Herald endorsement: Miami City Commission District 4 special election
A special election to fill the District 4 seat left vacant after the death of Miami Commissioner Manolo Reyes has become a heated battle for the control of the majority of votes on the City Commission. The race has sparked a flurry of accusations between the candidates.
On June 3, voters will choose between Jose F. Regalado, a former assistant building director in the city with a family name well known in politics, and Ralph 'Rafael' Rosado, an urban planner and former city manager of North Bay Village who unsuccessfully ran against the late Reyes in 2017.
The winner, who will serve until 2027, may become the swing vote on high-stakes proposals before the November elections — among them, whether to move city elections to even-numbered years and whether to impose lifetime term limits on commissioners and the mayor.
Our choice is Regalado. He was Reyes' chief policy adviser from 2017 to 2019. He said he was asked to run by Reyes' widow.
Continuity has value, and upholding Reyes' legacy should be a key consideration in this contest. Reyes, who died in April at 80, was a calm, principled voice for transparency, strong constituent service and ethical government. Regalado pledged to keep Reyes' city commission staff. In a city often rocked by political instability, consistency matters.
Regalado comes from a well-known Cuban-American political family — his father, Tomás, is a former Miami mayor and the current county property appraiser. His sister, Raquel, is a Miami-Dade commissioner and his campaign manager. He's a lifelong resident of the district. He said he understands how to make city services work in District 4, a working-class area with a large elderly population. He named public safety and flood prevention as top issues; he was co-chair of the city's Sea Level Rise Committee.
'I originally started working in the city as a civil servant that understood politics, and now I'm running for for this seat hopefully to be an elected official that understands civil service,' he told the Editorial Board.
Regalado, who resigned to run, emphasized neighborhood-focused solutions: improving Miami police coverage and handling flooding and storm drainage in neighborhoods like Flagami. He said flood calculations need to be updated in the city, and that he would push for 'legislation to update and ensure that the infrastructure that is built today can last for tomorrow.'
This is Regalado's first race. He acknowledges he has room to grow; we agree he needs to catch up. His answers during the Board interview were sometimes vague — he wasn't sure if he would back an idea to expand the number of seats on the five-member commission. But we think he would bring knowledge of the city and, importantly, the right temperament to sometimes dysfunctional commission meetings.
Rosado, a longtime resident of Miami and former city manager of North Bay Village, was the more polished of the two. He said code enforcement needs to be improved, a jab at his opponent, and that the building department 'is failing the residents.'
Rosado has been linked to controversial Commissioner Joe Carollo, though Rosado downplayed that support in his interview. Carollo's PAC, Miami First, has been funding anti-Regalado mailers and ads.
Rosado also dismissed a video posted by the Political Cortadito blog that showed Carollo seemingly directing a campaign video for Rosado at a park, saying Carollo 'stopped by' and was not directing the video.
Rosado resigned as North Bay Village city manager in 2024. He blamed politics for his resignation, but the village commission discussed terminating his employment in April of 2024. Rosado resigned in August.
Regalado no doubt benefits greatly from his last name. That will not be enough if he wins; he will need to increase his engagement on important issues, such as whether to expand the number of seats on the city commission.
The race for District 4 isn't just about replacing a commissioner; it's about protecting the kind of leadership Reyes brought to the district.
In the special election to fill the Miami City Commission District 4 seat, the Miami Herald Editorial Board endorses JOSE F. REGALADO.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Medicaid Is Overdue for a Big Beautiful Overhaul
National health-insurance coverage has been a top priority for the American left for decades. Medicaid has been the main vehicle for reaching this goal since 1965. The program now accounts for more than half of the 150 million Americans covered by government health insurance. President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' presents the Senate with a choice: Continue on the path toward national health insurance by locking in recent Medicaid expansions, or reform Medicaid and reverse course. After the defeat of President Harry Truman's national health-insurance plan in 1949, Democrats began an incremental journey. Medicare for seniors and Medicaid mainly for state welfare recipients were their first major steps. After Medicare was extended to the disabled in 1972, Democrats turned their attention to expanding Medicaid.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit
In March, President Donald Trump stood before a joint session of Congress and vowed to "do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget." The first major legislative package of Trump's second term, however, will throw the federal budget farther out of balance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in an updated assessment of the bill. The CBO estimates that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House late last month and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period, while reducing government spending by an estimated $1.3 trillion. The budget deficit is the gap between how much the federal government spends and how much tax revenue it collects in a single year. If spending is higher than revenue—as has been the case in every single year since 2001—then the government must borrow to fill in the gap. The "Big Beautiful Bill" will, in effect, force the federal government to borrow more heavily in the future. And all that extra borrowing comes with more costs, since interest must be paid. