Courthouse clean bill of health begs questions, investigation

Courthouse clean bill of health begs questions, investigation
  • Sumo

Well, well, well. It appears that there is no huge, life-endangering emergency at the downtown Miami-Dade Civil Courthouse after all. courthouseYou know… the health and safety hazards like mold and crumbling columns that lawyers and judges told us were killing them slowly day by day or quickly any day now.

They lied. The county’s assessment found that no emergency ever existed.

“At this time, there are no known existing conditions at the Dade County Courthouse that may affect the life, health or safety of the judges, employees, visitors or users,” says a memo issued late Tuesday from Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos “Cry Wolf” Gimenez, adding that the longtime leaks that caused much of the damage should be repaired by February and the mold and other issues mitigated by next summer — at a cost of $35 million.

That’s far less than the $400 million that the judges and lawyers supporting a bond referendum last year wanted to take from us to build a 600,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art facility. The measure was voted down Nov. 4 after critics — namely Miami-Dade School Board Member Raquel Regalado (who might want to run against Gimenez in 2016), Miami-Dade Commissioner Juan Zapata, TV and radio journalist Roberto Rodriguez-Tejera, and yours truly — raised questions about the rush (read: railroading) and the lack of details on both the alleged “emergency” and the alternative site.

Read related story: Commissioner Juan Zapata: Close courthouse if there’s a risk

Now we know that the claims of a “sick building” were just scare tactics.

“If that bond item would have passed, there would have been a fantastic case for undoing the question,” Regalado told Ladra Wednesday. “Because they lied to the voters. You can’t lie to the people.”

Oh, but yes, it seems that you can.

Two months after voters rejected the measure, the Miami Herald’s Doug Hanks reported that All Aboard Florida — which courthousethe public was told was no longer part of the conversation — had been in talks with county officials about developing a new courthouse up until at least mid August. That’s less than a month before the county commission voted on the last day possible to put the measure on the November ballot. At the time, people were told that All Aboard was no longer an option. But after the referendum failed, they’re back on, as Hanks also reported, when a county facilities manager provided All Aboard with some plans and renditions of a new courthouse drawn up by the architects of the new Children’s Courthouse. Sure, that was in December. But when did Leland Solomon, who asked that the emailed information be “kept confidential” — first have those renderings?

Why? If there were plans and even drawings of a new proposed courthouse — the details that we thought were nonexistent at the time of the referendum — why didn’t we know about it? Was it because there was an inside deal being cooked up? That’s sure what it looks like.

Read related story: Courthouse bond ‘blank check’ is an injustice to voters

This is why there is no public trust in government. In fact, the whole thing put together looks like a political conspiracy. It’s like the players here first intentionally ignored the escalating damage at the courthouse for years and years until a $2 million fix turned into a $35 million job, so that they could create a false sense of urgency and present their desired solution/ultimate goal — $400 million in new public money to spend — at the last possible minute for a low turnout election in three months time. They didn’t count on any questions or opposition.

As I’ve said before, it was always about the ka-ching.

There really should be a criminal investigation into this. Maybe the Inspector General should dig. Maybe there should be a Grand Jury inquiry. That might be difficult, seeing as how our esteemed Miami-Dade State Attorney Kathy Fernandez-Rundle advocated for the passage of the referendum. Although Ladra thinks she was also lied to and should be highly motivated to find out what we all need to know: Who knew what when?

Read related story: Courthouse tax debate: Scare tactics vs. common sense

Among those called to testify or to be deposed are the big advocates of the referendum who went on radio and TV to push people to vote in favor before someone died. It’s a tough job, because the list includes some heavy hitters: Chief Judge Bertila Soto and attorneys like Eugene Stearns, who led the PAC that spent $1 million on the effort, Joe Serrota, Robert Martinez — the former U.S. Attorney who went on Michael Putney and said the “dangerous” building may even be torn down.

There’s more. Please press this “continue reading” button to “turn the page.”

Pages: 1 2

4 Responses to "Courthouse clean bill of health begs questions, investigation"

  1. Thanks for your response. I only have time to address some of your replies.

    To begin, I am not a stakeholder: (a) I mediate and arbitrate cases, and rarely need to go the building but for a few minutes; (b) I am not a stakeholder: I am not a lobbyist or anyone who seeks to male a dime on the project.

    That being said, my point is that you took a County Hall report as if it had the veneer of an independent study.
    It was not independent–it sought to cover up and obfuscate, the same fault you seek to vet out.

    There are alot people getting sick in that courthouse. It does not reflect the needs of what this community needs. The volume of people using and needing to use the building; Judges cramped into and juggling court rooms…..that is a big point.

    So, no hard feelings: We can keep debating the issue and hope you keep on vetting the truth, but a report from the same County Hall you often and accurately assail…

    .Elaine….as they say in my home town of Miramar, Cuba… “Por Favor”!!!!

