Skyscrapers erase what makes Miami Beach unique. State bill is not ‘progress'
Letters to the Editor Skyscrapers erase what makes Miami Beach unique. State bill is not 'progress' | Opinion
South Beach's historic Art Deco District.
Miami
Miami Beach's soul
Miami Beach's iconic Art Deco buildings are not just historic — they're the soul of the city. The latest version of Florida's Live Local Act, allowing the demolition of such buildings in favor of high-rise towers, is a slash-and-burn, chainsaw approach disguised as progress. Art Deco's architectural treasures drive tourism, boost the local economy and define our identity. Replacing them with generic skyscrapers would erase what makes Miami Beach unique. Once gone, this heritage cannot be rebuilt.
True progress preserves character, not destroys it. I urge our elected officials to stand against this reckless legislation and protect the legacy that sets Miami Beach apart.
Rosemary Ravinal,
Doral
Condo worries
The May 4 story, 'How a small Bay Harbor condo met Florida's tough rules,' was excellent. However, there are more associations that fail to work together for the benefit of their community. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation must proactively investigate associations that knowingly try to bankrupt their associations, only to be bought out by a hungry and savvy developer.
In one condo in Little Havana, the 'officers' (no elections have been held in years) do not have building insurance, lack proper reserves, have unfinished roof repairs, a malfunctioning elevator and have 'rented' clubhouse space as an apartment to a family member.
Condo owners will have nowhere to go when they get hit by a huge assessment.
Maria Galvez,
Kendall
Lawful duty
Re: the May 5 article, 'Florida Attorney General digs in against Judge blocking new state immigration law.' To the extent that the federal government has used well known applicable provisions (among them Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) to deputize state and local police officers to assist with immigration compliance, it would appear that Judge Kathleen Williams' order may have a problem.
If the law enforcement officers involved were deputized and they performed their duties as the government requested, even if the state statute is flawed, the arrests at issue and their continued assistance to the government would likely be lawful.
Robert E. Panoff,
Pinecrest
Truly, the facts
I was beyond delighted to read the May 4 op-ed by Miami Herald editorial board member Mary Anna Mancuso, 'No one is above the law, not even Milwaukee Judge.' The Milwaukee circuit judge, Hannah Dugan, was certainly in violation of her oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Mancuso is a true journalist, like those my mature age group was so used to. It was so refreshing to see her common sense, objectivity and moral compass in true journalist fashion.
Today's news media generally lean toward political beliefs of their choice with no regard to the truth. They simply distort their stories to suit their political persuasions. Mancuso should be a role model for her professionalism.
Lucita L. Moran,
Coral Gables
Due process
Re: the May 4 op-ed, 'No one is above the law, not even Milwaukee Judge.' There have been multiple violations, in the last few months, of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Dugan possibly perceived that Flores-Ruiz had not fully been given due process.
Is it right to call Dugan a heroine for shielding him? Were there heroes in Europe who helped Jews escape Nazi Germany? Were there heroes in pre-Civil War America who ran the Underground Railroad?
Rev. Martin Luther King was arrested ✓29 times in his life. Many consider him a hero in spite of that.
Joel Ross,
Fort Lauderdale
What oath?
When asked if it was his duty to uphold the Constitution, President Trump replied, 'I don't know.'
I don't know?
To quote former tennis pro John McEnroe: 'You can't be serious?'
Did the oath of office Trump took mean anything to him?
I guess not.
Peter M. Brooke,
Doral
Eyes forward
Re: the May 4 story, 'How a Florida driver reacts to seeing a border patrol car could get them pulled over, feds say.' Jeffrey Dinise, chief patrol agent for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said that a driver who 'looks away' from a marked unit is suspicious.
Perhaps someone should remind Dinise that not keeping eyes on the road is a safety issue. Also, varying one's speed can be due to multiple factors, top among them is keeping up with, or slowing down for, traffic.
As a white male, I'll be curious to see if I get stopped the next time I encounter a CBP-marked unit and look away and vary my speed.
Scot McCluskey,
Davie
All to blame
Re: U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar's April 24 op-ed, 'I don't belong in letter claiming inaction on immigration in Miami-Dade.' Perhaps it is true that she was unfairly painted. I fully agree that Democrats share responsibility for our immigration policy mess. However, are Republican Party members blameless?
As a Senator, Marco Rubio was part of a bipartisan group to create immigration reform. Not surprisingly, given Rubio's oft-demonstrated lack of a political spine, the minute he received blowback from his GOP colleagues, he abandoned the effort.
More recently, during the Biden administration, a bipartisan consensus was reached on immigration reform, only to be tanked by Congressional Republicans when Donald Trump informed them he wanted to run on immigration.
During his first 100 days in office, Trump and his executive branch have ridden roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, defying due process rights of immigrants, deporting American citizens and thumbing their nose with impunity at the courts which have tried to apply the brakes to this autocratic insanity.
Salazar said that given the atrocities visited on the Cuban people, which is undeniable and which forced tens of thousands to '[flee] Fidel Castro's tyranny,' the pain of that 'brands your soul.'
Where are the 'branded souls' of now U.S. Secretary of State Rubio and U.S. Reps Carlos Gimenez and Mario Diaz-Balart?
Rubio is aggressively pursuing and supporting all sorts of vindictive actions against immigrants. As to the others, their silence in response to (and tacit support of) the outrages against the Constitution and immigrant population is palpable.