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for reducing the deficit, estimates that the bill will add about $3 trillion to the deficit once interest costs are included in the calculation. The bill would also double the federal government's interest payments from nearly $900 billion in 2024 to $1.8 trillion by 2034, the group estimates. The bill's actual impact on the deficit is likely to be even larger than what the CBO estimates, due to several provisions that are meant to game the number-crunching agency's scoring process. Several of the tax breaks in the bill—such as the higher standard deduction, an expanded child tax credit, and tax exemptions for tips and overtime pay—are temporary and will expire by 2029. But those policies are clearly not meant to be temporary, and if extended, they would further widen the deficit in 2030 and beyond. The extension of the 2017 income tax cuts is essential to avoid a massive tax hike that would hit nearly all American households. And many of the spending cuts included in the bill—such as new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps—are worthwhile efforts. But the problem with the bill, as the CBO's report outlines in stark terms, is that the spending cuts and tax cuts do not offset one another. That would be an imprudent decision even if the federal government was not deep in debt and already on course to see borrowing increase in future years. Given its current fiscal situation, piling more borrowing costs on future American taxpayers seems utterly foolish. Could revenue from tariffs help to offset the budgetary impact of the tax bill? The CBO released an assessment of Trump's tariffs on Wednesday showing that those higher taxes on imports would reduce the budget deficit by about $2.8 trillion over the next decade. In a statement, the White House touted that report as proving that Trump's policies, as a whole, would reduce rather than expand the budget deficit. The first problem with that is that those tariffs might not remain in place long enough to matter. They have been in constant flux for months as Trump has raised, lowered, paused, and altered them on a nearly weekly basis. Two federal courts have also ruled that the tariffs were unlawfully imposed—and if those decisions are affirmed on appeal, then the tariff revenue could vanish entirely. (The CBO's assessment did not take into account the court rulings or any changes made to the tariffs since May 13.) The other problem is that the White House is effectively admitting that its tariff policies will offset the economic benefits of the tax cuts it is trying to pass through Congress—which the White House is also arguing will boost economic growth. In short, the Trump administration is trying to have its tax cuts and eat them too. Here's a better plan: Draft a tax bill that doesn't add to the deficit, so that the tariffs don't need to be a part of the picture at all. The post The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit appeared first on
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Marjorie Taylor Greene Admits She Didn't Read Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Before Voting for It. Now She Has Regrets
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted on Tuesday, June 3, that she missed a stipulation in President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" about states' right to regulate AI Greene said that, while she initially voted yes on the bill, she will vote no if it comes back from the Senate with the AI clause still included Nebraska Rep. Mike Flood has also admitted to missing a meaningful clause before voting yes on the bill As Congress continues to weigh President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' at least two members of the House have admitted that they didn't read the entirety of the behemoth spending plan before voting to send it to the Senate. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene took to X on Tuesday, June 3, to admit that she didn't realize the bill contained a stipulation that limited states' right to create laws about, or regulate, artificial intelligence for the next 10 years. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene wrote. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' She continued, 'We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states' hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.' 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power,' Greene added. 'Not the other way around.' Additionally, the representative from Georgia's 14th Congressional District promised that when the bill returns to the House for final approval after the Senate makes its changes, she will not vote for the legislation if it still contains the AI stipulation. Had Greene seen the AI section previously, she could have prevented the bill from moving to the Senate in its current form — the legislation was narrowly passed by a 215-214 vote. In addition to voting for its passage, she spent time campaigning for her fellow Republicans to band together and approve the bill, using language that implied she knew the ins and outs of what was included. 'While I may not like everything in the bill, there are many things I love in the bill, and most importantly it passes my President's agenda and many of his campaign promises to the American people that I fought for along his side for years,' Greene wrote on May 21, the day before the House vote. On Wednesday, June 4, after discovering the AI clause, Greene took to the House floor to protest the section in the bill. 'Here's a lesson for us all: No matter what political party holds office and is in charge, we should all watch carefully the bills that we pass, ad we should be mindful of protecting not only states' rights but the rights of the American people, and look to the future," she said. Though she's a prominent voice in the MAGA movement, Greene isn't the only House member to miss key parts of the 1,000-page bill before voting in its favor. Last-minute changes and a marathon overnight session leading up to the May 22 vote seemed to catch at least one other representative off guard as well. Recently, during a town hall meeting with his constituents, Nebraska Rep. Mike Flood admitted that he didn't realize a provision had been added to the bill to 'effectively remove from judges the ability to hold litigants who defy court orders in contempt,' wrote Amherst professor Austin Sarat in a piece for MSNBC. 'This provision was clearly written with the current administration in mind,' Sarat noted. 'Note its seemingly odd application only to injunctions and restraining orders rather than to any use of the contempt power. And recall the number of times since Jan. 20 that courts have issued them to stop the administration from violating the law.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. When pressed during his town hall, Flood was adamant that he did not agree with the section, which was added on page 562 and titled 'Restriction on Enforcement.' Then, he admitted that he didn't even know it was there. 'I am not going to hide the truth. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill, and when I found out that provision was in the bill, I immediately reached out to my Senate counterparts and told them of my concern,' Flood said, to disapproval from the crowd. The bill is currently in the Senate, where it is expected that some changes will be made before it is voted on in the House again and, if all goes well for the GOP, sent to President Trump's desk. While Republicans currently hold a 53-seat majority in the Senate — with most of them beholden to Trump — some GOP senators have expressed major concerns with the bill's Medicaid cuts and its potential impact on the national debt. However, as it's a budget reconciliation bill, the "Big, Beautiful Bill" could ultimately make it through the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes. Read the original article on People
