Gaming the public interest by gimleteye

Our guess is that most of Miami Dade county citizens—that would be more than 2 million people—could not name their county commissioner.

An even smaller number, much smaller, will decide the most important measure for government reform in Miami Dade we are likely to experience in our lifetimes: whether or not to adopt an executive mayor form of government.

Who stands to gain, if the executive mayor referendum passes?

The taxpayers of Miami Dade county who may finally have a single elected official, an executive mayor, to hold responsible for the performance of county government. County staff, too, whose professional integrity has been compromised by political interference.

Who stands to lose?

Certainly, the county commission will no longer be the focal point for key decisions and contracts. The influence of lobbyists and union leaders who depend on the arbitrage between private profit and public interest will wax or wane depending on who the new mayor is.

Any change to the status quo is threatening when the outcome is unpredictable. The closest emotional response is fear, and that is what opponents are using as their marketing tool against the executive mayor.

How will we know the difference between winners and losers? The public has to be informed, and that is easier said than done.

An informed public depends on the investment by the mainstream media in regular coverage of local government—not just uncovering scandals, but turning over the rocks to shine a light so the public can see what they are paying for.

In terms of an informed public, the effect of cost cutting measures to improve the financial performance of daily newspapers is a better predicted by chaos theory than an Excel spreadsheet.

The impact isn’t measured by a factor of two or three—for instance, a reduction in staff as a percentage of overhead—but by a factor of a thousand or ten thousand.

Here is a specific example: the Sunday Issues and Ideas section of the Miami Herald features an editorial who significance is measured by its real estate: the entire top of the fold.

“Future in now: Sprawl or smart growth” is a deserved and well-written editorial highlighting the importance of the Miami Dade regional watershed study that will be reviewed by the infrastructure and land use committee of the county commission, controlled by the de facto chair of the county commission, Natacha Seijas.

Seijas never liked the study. Last year, she was indignant when the study obstructed consideration by the county commission of amendments to move the Urban Development Boundary to benefit big production home builders, her power base.

Recently, citizens from a few of the municipalities that could, in the future, be subject to higher densities in order to accommodate anticipated population growth have raised angry voices against some of the study recommendations.

In fact, there has been no regular coverage by the Miami Herald of the major development issues related to the watershed study. A few stories, yes, on the front page of the B section.

There would be far less criticism of the watershed study if the Miami Herald had fully engaged its wide readership in the areas of conflict and compromise, to accomodate future growth-- if, in fact, more growth through expansion of developable area is best for the county and our quality of life.

We are not privy to editorial decisions that decide in the degree of coverage—of south Dade farming, for instance, and objections of the Farm Bureau for any kind of orderly consideration of future watershed needs.

But the fact is that Herald stories, when they appear, never appear in the context of political controversies involving important advertisers to the Miami Herald: production home builders in the real estate section allied with property speculators and big land owners.

When important editorials—like the one in Sunday’s paper—convey important information but lack the supportive structure of regular and frequent coverage, the result is a foregone conclusion: is anyone paying attention?

The point is relevant to the discussion of the executive mayor, because the forces aligned against the watershed study are the same ones who have vastly profited from arbitraging private profit and the public interest with commission majority and have a very strong interest to maintain a status quo including an indifferent public.

Cutting down the opportunities for disarray in county government is what the executive mayor referendum is about. Critics say, it will create opportunities for abusive power: what it really takes away is the arbitrage.

If Herald readers were given to understand the issues, the public would be inclined to be more engaged by the challenges that face our communities—including a higher probability that eligible voters would actually go to the polls.

Mayor Carlos Alvarez has earned our respect for bringing the executive mayor referendum to the people of Miami Dade county. He raised the money to collect the signatures, he fought a protracted and pitched battle against the majority of intransigent county commissioners.

We suspect what is driving Mayor Alvarez are some of the lessons he learned as a policeman: if you want to clean up the streets, you first have to clean out the mess in the front office.

Makes sense to us, and once in a while to the Miami Herald.