman, or anything else that involves a portable skill. A lawyer can only work in one country, and you can’t take your skill with you if you have to leave. ‘What’s wrong with that?’ I asked, ‘I like it here.’ And my grandmother, who usually treated me like a child, and who rarely said anything terribly grave about anything, much less the war — tending to limit her political commentary to how bad it was that old people had to worry about being mugged by the hooligans on the Manhattan streets, and how /insert-conservative-politician/ was good for the Jews because he was strong on defense — gave me a knowing, wise, slightly sad, very grownup look, that said she knew I, the American grandson, was not going to understand, and said, ‘When the Nazis come to America, what will you do then?’. I laughed, of course. The Nazis were not going to take over America. And she said, quite seriously, ‘That’s what we said in Germany. Germany was the freest most democratic country in the world before Hitler. You’ll see.’ I still don’t think the Nazis are coming. But my grandmother’s question is a galling reminder that in politics, like in the securities markets, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The people who founded this country called it a great experiment. As a citizen, a lawyer, and especially as a law professor, I have the luxury to think about the rules we use to govern ourselves and each other. Periods of stress do not bring out the best in most people, and current times provide ample evidence of that. In the past two years, our government has embarked on a course of conduct, and legal argument attempting to justify that conduct, that I find simply horrifying. According to the current Administration, our government can: Hold detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely without trial. Hold some of them, including children, in what amounts to solitary confinement for years. Hold them abroad, because the Administration hasn’t the guts or the decency to bring them to the US, where they would have rights to a hearing, to a trial, to judicial supervision of the conditions of their confinement. The government argues it can hold them during “wartime” — and as this war is against an ism, it could go on for ever. Try some detainees in Guantanamo — the lucky ones? — under rules of court which, while not barbaric, are sufficiently tilted against the defendants to cast doubt on the fairness of the proceeding. To subject them to a possible death penalty in a non-jury trial — and to cut off any chance of appeal to the Article III courts we usually expect to be the defenders of liberty and justice. Perhaps you think that this is wartime, and the nation must protect itself. While it’s possible, I suppose, to imagine a circumstance in which we could not afford fair trials, it’s impossible for me to believe we are anywhere near that stage. Or perhaps you think, as a number of recent judicial decisions suggest, that our government’s constitutional obligation to act decently applies only to its dealings with US citizens and non-citizens in the US itself. I disagree — I think our government has only the powers that emanate from the Constitution, and I don’t find the power to act unjustly to be among them. (Even if I’m wrong about that, I’m saddened that this Administration is willing to so cavalierly drain our moral capital on bad trials, rather than demonstrating that we will give a fair hearing to even those we believe to be our enemies. But that’s another issue, for another day.) Whatever you may think, this Administration clearly believes it has the legal right to treat US citizens as badly as it treats the “detainees” in Guantanamo. And not just US citizens the government thinks its local allies captured during a foreign war. No, this Administration, this Attorney General, this occupant of the White House, argue that they have the right to scoop up any US citizen, on any street anywhere in this country, and lock them up indefinitely. We have rules about how long an arrested person can be held without charges, and without lawyers. In the case of Jose Padilla, this Administration has violated all those rules. What it did was shockingly simple: when the time came to either charge Padilla with a crime, or let him go, the government removed him from the criminal justice system and tossed him in a Navy brig. And there he sits, while the lawyers fight about whether he’s entitled to be charged, and to have assistance defending himself. I wish I were being over-dramatic here. Yes, the country has been attacked in a vicious and terrible way, by bad people. No doubt there are more people out there who wish us harm for both real and imagined ills. It is good to be careful. It is not good to trash our own values. Benjamin’s Franklin’s line — that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” — is quoted so often that it risks losing its power and fading into cliché. But it is still true after almost 250 years. When a government claims the power to grab anyone off the street and lock them up indefinitely without trial, watch out. I still think my grandmother was wrong about the Nazis taking over in America. But I’m reluctantly coming around to believing that she was right about my complacency. Our liberty is not now something we can take for granted. While we face somewhat amorphous threats from abroad — threats I am confident we can endure and overcome — we face increasingly concrete threats to our liberty at home. If we do not face the Gestapo, we nonetheless face a security apparatus that has claimed the right to methods that until recently we would have called Gestapo tactics. I am not predicting a pogrom, and solitary confinement, however unpleasant is not the Final Solution. But I do not feel safer, nor even all that safe, when anyone — no matter how well-intentioned — claims that they can put me in a Navy brig, incommunicado, indefinitely, without charges or trial, just because they can satisfy themselves — and no one else — that I deserve it. Today I am somewhat less optimistic about the future of civil rights in this country, and indeed about the brightness of the country’s future given the multiple ways in which the Trump administration seeks to impoverish us, divide us internally, abandon our allies, and undermine science, medicine, and education. My appetite for, and ability to handle the blogging form has waxed and waned: At some point although I had tens of thousands of regular readers, I decided it was taking too much time and crowding out some scholarship–and I preferred scholarship. Traffic cratered, but I was happier. Later, various extended bouts of hospitalization also got in the way of bloggin. Most recently, although now healthier, I moved my center of social medial gravity to @mfroomkin at Bluesky. See you there? The post Looking Back, and Forward appeared first on Discourse.net.
