Wow — thanks for shining a floodlight on the kind of municipal nonsense that would make even a DMV clerk blush. Nothing says “City Beautiful” like burning through 140 hours of police time so one resident can run her own private security fantasy camp on the taxpayer dime. And the article nails it: if we’re now handing out watch orders based on “I have issues with the mayor” and “he’s a little crazy,” then congratulations, Coral Gables — you’ve essentially created the first publicly funded concierge paranoia service.
What’s wild is that other cities have figured out how to handle these requests like adults. San Benito, for example, won’t even extend a simple vacation watch beyond seven days without a supervisor signing off. Imagine that: a basic check to make sure the city isn’t being gamed like an elderly relative’s Netflix password. And tons of departments — Butler County, to name one — explicitly state that extra patrols happen only when officers aren’t tied up with real emergencies. They don’t promise full-time emotional comfort patrols.
Many places also report how these directed patrols impact staffing and budgets. Portland publishes entire sections of their annual reports showing how directed patrol missions affect overtime and response times. Transparency — you’ve heard of it, right? It’s that thing Coral Gables keeps in a jar somewhere for special occasions.
And here’s another thought: in other cities, when someone wants persistent, ongoing patrols that start looking more like a private security contract, the city just… charges for it. Radical, I know. Some municipalities literally bill for sustained extra patrols or offer formal contracted overtime coverage. Crazy concept: if you want the cops to babysit your driveway every single day, maybe you — not everyone else — should help foot the bill. You know, like grown-ups do.
But even without going full “please swipe your card for additional delusions,” there’s a mountain of obvious fixes staring us in the face. For starters, every watch order should have a clear justification — not the Coral Gables Special of “someone told me to be careful” — and it should automatically expire unless re-approved with actual, documented information. Most cities treat these things like cartons of milk, not like heirlooms you pass down to the next generation.
And if the city wants to avoid this exact fiasco from happening again, it should do what other departments already do: regularly review these orders, kill the ones that no longer make sense, and keep track of how many officer-hours are being siphoned into them. Put it in a simple annual summary so residents don’t have to wait for a FOIA request or an investigative blog post to find out their money is funding Mrs. Cruzchev’s Cold War fan fiction.
If the commission really wants to drag us into the modern era, they could easily adopt the same practices everyone else uses: short time limits, supervisor review, resource-based prioritization, transparent reporting, and optional cost recovery if someone insists they’re the main character in a political thriller that only exists in their head.
Bottom line: I’m completely behind this article. I’m all for public safety, but I’m not interested in financing one person’s never-ending cosplay of “victim of a shadow mayoral manhunt.” Let’s stop pretending that this is normal, rein in the watch-order circus, and make the police department focus on — you know — actual crime.
Because at the end of the day, she’s free to live in her own reality. I just don’t want my tax dollars paying rent there.
I don’t agree that the “attention whore” label or the chin-hair tweezing clip are about attacking women as a group.
For me, the line she crossed is crystal clear: she told Lago’s wife she hopes her husband kills himself “like Sergio Pino did.” Once you say something like that, you’re not a fragile victim of mean commentary anymore, you’re an aggressor. And honestly, there’s something twisted and sick about people who seem to get pleasure out of saying things like that and then acting persecuted when it comes back on them. At that point, unflattering clips and harsh framing aren’t “picking on a woman”, they’re holding a specific person accountable for her own words and behavior.
You also can’t have it both ways. You can’t shout “I am woman, hear me roar” when you want power and a platform, and then suddenly play the “poor, vulnerable woman” card when you’re called out for your own conduct. I’m tired of that double standard. If you want to be treated as a strong, independent actor, that comes with accountability too.
If a male political actor said the same thing, nobody would hesitate to call him out brutally or mock him on video. That’s the standard I’m applying here. Her gender doesn’t excuse her conduct and it doesn’t put her above ridicule or criticism. She’s fair game because of what she’s done and said, not because she’s a woman.
