Sunday, March 01, 2015

City of Miami Ballot: How was this legal? By Geniusofdespair

We forget so quickly so here is the EXACT August 26, 2014 ballot question in the City of Miami from the Elections website:

Proposed Amendment to Existing Leases of City
Owned Waterfront Land at Bayside Marketplace
Should the City extend the existing leases from 46 to 99 years with Bayside Marketplace LLC on the 16.85 acres of waterfront land (Bayside Marketplace) conditioned on the City receiving: upfront payment of $10,000,000; minimum guaranteed yearly rent of approximately $3,516,002 (which escalates); percentage rent; minimum $27,000,000 improvements to Bayside Marketplace including additional parking; increased contribution to Miami Bayside Foundation; and development of a $400,000,000 privately funded 1,000 foot observation and entertainment tower (Skyrise Miami)?
Now, how was this legal? There is more than one topic, I see 4 topics in one question. And the Skyrise question has nothing on earth to do with the title of the question.

I heard Carlos Gimenez say on the Jim DeFede show that the people of the City of Miami were told City dollars wouldn't be used. He said CITY.  That is not what it says here, it says "privately funded".  This is what the people voted on: Privately Funded. It doesn't say County Funded to the tune of $9,000,000.  Carlos Gimenez did a bad job as a wordsmith. Jim DeFede did call him on it, I think DeFede said Carlos was splitting hairs.

So the people of the City of Miami did vote on the Skyrise (a.k.a. Nail Clipper) because it said PRIVATELY FUNDED and because it was bundled in a mass of projects, not fair for little minds (most voters). I would sue too on this one.

(Oh, by the way -- NO MORE  ITO'S LIKE "CARLITO" AND "RAQUELITO" -- I just don't like that since it is only done to Hispanics. Doesn't feel right so please don't use those ITO'S anymore in your comments to belittle the candidates or people you don't like. Douche bag etc. okay).


Ion Miami said...

There's no strict prohibition under Florida law against local governments putting multiple subject questions on the ballot.

The state must adhere to single-subject rule. Not so counties and municipalities.

The case law regarding local governments is sparse, mixed -- or so I'm told by people smarter than me.

Anonymous said...

It is a way to steal from the taxpayers. . . It is a clandestine, sly method of theft, robbery, and thievery of taxpayer money. With public officials like these, we have criminals... Oh, foxes in the hen house!

Anonymous said...

So I can say Marc Sarnoff is a douchbag, but I can't call him Marcito? Love it! Happy Sunday!

al crespo said...

Charles Corda filed his lawsuit and took it to the 3rd DCA, on just this issue. If you go to my website, and click on the button that says, SERIES, and then on the SKYRISE button you'll find the stories that I did, with the copies of the lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

My friends and colleages plan to be at the polls in 2016.

We're wondering what protest statements should go on the campaign signs that point out this County Mayor's lack of aptitude and disloyalty to resident services.

There's so much fodder against Carlos Gimenez's words and actions that it won't all fit on a dozen signs.

Anonymous said...

Everything is legal in a tourist.

Anonymous said...

Al, I love your work as well as the work here at EOM. But, your website is difficult to navigate.

O said...

How is it legal? It isn't. And it just shows our County Attorney's Office is still filled with morons.

Did you see that the PBA just won its case against the County Attorney's Office on Gimenez' veto power last week?

That's what happens when individuals are hired for who they know and not what they know. Ever see a job advertisement for a position in the incompetent County Attorney's Office? I haven't!

Anonymous said...

This looked illegal from day One but Sarnoff and Regalado wanted it.