  2. Saul, I love it when you participate. But I think you need to read this post again because I CLEARLY say that a new courthouse is needed not only because of these deplorable conditions, which are unacceptable but could be fixed, but mostly because we have outgrown the space.

    The point is that that was NOT the gist of the campaign mounted by Building Blocks For Justice (which is a misleading name, too) or the advocates of the courthouse tax. Theirs was a shrill, “sky is falling” message that smacked of scare tactics. A couple of times, advocates said someone was going to die. One said that he had nightmares about the building collapsing on hundreds of people. The report clearly states that is not the case.

    I have been to the downtown courthouse multiple times. I have seen the mold and the water collecting around the beams or pillars in the basement. I have smelled the mildew. I have asthma and I wouldn’t want to work there. But how many other county buildings are like that? Have you been to the courthouse at the civic center? Or the jail lately? You don’t have to go involuntarily. Take a tour. The situation is worse. But the population there, the stakeholders, if you will, do not have the million dollars that attorneys raised to push this referendum on us in a hasty and misleading way.

    You compare this to the Titanic and say that the judiciary community did not sit on the deck and do nothing while it sank. I respectfully disagree. Because this was not a sudden crash with an iceberg. This was years and years of neglecting compounding damage. And who was on the deck?

    Are you disagreeing with me that someone needs to investigate how this happened in the first place? How was the damage allowed to get this bad?

    And you think it’s okay that lobbyists were talking about the referendum in MAY but it didn’t get to the commission until the very last meeting to get it on the November ballot (read: = no time for discussion, community input)? You think that was coincidence?

    It is my job, my role to question these so-called coincidences. And just because I question the validity of the process doesn’t mean I question the merits of the project.

    I believe I am more objective on this matter than you are. From your earlier comments on this subject, it seems you are a stakeholder who just wants it to get done. I agree that the situation must be addressed and that a new courthouse is eventually needed. I did not agree with the tactics used to get $400 million determined by who and for what? Exactly. Maybe we will need a special bond to finance it after all. But we need more details. And the matter has to be addressed holistically.

    Thank you again for sharing your opinion. I am glad you are still reading the blog.

    But, no, I am not backing off.

    Love, Ladra

  3. The Nassau County Courthouse in Fernandina Beach, Fla., was built in 1891 and is still in use. The tragedy of our courthouse is that is was not maintained even though funds were available to do so. That is also the core of this conspiracy concept.

  4. Elaine: As a constant vigilant of the ever self serving (i.e, cover thy tuhas) reports at County Hall, regarding hot button issues, I was surprised that you drank the Kool-Aid TM that was served in the report regarding the Courthouse. If ever you came across a report that was self serving, motivated by blame shifting, and a whitewash of the facts–that was it.

    When an esteemed investigative reporter accepts it at face value, it really is surprising. The premise of your posts and the sentiment of your readers, in many instances, is not a reflection of the fact that an 80 year old building, built to serve the needs of a few hundred thousand residents 80 years ago, is somehow a proper place to conduct important civic business for millions of residents, but rather a knee-jerk bashing of Constitutional Officers and officer of the Court, as well as the public that needs those facilities.

    You besmirch the Judiciary for being pinned into a position of forcing the political branch of government @ the County Courthouse to do something because County Hall just refused to act.

    Instead of sitting on the deck of the proverbial Titanic, the jduciary and legal community took the the public. Was the proposal perfect? No. Was it well intentioned? Yes. Does the problem exist? FOR SURE.

    Take a step back. Forget about the venom toward the Court and Attorneys that ooze from your postings and reader responses. Why don’t you take some time and speak to the clerks, bailiff’s, Judicial Assts who have to deal with that building.? Get an objective response. Go floor by floor (for instance try to the 10th Floor) where the mold and mildew is overwhelming. And take a trip to the bowels of the courthouse and see ground zero for yourself.

    The vigilance of investigative reporters like you is crucial, and you do much to bring out issues that otherwise would be kept in the dark. You have a right and responsibility to be cynical, but respectively, not in the broad brush fashion I opine is being published by you on this matter and your readers.

    The public, Judges and Jurors have a right to have an efficient court system with adequate facilities. While the present court administration has streamlined operations, cut duplication of efforts and squeezed out every inch of use that building, its time to make a great change.

    You are probably too young to remember the Decade of Progress Bonds in the 1970’s which were criticized as being a waste of money…well it was pushed through, even though not all pieces were in place, and we ended up with many of the institutions we need like the County Building, parks, libraries etc., that forward thinking and a bit of faith provided.

    So maybe back off; be vigilant, but more objective. And instead of relying on self-serving reports, roll up your sleeves; tour the building’ speak to the “workers”…speak to the Jurors.

    Then make an informed and fully vetted out conclusion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.