The recent post prompted me to revisit this post and I'm glad I did. Hopefully you can engage meaningfully with my comment because I think we actually agree that no identity characteristic excuses bad conduct. Bad conduct is genderless, raceless, you-fill-in-the-blank-less. My point is that suggesting someone should die by suicide is a reprehensible enough comment to stand entirely on its own. Journalistic reporting of this comment makes a damn clear point; Aesop had no need to pile on identity-based insults like "attention whore". What does "attention whore" add to the journalistic report that "she told someone to kill themselves" doesn't already say? What does adding a video of chin-hair-tweezing accomplish above and beyond the already-well-done reporting on her strange and non-specific watch orders? Aesop themselves indicates the chin-hair-tweezing video was a tangent in writing "Anyway, back to those watch orders...".
Neither myself nor the other commenter speaking out about this issue have done so in a way that suggests the rest of Aesop's reporting is invalidated because of the gender-based ridicule. She's fair game because of what she's done and said, but fair game looks a lot more petty and pointless when it sidebars away from the actual meat and bones of this post. We don't need to stoop to identity-based insults (of men OR women OR any other group) when the bad conduct can speak for itself. Again, I ask, what is the point of personal attacks or insults directed at ANYONE based on how they look or their gender? What does this add to the meaningful content of this reporting?
The latest tale from Aesop highlights a broader issue in Coral Gables: women at commission meetings sometimes face ridicule, derision, and bully-style interruptions. Civil and public servants trying to set the record straight are also affected. Articles like this come at a costly price to the city commission’s image and continue to silence and marginalize women.
I think the core issue isn’t that she’s a woman at a commission meeting. It’s that she’s someone who, per the article, told Lago’s wife she hopes her husband kills himself “like Sergio Pino did,” inserts herself into every conflict, and burns through public resources while playing the victim. That comment alone is vile and disgusting on a human level, never mind a political one. You don’t get to wish suicide on someone’s husband and then cry foul when people come back at you hard. Once you choose to operate at that level, you’re going to get harsh, sometimes unflattering coverage…because you’ve earned it.
What blows my mind is that instead of being united in saying, “That is completely unacceptable,” there are women rushing to defend her and yelling misogyny. As a woman, you should instinctively understand how deeply that kind of statement cuts a wife and a mother of two daughters. The fact that some don’t see, or won’t admit, how damaging and cruel that was is honestly more disturbing than any “tone” in this article.
Grovey, Mrs. Cruz’s remark was completely unacceptable. My comment focuses on the broader climate at commission meetings, where women who speak up are sometimes met with ridicule, derision, bully-style interruptions, and shortened speaking time. This environment also affects civil and public servants who are trying to set the record straight and undermines constructive discussion. Articles like this add fuel to the fire and make the Gables look bad. Highlighting these patterns is not a defense of harmful behavior but a call for a more respectful and equitable public forum.
Aesop, I have been gleefully following you since you started this blog, even since moving out of Florida to more civilized places, because I love your wit, research, and the overall grade-A local politics journalism. But you had MORE than enough ammo to make your point effectively without needing to resort to the video starting with "Attention Whores", commenting on a woman's "literal or physical good side", or sharing a video of this post's main character tweezing chin hairs - which seems to make no point except to tease a woman for trying to meet society's standards. You can write beautifully and hit the message home clearly without the misogyny, and it would go a long way for those of us long-time fans who also happen to be women.
Doxing someone because they have different political views than you is low. The police department should be capable of determining if there is a threat based on evidence. If they cannot do that they are incompetent & it is not Mrs. Cruz’s fault. I am reporting you as this is not right. Very low of you.
Doxing is when someone deliberately finds and publicly exposes another person’s PRIVATE, identifying information. What here is private? This woman makes it her life’s mission to publicly attack anyone who doesn’t agree with her agenda.
Call it what you’d like — whether doxing, slander, or anything else — it’s wrong. Just because you don’t like someone, or disagree with them, you don’t get to publicly lie about them. She can disagree & call out her political positions but she’s publicly making her a target & brewing hate towards her.
Sara, a couple of clarifications because words like doxing and slander are getting thrown around pretty loosely here.
Doxing is exposing someone’s private information. Nothing in this piece reveals anything that isn’t already part of her own very public activity: commission appearances, public statements, public records, and her long, documented history of going after anyone who disagrees with her. Calling that “doxing” isn’t accurate.