I am proud to announce the University of Miami Constitutional Crisis Seminar Series. The series includes thirteen lectures, almost all of which will be available on line, with new ones appearing weekly. Select University of Miami Law School students will … Continue reading → The post MiamiLaw Constitutional Crisis Seminar appeared first on Discourse.net.
I am proud to announce the University of Miami Constitutional Crisis Seminar Series. The series includes thirteen lectures, almost all of which will be available on line, with new ones appearing weekly. Select University of Miami Law School students will also have a private seminar-style discussion with the speakers, but these will not be published. I have organized this program because I think the issues are urgent and important. The United States currently faces widespread and intense challenges to our constitutional system, particularly what remained of our checks and balances: While courts and scholars have wrestled with the expansion of executive powers and worried about Congressional delegation of its legislative powers, the current administration – with the assistance of both Congress and the Supreme Court — has taken these challenges to new levels. Today we see unprecedented assertions of executive power, including powers to ignore statutes, impound funds, cancel signed contracts, shutter executive departments, fire independent officials, and make highly creative invocations of emergency authority. Behind many of these are Constitutional claims for the power of the “unitary executive” and (although much remains to be seen) an alleged executive authority to ignore federal judicial orders. Complicating matters is Congressional silence, if not paralysis, in the face of executive power grabs, and an historic dependence on often unwritten constitutional and statutory norms that have been cast aside. As lawyers and potential lawyers, we face particular responsibilities to understand the nature of what is fairly termed a constitutional crisis, and to think about whether and how to respond to it. This seminar series will look at the legal system’s ongoing reaction to this massive reordering of federal power and individual constitutional rights, with a focus on the legal system’s reaction to current controversies. In addition to placing current events in historical context, we will look at the theoretical and structural constitutional causes of the crisis and what we might to do prevent a repetition or undo its most malign effects. We will examine how the legal system, primarily the courts but also other institutions such as the bar, have reacted to these new challenges, and what law and legal theory has to offer as to their causes and perhaps cures. We are fortunate to have a stellar group of legal scholars, legal practitioners, and public intellectuals who have each agreed to speak on an aspect of the evolving situation. With one exception, all of the lectures in the Constitutional Crisis Seminar series will be published online, on a weekly basis. 1 Intro: What is a Constitutional Crisis? Speaker: Kim Lane Scheppele 2 The Unitary Executive & Its Critics Speaker: Peter Shane 3 Constitutional Hardball Speaker: Mark Tushnet 4 Tariffs Speaker: Ilya Somin 5 Assertions of Emergency Power Speaker: Harold Hongju Koh 6 Immigration Control / Rendition Speaker: Cody Wofsy At the speaker’s request, this lecture will not be published online 7 Removals of Officers & Inferior Officers, Bureaucratic Control (Schedules F & G), Vacancies Act Speaker: Thomas Berry 8 Impoundments & Other Fiscal Control Strategies Speaker: Zachary Price 9 Attacks on Civil Society (Law Firms, Universities, NGOs) Speaker: Genevieve Lakier 10 Role of Courts / Attacks on Courts Speaker: Stephen Vladeck 11 Reserved for late-breaking developments 12 Formal Correctives Including Constitutional Reform Speaker: Sanford Levinson 13 Life During a Constitutional Crisis Speaker: Bernard Harcourt The post MiamiLaw Constitutional Crisis Seminar appeared first on Discourse.net.
