Bonds are taxpayer money, not a commissioners’ piggybank

Miami is on the precipice of a damaging step to further subdivide the city into five semi-independent fiefdoms where a local commissioner rules over a category of spending with no coordination across the district boundaries. 

A commission vote this week could divvy up more than $52 million in bond borrowing for parks and cultural facilities among five commissioners, with each deciding how, where and when to spend allocated money within his or her district.

The rationale in the legislative package sounds logical until you examine it: “The commissioner for each city commission district is best situated to know and understand the needs of his or her respective district.” We’ll explain in a minute why this is shortsighted.

This isn’t the first time commissioners have looked hungrily at a slice of $400 million in bond borrowing that voters approved citywide in 2017 and decided that they would rather each have a big pot of money to spend according each’s own desires and aims.

In March, commissioners split equally $177 million of the $400 million to battle sea rise and flooding district by district. Every commissioner thus became a lone ranger to decide where and how to protect residents and property.

As we wrote then, we couldn’t conceive a less effective use of borrowed money than to battle global climate change commission district by commission district with no overall plan. One area might add seawalls, another raise streets, another do something different. No coordination was contemplated.

This time instead of five equal pools of spending, the legislation calculates what has already been spent in each district from an initial allocation of $78 million from bond borrowing for parks and cultural facilities and would hand each commissioner full control over the remainder.

That would give Alex Diaz de la Portilla control over $12,582,251, Ken Russell (or his successor as he leaves office) $11,106,880, Joe Carollo $10,036,880, legislation sponsor Manolo Reyes $11,096,880, and Chairwoman Christine King $6,268,880.

So, why is this such bad legislation, assuming each commissioner really does know his or her district well?

First, commissioners aren’t vetted as managers; they were elected to vote on policy for an entire city. Miami’s professional management includes parks and facilities officials and a manager to execute policy and make certain everything links together. If you don’t trust them, replace them, but don’t do their jobs ineffectively.

Second, the city is now trying to replace 73 acres of 131-acre Melreese Park that is becoming a vast multi-use Freedom Park complex of office, retail, hotel and soccer stadium uses. By city policy, new parkland must replace what is lost, and by an esoteric calculation the 73 lost acres are to be replaced by only 20 acres across the city. Subdividing $52 million could complicate the process of adding 20 acres of parks.

Third, timing is terrible. Interest rates on bonds for parks and culture would be far higher than when voters approved future bonds in 2017, meaning taxpayers would be on the hook for far larger payoffs if commissioners decided to borrow for projects they individually chose. That needs coordination by city finance officials, not independent decisions by individual commissioners. 

Remember, this $52 million is not free and is not waiting to be spent, it is waiting to be borrowed. That makes a monetary difference that taxpayers would feel.

Fourth, public money is not divisible district by district. It’s taxpayers’ money, not a commission piggybank. Smart custodians of public funds target the public’s needs, not their own aims. That takes collective government decision-making at budget time and involves the mayor, who alone is elected by all voters. 

In this proposal we have the potential for five philosophies of park and cultural fund use with no discussion or coordination, eliminating any citywide spending from the upgrade plan. 

Fifth, spending should aim to get the whole community the most for its buck. It’s not everyone for himself.

Sixth, unilateral spending of public funds is a danger. Commissioners with cash face pressures from backers and campaign donors. As sole deciders of spending, they risk playing favorites. A paid manager and staff have oversight from alert mayors and commissioners. A commission, on the other hand, reports only to voters, who can’t see behind the curtain in spending of what could become $52 million in slush funds.

When local governments divvy up resources, they can create a laundry list of problems. Fiefdoms of individual commissioners are a recipe for waste, or worse. Commissioners should let this proposal die.