As for “slander,” that’s when someone makes false statements. The article is built on her own words (including hoping Lago kills himself “like Sergio Pino did”) and on records of her prior conduct that are part of the public domain. You can absolutely defend her politics if you want, but that doesn’t erase what she’s actually said and done.
Nobody is saying she can’t advocate for her beliefs. The point is that when you choose to step into the arena, repeatedly attack others in public, and leverage public resources, you don’t get a shield from scrutiny just because you’re older or a woman. That isn’t “putting her in danger”; that’s accountability.
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, Sara. Take the time to do some vetting of the information and maybe you’ll see things with a clearer lens: Facts, not feelings.
I didn’t drink any kool aid. I can clearly see when something is wrong. I am 100% for holding someone accountable. However, being an advocate for your political beliefs doesn’t merit this slander. I happen to agree that Lago is a corrupt politician, just like all Miami & every other politician currently in power. Again this article does nothing to help, it just attacks an older woman for her advocacy & puts her in danger.
Oh my dear Sara, publishing public records obtained through legitimate channels isn't "doxing.” It's called journalism. Police reports, watch orders, and municipal spending data are public information specifically so citizens can scrutinize how their government operates and their tax dollars are spent.
If you think reporting on documented waste of public resources is "doxing," then you've fundamentally misunderstood both terms. And your threat to "report" Aesop for... what, exactly? Using Florida's public records law for its intended purpose? Good luck with that.
As for your claim that the police department should determine threats based on evidence, yeah that's precisely Aesop's point. They should, but they're not. That's the entire problem being documented here.
It’s a personal attack with malicious intent. She can raise concerns about her opinion of wasting public resources without attacking the person. How does this so-called journalist know there is no evidence for the watch order? Is it just because she says so. No evidence of her claims were provided. The claim of the statement to Lago’s wife is only that unless there is evidence. Usually journalism provides proof & not just videos of someone plucking their face hair.
The laws & police are the ones that would need to hold her accountable if there is wrong doing. You don’t get to be the judge & jury. The article calls her crazy & attacks her personally- it’s slander. Also, putting a target on her when people know where she lives is doxing. Just because the address isn’t printed doesn’t mean it’s not doxing. Either way we can let Substack decide. I have my option & you have yours.
I’ll keep this very short and simple: This isn’t misogyny or doxing; it’s a performance review of one political actor who’s burned through 140 hours of police time and roughly $42,000 in taxpayer money because she “has issues with the mayor” and thinks he’s “a little crazy,” while, per the article, telling his wife she hopes he kills himself “like Sergio Pino did.” Her address and appearances are already public record every time she walks up to that podium…that’s how commission meetings work! You don’t get to run recall efforts, monopolize meetings, weaponize the police department, and say something that vile to another woman, then claim you’re just a “silenced older lady” when someone finally publishes the receipts. This isn’t targeting women; it’s what accountability looks like when you turn an entire city into your personal stage!
The intention of the article is malicious. Definition of doxing
the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
Wow — thanks for shining a floodlight on the kind of municipal nonsense that would make even a DMV clerk blush. Nothing says “City Beautiful” like burning through 140 hours of police time so one resident can run her own private security fantasy camp on the taxpayer dime. And the article nails it: if we’re now handing out watch orders based on “I have issues with the mayor” and “he’s a little crazy,” then congratulations, Coral Gables — you’ve essentially created the first publicly funded concierge paranoia service.
What’s wild is that other cities have figured out how to handle these requests like adults. San Benito, for example, won’t even extend a simple vacation watch beyond seven days without a supervisor signing off. Imagine that: a basic check to make sure the city isn’t being gamed like an elderly relative’s Netflix password. And tons of departments — Butler County, to name one — explicitly state that extra patrols happen only when officers aren’t tied up with real emergencies. They don’t promise full-time emotional comfort patrols.
Many places also report how these directed patrols impact staffing and budgets. Portland publishes entire sections of their annual reports showing how directed patrol missions affect overtime and response times. Transparency — you’ve heard of it, right? It’s that thing Coral Gables keeps in a jar somewhere for special occasions.