Most respectfully, Salazar's op-ed is likewise substantially 'short on facts.'
Harry M. Solomon,
Coral Gables
Fishing industry
Florida's commercial fishing industry is more than just a livelihood — it's a tradition that sustains families and the state's economy. With more than 100,000 jobs and $18 billion in economic contributions annually, Florida's fishers lead the Gulf region in landings, fishing trips and seafood production. From stone crab to spiny lobster, our waters provide iconic catches that feed America and fuel local businesses.
The Gulf Council plays a vital role in managing key fisheries, balancing conservation with the ability of fishers to make a living. For more than two decades, Florida has held an essential at-large seat, ensuring our fishers' voices are heard.
Now, Louisiana is attempting to claim this seat, a move that would weaken Florida's influence in vital policy decisions. President Trump's April 2025 Executive Order on Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness reaffirms his commitment to domestic production, reducing regulatory burdens and securing the future of our industry.
Keeping this Gulf Council seat in Florida ensures that sound science and strong leadership protect the economy and the sustainability of our waters. Florida's fishing families and coastal communities depend on it. Safeguarding their future and ensuring Florida's seat at the table remains secure is essential.
Jeff Cramer,
Marathon
Pardon our dust?
Alcatraz Island was once a federal prison. It has been generating revenue as a tourist attraction for decades. President Trump is now pushing the idea to reopen it to house notorious prisoners.
Why spend millions to upgrade Alcatraz when there are plenty of federal prisons around the country that have been closing or deactivated since 2024?
George Lipp,
Cooper City
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Johnson: Deploying Marines to Los Angeles protests would not be ‘heavy-handed'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Sunday that deploying the Marine Corps to Los Angeles to suppress protests, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested, would not be 'heavy-handed.' 'Secretary Hegseth said that active-duty Marines there at Camp Pendleton, there by San Diego, are on high alert and could be mobilized. Could we really see active-duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles?' ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked on 'This Week.' 'You know, one of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy-handed,' Johnson responded. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the Los Angeles area on Saturday amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the action was due to 'violent mobs' attacking federal agents 'carrying out basic deportation operations.' 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X on Sunday morning. Deploying active-duty forces against Americans on U.S. soil would be an extraordinary move and would require bypassing laws that prevent the military from being used for domestic law enforcement purposes. There's also little precedent for deploying the National Guard to states that have not requested the help. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday went after Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to the Los Angeles area, saying the president 'thinks he has a right to do anything.' 'He does not believe in the Constitution; he does not believe in the rule of law,' Sanders told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' 'My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles, did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book. In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus. Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure". What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes. The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their justiciability. Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was unimpressed. When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme Court. Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session. The idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive authority. The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power. It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach. This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976. "The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan. By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president. After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances. Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus". Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency. Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking. "The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC. "During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way." The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy. India media: Papers remember 1975 emergency Indira Gandhi: The Centre of Everything India's State of Emergency
New York Post
10 hours ago
- New York Post
Progressive states that care not for laws or the border are the ones tearing us apart
The whole nation has been watching the anti-ICE 'protests' playing out on television, and I cannot help but be struck by the multiplicity of ironies. Once upon a time — and not so long ago — immigration enforcement actions took place at worksites, in Los Angeles and many other locations, with such regularity that no one would have paused to bat an eye. Now they are the cause of riots and assaults on federal officers and property, while state and local governments slow-walk law enforcement responses for something as fundamental as protecting the safety of those officers. It is as if these levels of government have a detached notion of 'federalism' that runs only one way: they can levy demands on the federal government, usually involving massive amounts of money and other assistance, while recognizing no obligations in return. What we are seeing, although it has become all too pervasive in progressive hot spots, is not normal. It is the confluence of permissive policies toward crime and violence in blue-run cities and states, with the flooding of the border that took place over the entire length of the Biden administration. During those four years, anywhere from 10 to 14 million aliens entered the country either illegally or under transparently bogus programs designed to facilitate their entry, and all of them apparently believe they have a right to be here — even as they wave foreign flags while tossing Molotov cocktails or setting cars on fire. I have heard a number of politicians and journalists decry the wearing of masks by federal officers (who very reasonably fear being doxxed, putting their families at risk), but I have yet to hear one of them ask why the rioters who shut down traffic, vandalize property and fling bottles, bicycles and other objects at the officers, are also masked. It goes unremarked because the reason is clear: they do not want to be identified and held responsible for their mayhem. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The difference in reasoning and motivation between the officers and the protesters could not be any more stark. But as we watch lawless rioters go unchecked while federal efforts are stymied by the courts at every turn, some of us may be wondering whether the Constitution has in fact morphed into a suicide pact, given the imbalance that has become apparent in the three branches of government. The judiciary, once described as the 'weakest' branch, has come to wield entirely too much power when a select few district court judges can throw so much sludge into the wheels of government that they grind to a halt. The conclusion that I, and I suspect most Americans, draw from what we are seeing and hearing is that this administration is not only on the right track where immigration enforcement is concerned, but that time is indeed of the essence, and the stakes are incredibly high, if we are to heal from the deliberate rending of the social fabric that has taken place. Dan Cadman is a Center for Immigration Studies fellow and a retired INS/ICE official with 30 years of government experience.
