HOMEWEBSITE.html
SERIESCRESPOGRAM_SERIES_-_MASTER.html
LINKS2012_LINKS.html
2012 ARCHIVES2012_ARCHIVES.html
DOCUMENTSDOCUMENTS.html
CONTACT ME2012_CONTACT_INFO.html
2011 ARCHIVES2012_ARCHIVES.html
CRESPOGRAM REPORT
IGNORING THE LAW FOR KATHERINE FERNANDEZ-RUNDLE
THE MAYOR’S FIRST BALL WAS SO SUCCESSFUL THERE PROBABLY WON’T BE ANY MORE

MARCH 5, 2012

THE CITY IGNORES IT’S OWN ORDINANCE TO RENAME STREET FOR FERNANDEZ-RUNDLE

For a while now I’ve been writing about how the City of Miami failed to honor the provisions of it’s own ordinance on the renaming of streets in order to rename most of SW/NW 12th Avenue for the politically corrupt Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez-Rundle.


In the last several weeks I’ve been corresponding with Commission Chairman Suarez about this issue, and trying to get some sort of explanation from City Attorney Julie Bru as to why the provisions requiring a 4/5th vote was not followed.


I finally got it last week, and below is my response to Commissioner Suarez, regarding what I believe is both a bad legal opinion, and worse, a bad example of ignoring the city’s own law’s to curry political favor.


This isn’t an earth shattering issue, but in its own way, illustrates the kinds of deals that all too often are done for the benefit of the small handful of people who treat the Miami City Commission as their own private sandbox.

March 4, 2012

Commissioner Francis Suarez
Chairman of the City Commission
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL

RE: THE CODESIGNATION OF SW/NW 12TH AVENUE FOR KATHERINE FERNANDEZ-RUNDLE

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I hate to challenge the brilliance of the City's $349,000 a year City Attorney, but I must object to her opinion that the City of Miami's handling of the "codesignation" of SW 12th Avenue from SW 8th Street to NW 64th Street was handled correctly because, in her words, "The action taken by the City Commission under R-11-0078 was not subject to the provision of Sec. 54-137 (7), because it was merely an expression of “no objection” to a state Senate Bill."

If the city DID NOT have a specific ordinance that governs the “codesignation” of streets within the city, Madam Attorney would be correct in arguing that the City could express “no objection,” but, because the City of Miami is both a sovereign and legal entity that had codified the requirements for “codesignation,” the notion that the City would, or should ignore the requirements of that ordinance and substitute in it’s place a “no objection” resolution creates a situation whereby the City surrenders it’s legal obligation to follow the provisions of it’s own ordinance.

What if at some later date the Florida Legislature were to designate Biscayne Boulevard as Fidel Castro Way?  Would the Miami City Commission be as ready to surrender it’s “codesignation” requirements and go with a “no objection” vote?

The Miami City Commission in their wisdom chose to enact Section 54-137 as the method by which streets would be allowed to be “codesignated” within the City, regardless of where the suggestion for this "codesignation" came from. 

Allowing the Mayor and his administration to curry political favors by ignoring the clear language provisions of Section 54-137, is both bad public policy and another example of the Commission being led around by the nose by the Mayor for his personal benefit.

I would urge you to require that this issue be revisited by the Commission, and that a proper 4/5’s vote be required for the “codesignation” of this street.

I would also ask that you require Commissioner Sarnoff to recuse himself, as a result of the recent gift he received from the State Attorney’s Office.

 Yours truly,

/s/ al crespo

Al Crespo

PAGE LINK - COPY AND PASTE

Copy the link below, and it will be a permanent link to this page that you can post on Facebook, or anywhere else.