And here’s another thought: in other cities, when someone wants persistent, ongoing patrols that start looking more like a private security contract, the city just… charges for it. Radical, I know. Some municipalities literally bill for sustained extra patrols or offer formal contracted overtime coverage. Crazy concept: if you want the cops to babysit your driveway every single day, maybe you — not everyone else — should help foot the bill. You know, like grown-ups do.
But even without going full “please swipe your card for additional delusions,” there’s a mountain of obvious fixes staring us in the face. For starters, every watch order should have a clear justification — not the Coral Gables Special of “someone told me to be careful” — and it should automatically expire unless re-approved with actual, documented information. Most cities treat these things like cartons of milk, not like heirlooms you pass down to the next generation.
And if the city wants to avoid this exact fiasco from happening again, it should do what other departments already do: regularly review these orders, kill the ones that no longer make sense, and keep track of how many officer-hours are being siphoned into them. Put it in a simple annual summary so residents don’t have to wait for a FOIA request or an investigative blog post to find out their money is funding Mrs. Cruzchev’s Cold War fan fiction.
If the commission really wants to drag us into the modern era, they could easily adopt the same practices everyone else uses: short time limits, supervisor review, resource-based prioritization, transparent reporting, and optional cost recovery if someone insists they’re the main character in a political thriller that only exists in their head.
Bottom line: I’m completely behind this article. I’m all for public safety, but I’m not interested in financing one person’s never-ending cosplay of “victim of a shadow mayoral manhunt.” Let’s stop pretending that this is normal, rein in the watch-order circus, and make the police department focus on — you know — actual crime.
Because at the end of the day, she’s free to live in her own reality. I just don’t want my tax dollars paying rent there.
Congratulations for pointing out much truth, no one cares to say. Many are scared of this person.
She has a vicious tongue, no matter whether truth or false.
Thank you ... and God bless you Aesop.
I don’t agree that the “attention whore” label or the chin-hair tweezing clip are about attacking women as a group.
For me, the line she crossed is crystal clear: she told Lago’s wife she hopes her husband kills himself “like Sergio Pino did.” Once you say something like that, you’re not a fragile victim of mean commentary anymore, you’re an aggressor. And honestly, there’s something twisted and sick about people who seem to get pleasure out of saying things like that and then acting persecuted when it comes back on them. At that point, unflattering clips and harsh framing aren’t “picking on a woman”, they’re holding a specific person accountable for her own words and behavior.
You also can’t have it both ways. You can’t shout “I am woman, hear me roar” when you want power and a platform, and then suddenly play the “poor, vulnerable woman” card when you’re called out for your own conduct. I’m tired of that double standard. If you want to be treated as a strong, independent actor, that comes with accountability too.
If a male political actor said the same thing, nobody would hesitate to call him out brutally or mock him on video. That’s the standard I’m applying here. Her gender doesn’t excuse her conduct and it doesn’t put her above ridicule or criticism. She’s fair game because of what she’s done and said, not because she’s a woman.
The recent post prompted me to revisit this post and I'm glad I did. Hopefully you can engage meaningfully with my comment because I think we actually agree that no identity characteristic excuses bad conduct. Bad conduct is genderless, raceless, you-fill-in-the-blank-less. My point is that suggesting someone should die by suicide is a reprehensible enough comment to stand entirely on its own. Journalistic reporting of this comment makes a damn clear point; Aesop had no need to pile on identity-based insults like "attention whore". What does "attention whore" add to the journalistic report that "she told someone to kill themselves" doesn't already say? What does adding a video of chin-hair-tweezing accomplish above and beyond the already-well-done reporting on her strange and non-specific watch orders? Aesop themselves indicates the chin-hair-tweezing video was a tangent in writing "Anyway, back to those watch orders...".
Neither myself nor the other commenter speaking out about this issue have done so in a way that suggests the rest of Aesop's reporting is invalidated because of the gender-based ridicule. She's fair game because of what she's done and said, but fair game looks a lot more petty and pointless when it sidebars away from the actual meat and bones of this post. We don't need to stoop to identity-based insults (of men OR women OR any other group) when the bad conduct can speak for itself. Again, I ask, what is the point of personal attacks or insults directed at ANYONE based on how they look or their gender? What does this add to the meaningful content of this reporting?
