Miami DDA drama heads to City Hall - and this time, there will be questions

Publicity checks point to political patronage

Just when you thought the drama around the Miami Downtown Development Authority couldn’t look more, um, interesting, along comes a paper trail. And not just any paper trail.

The kind that makes you stop, tilt your head, and ask: “And we’re supposed to pretend this is normal?”

According to checks posted online by James Torres, the DDA’s biggest critic, the agency paid $16,250 last year to RBB Communications, its outside communications consultants, for what’s been billed as an “independent” poll. One day earlier in May of 2025, Miranda Advocacy — the firm tied to Commissioner Damian Pardo’s political consultant — had billed RBB exactly that amount, $16,250 for “DDA research services, cross tabs and presentation,” including a tidy $3,000 “one-time consulting fee.” Torres says Inquire, the polling outfit connected to Commissioner Ralph Rosado’s political orbit, actually did the poll.

“It’s a raquet,” Torres told Political Cortadito. The poll was a waste of money, he said. Ladra says it could look like a political payoff.

“Miranda Advocacy was contracted for the survey based on recommendations,” DDA Chief Executive Director Christina Crespi. told Political Cortadito after Ladra asked. Whose recommendation? The board members, she said.

Notably, Rosado was not chairman of the DDA at the time of the poll. He was elected in a special election the following month.

But just to recap: Public dollars went to a PR firm and a political consultant and a pollster tied to elected officials. Check. Totally independent. Nothing to see here.

Alex Miranda could not be reached for comment. He texted Ladra that he was out of the country “tending to a family emergency.”

This, of course, comes on the heels of that now-infamous Sunshine meeting where freshman Commissioner Rolando Escalona showed up with questions — and the DDA showed up with… absolutely no one. Now we know why. They didn’t want to talk about this.

Rosado, the DDA chairman, was a no-show. Crespi, who makes more than $264,000 a year, was on vacation with her family. But she didn’t send a representative. No staffer. Not even a warm body pretending to take notes. Just empty chairs and a growing sense that something doesn’t add up.

Two board members went to make the case for the DDA. Give us more time, they said. They have until this week, when Escalona is bringing the questions to the dais at the commission meeting. And this is where things could get uncomfortable.

Because this won’t be the usual commission theater — a few speeches, some polite deflection, and everyone goes home. Escalona has already signaled he’s coming armed with 40 questions — the kind that drill into structure, spending, subdistrict equity, and whether Brickell is quietly subsidizing the rest of downtown.

Now add a new bunch of questions: Who approved the poll? Who selected the vendors? Who knew about the consultant connections? And why does an “independent” survey seem to travel through such politically familiar hands?

Expect a lot of throat-clearing. Expect a lot of “to be clear” statements. Expect, perhaps, a sudden appreciation for the phrase “we’ll have to get back to you on that.”

But here’s the real risk for the DDA — and it’s bigger than one poll.

The optics are colliding.

You’ve got residents already questioning why they’re paying what some are calling a “hostage tax.” You’ve got a commissioner publicly asking whether the agency still deserves to exist. You’ve got a no-show at a Sunshine meeting that read less like a scheduling conflict and more like a strategic dodge.

You’ve got an agency that seems to discriminate against the DNA, which is a group of downtown homeowners. Torres is their president. And he has filed a complaint with the city about what he calls “a troubling act of retaliation and viewpoint discrimination by the Office of Commissioner Ralph Rosado and the Downtown Development Authority.” He says that he’s been cut out of communications because of his criticism and point of view.

Last month, Rosado’s Deputy Chief of Staff Christian Molina sent an email to Torres saying that because he has publicly criticized the DDA’s structure, funding, spending and communications, the city would not including a DNA holiday event on the DDA newsletter or through any other official channels.

Let that sink in. A critic, a resident, voter and taxpayer who has raised issues through the proper process, is being sidelined and punished for his point of view. Commissioner Rosado’s office, likely in partnership with the taxpayer-funded DDA, have denied access to a government-controlled communication channel because of DNA’s viewpoint and criticism of government officials.

So it will promote other events. Just not the DNA’s.

“The City may not weaponize government resources or official communication channels to reward organizations that support the DDA while retaliating against those that do not,” Torres wrote in his complaint, which was sent to City Attorney George Wysong, copying Mayor Eileen Higgins, Rosado, Molina and Assistant City Attorney Jihan “Gigi” Soliman, who is general counsel to the DDA.

It’s no secret that Torres has advocated hard for the dissolution of the DDA. He has led the campaign for months to let residents off the hook and create a Business Improvement District, instead, that would only tax commercial properties. But he has every right to and should not be punished for it.

“Viewpoint discrimination is among the most serious violations of the First Amendment,” Torres wrote in his email to the city attorney. “Once the City opens its communication channels to neighborhood groups and community organizations, it may not selectively exclude one organization because it has been critical of City Hall or the DDA.”

It could also chill other organizations or activists from speaking up.

But instead of getting a direct response, the city attorney apparently forwarded the complaint to Crespi, who claimed there were “false narratives” in his letter. She points out that Molina is a city employee not an employee of the DDA — but it’s clear from his email that he (read: Rosado) has dominion over the DDA newsletter.

She also took the opportunity to say, basically, that the DNA has to prove itself if it wants to play with the DDA.

“The DDA has made numerous attempts over the past year to better understand and review the Downtown Neighborhood Alliance’s (“DNA”) organization because the DDA Board has notice of possible organizational discrepancies,” Crespi wrote to Torres. “The DNA has been less than cooperative with the DDA’s request and in many instances has been outright hostile.”

So it is payback, after all. Check.

And, now, you’ve got money moving through a chain of politically connected players — all tied to a poll meant to shape public perception.

That’s not just bad timing. That’s gasoline on a fire.

And Escalona? He seems to be standing by with an extinguisher.

The next commission meeting could go one of two ways.

Option one: The DDA comes prepared. Answers questions. Explains the contracts. Clarifies the relationships. Rebuilds a little trust.

Option two: More deflection. More vague answers. More “misunderstandings.”

If it’s door number two, don’t be surprised if the conversation shifts — quickly — from reforming the DDA to whether it should exist at all.

Because once you start asking where the money goes, you don’t usually stop at the first answer. And after years of avoiding that conversation, the DDA may finally be forced to have it — in public, on the record, and with a commissioner who doesn’t seem particularly interested in letting it slide.

This kind of independent, government watchdog reporting is crucial to transparency and democracy. And more so every day. Help shine a light on the darker corners of our community with a contribution to Political Cortadito. Click here. Ladra thanks you for your support.

Miami DDA drama heads to City Hall — and this time, there will be questions added by Ladra on April 8, 2026
View all posts by Ladra →