UM Police Want You to Know about the Crocodile in the Lake
Email this morning from UM Police: The University of Miami is aware that a crocodile has recently been seen in Lake Osceola. [MF note: the lake in the center of campus.] Signs are posted around Lake Osceola and near the … Continue reading → The post UM Police Want You to Know about the Crocodile in the Lake appeared first on Discourse.net.
<img decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-33380" data-attachment-id="33380" data-permalink="https://www.discourse.net/2025/05/um-police-want-you-to-know-about-the-crocodile-in-the-lake/500px-crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1/" data-orig-file="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1.jpg" data-orig-size="500,375" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1" data-image-description="" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1-250x188.jpg" data-large-file="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1-400x300.jpg" class="wp-image-33380 size-medium" src="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1-250x188.jpg" alt="American Crocodile" width="250" height="188" srcset="https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1-250x188.jpg 250w, https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1-400x300.jpg 400w, https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1-150x113.jpg 150w, https://www.discourse.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/500px-Crocodylus_acutus_mexico_02-edit1.jpg 500w" sizes="(max-width: 250px) 100vw, 250px" /> Wikipedia’s American Crocodile Email this morning from UM Police: The University of Miami is aware that a crocodile has recently been seen in Lake Osceola. [MF note: the lake in the center of campus.] Signs are posted around Lake Osceola and near the canals on campus as a reminder of their presence. They may appear docile and calm as they bask in the sun near the rocks or just along the surface of the water, but they should not be approached, and their space should be respected. Individuals and anyone with pets are strongly advised to remain clear of the edge of the water and not attempt to feed or interact with these animals, if observed. In Florida, crocodiles and alligators, can be found in any body of water, and they easily navigate into various waterways. The University has worked with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for guidance on alligators and crocodiles in our community in the past and more information can be found on their <a title="Original URL: https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/american-crocodile/. Click or tap if you trust this link." href="https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/american-crocodile/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/american-crocodile/&source=gmail&ust=1746282685006000&usg=AOvVaw3NyfUX5UWxL_gV7frEy__8">website. This is far from our first crocodile. See, e.g., What? A Croc? (November 25, 2004) Croc II ! (December 17, 2004) Crocodile Reminder (February 22, 2007) Cold Front Flushes Out UM Croc (December 13, 2004) Croc Killer on the Loose! (October 2, 2008) The post UM Police Want You to Know about the Crocodile in the Lake appeared first on Discourse.net.
Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
Robot Law: Volume II Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Kristen Thomasen ‘Robot Law: Volume II assembles cutting-edge scholarship from leading experts, many of whom are regular contributors to the prestigious We Robot Conferences. This timely volume offers incisive … Continue reading → The post Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback) appeared first on Discourse.net.
<img decoding="async" class="CToWUd alignleft" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NbYLf3RoTOPiigkto6WtLQOUE0XyppRaPh660YxyMjkid7qc30dtlancfCFU2o9OFXke4eC4EwBzKSblFoSH85M7gsGNnf49CV0zB0GNw7Za8NHtHiqN0x2lxOpU7XzNr02q-pMC22MbigAbzin=s0-d-e1-ft#https://i2.cmail19.com/ei/r/12/CBD/B0B/215216/csfinal/CaloRobotVol2-99045106db01453c.jpg" alt="A New Framework for Intermediary Liability" width="175" data-bit="iit" /> Robot Law: Volume II Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Kristen Thomasen ‘Robot Law: Volume II assembles cutting-edge scholarship from leading experts, many of whom are regular contributors to the prestigious We Robot Conferences. This timely volume offers incisive analysis of pressing legal and ethical challenges posed by AI and robots; from autonomous machines to algorithmic-generated issues. This is an indispensable resource for interested scholars, policymakers, and anyone grappling with the societal impacts of emerging technologies.’ – Fumio Shimpo, Keio University, Japan Here’s a free chapter: Abeba Birhane and Jelle van Dijk, Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead I think this terrific paper should be read by anyone who is even flirting with the idea that robots (or AIs!) are the sort of thing that are entitled to any rights, much less human-like rights. Yes, I’ll bracket out two scenarios: one, maybe someday we build an AI that really seems to be sentient. Not holding my breath, but if we get there, we can cross that bridge. Second, and more realistic, we might decide that humanoid robots, or animal-like robots, should be entitled to some protections from abuse not because they ‘deserve’ it, but because we discover that allowing abuse of machines that look like living things might have bad effects on the abusers that they then carry over to their interactions with animals and people. In other words, if kicking robot dogs trains you to kick real ones, or abusing very humanoid robots habituates you to abusing people, we might want to do something about that. A similar argument is that we might find it expedient to treat AIs as having ‘rights’ for the same reasons (some of us) think the legal fiction makes sense for corporations: namely it advances some human social goals. But I’ve gotten away from my point, which was to invite you to ask your library to buy our expensive book, or to invite you to buy the much more reasonably priced e-copy. Give your librarian this info: Published: 08 Apr 2025 Print ISBN: 9781800887299 eISBN: 9781800887305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800887305 The electronic edition should be available, I’m told, within a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, here’s the entire wonderful table of contents: 1: Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead Abeba Birhane and Jelle van Dijk 2: Why the Moral Machine is a monster Abby Everett Jaques 3: The presentation of machine in everyday life Tim Hwang and Karen Levy 4: Unfair and deceptive robots Woodrow Hartzog 5: Moral crumple zones: cautionary tales in human–robot interaction Madeleine Clare Elish 6: The sum of all (un)intentions: reasonable foreseeability, platform algorithms, and emergent systemic harm to marginalized communities Cynthia Khoo 7: When AIs outperform doctors: confronting the challenges of a tort-induced over-reliance on machine learning A. Michael Froomkin, Ian Kerr, and Joelle Pineau 8: Sporting chances: robot referees and the automation of enforcement Meg Leta Jones and Karen Levy 9: The death of the AI author Carys Craig and Ian Kerr 10: SIRI-OUSLY 2.0: what artificial intelligence reveals about the First Amendment Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton, and Margot E. Kaminski 11: Beyond airspace safety: a feminist perspective on drone privacy regulation Kristen Thomasen Great stuff! The post Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback) appeared first on Discourse.net.
Coral Gables Commission Run-off April 22-Voter’s Guide
There are just two candidates in the coming run-off election for the Group III seat in Coral Gables (when will they adopt ranked-choice voting and save us this trouble????): You can have Richard Lara, the candidate whose campaign is bulging … Continue reading → The post Coral Gables Commission Run-off April 22-Voter’s Guide appeared first on Discourse.net.
There are just two candidates in the coming run-off election for the Group III seat in Coral Gables (when will they adopt ranked-choice voting and save us this trouble????): You can have Richard Lara, the candidate whose campaign is bulging with developer cash and who will continue if not accelerate the transformation of the City Beautiful into the City Overdeveloped. Not coincidentally, he’s going to lock in a slate with Vince Lago. Or you can have a self-funded candidate, Tom Wells, whose web site doesn’t even ask for your money. He has more experience with the nuts and bolts of how Coral Gables works. And he promises to stop overdevelopment, and bring back civility. The first thing can be done by being the swing vote. The second will be a lot harder. The vitriol has been think on this one–not from Lara himself, but from his supporters. Lara himself has limited himself to dogwhistle politics, like running ads on the Fox network, although that is not my idea of the home of civility. For me it’s a very clear and easy choice: Vote Tom Wells. (FWIW the Miami Herald agrees.) Early voting is this weekend at the Coral Gables Library 7am to 7pm. Otherwise it’s the normal hours at your local precinct this Tuesday. Don’t put it off! Here’s the key part of Herald’s endorsement: The candidate who wins this seat could serve as the swing vote on commission decisions. The winner should focus on staying away from petty fights and allegations to focus on what’s best for residents. There are continuing allegations and counter-allegations about which candidate is aligned with which faction. But Coral Gables residents have made it very clear: They want to see a return to civility and an end to factionalism. Wells would be well advised to listen to the voters. And Lara, who said he wants to see “smart and responsible development,” should consider serving on a government board or committee to demonstrate his desire to serve the community. In the runoff race for the Coral Gables Commission Group III seat, the Herald Editorial Board endorses THOMAS O. WELLS. The post Coral Gables Commission Run-off April 22-Voter’s Guide appeared first on Discourse.net.