Congratulations for pointing out much truth, no one cares to say. Many are scared of this person.
She has a vicious tongue, no matter whether truth or false.
Thank you ... and God bless you Aesop.
The latest tale from Aesop highlights a broader issue in Coral Gables: women at commission meetings sometimes face ridicule, derision, and bully-style interruptions. Civil and public servants trying to set the record straight are also affected. Articles like this come at a costly price to the city commission’s image and continue to silence and marginalize women.
I think the core issue isn’t that she’s a woman at a commission meeting. It’s that she’s someone who, per the article, told Lago’s wife she hopes her husband kills himself “like Sergio Pino did,” inserts herself into every conflict, and burns through public resources while playing the victim. That comment alone is vile and disgusting on a human level, never mind a political one. You don’t get to wish suicide on someone’s husband and then cry foul when people come back at you hard. Once you choose to operate at that level, you’re going to get harsh, sometimes unflattering coverage…because you’ve earned it.
What blows my mind is that instead of being united in saying, “That is completely unacceptable,” there are women rushing to defend her and yelling misogyny. As a woman, you should instinctively understand how deeply that kind of statement cuts a wife and a mother of two daughters. The fact that some don’t see, or won’t admit, how damaging and cruel that was is honestly more disturbing than any “tone” in this article.
Grovey, Mrs. Cruz’s remark was completely unacceptable. My comment focuses on the broader climate at commission meetings, where women who speak up are sometimes met with ridicule, derision, bully-style interruptions, and shortened speaking time. This environment also affects civil and public servants who are trying to set the record straight and undermines constructive discussion. Articles like this add fuel to the fire and make the Gables look bad. Highlighting these patterns is not a defense of harmful behavior but a call for a more respectful and equitable public forum.
Aesop, I have been gleefully following you since you started this blog, even since moving out of Florida to more civilized places, because I love your wit, research, and the overall grade-A local politics journalism. But you had MORE than enough ammo to make your point effectively without needing to resort to the video starting with "Attention Whores", commenting on a woman's "literal or physical good side", or sharing a video of this post's main character tweezing chin hairs - which seems to make no point except to tease a woman for trying to meet society's standards. You can write beautifully and hit the message home clearly without the misogyny, and it would go a long way for those of us long-time fans who also happen to be women.
Doxing someone because they have different political views than you is low. The police department should be capable of determining if there is a threat based on evidence. If they cannot do that they are incompetent & it is not Mrs. Cruz’s fault. I am reporting you as this is not right. Very low of you.
Doxing is when someone deliberately finds and publicly exposes another person’s PRIVATE, identifying information. What here is private? This woman makes it her life’s mission to publicly attack anyone who doesn’t agree with her agenda.
Call it what you’d like — whether doxing, slander, or anything else — it’s wrong. Just because you don’t like someone, or disagree with them, you don’t get to publicly lie about them. She can disagree & call out her political positions but she’s publicly making her a target & brewing hate towards her.
Sara, a couple of clarifications because words like doxing and slander are getting thrown around pretty loosely here.
Doxing is exposing someone’s private information. Nothing in this piece reveals anything that isn’t already part of her own very public activity: commission appearances, public statements, public records, and her long, documented history of going after anyone who disagrees with her. Calling that “doxing” isn’t accurate.
As for “slander,” that’s when someone makes false statements. The article is built on her own words (including hoping Lago kills himself “like Sergio Pino did”) and on records of her prior conduct that are part of the public domain. You can absolutely defend her politics if you want, but that doesn’t erase what she’s actually said and done.
Nobody is saying she can’t advocate for her beliefs. The point is that when you choose to step into the arena, repeatedly attack others in public, and leverage public resources, you don’t get a shield from scrutiny just because you’re older or a woman. That isn’t “putting her in danger”; that’s accountability.
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, Sara. Take the time to do some vetting of the information and maybe you’ll see things with a clearer lens: Facts, not feelings.
I didn’t drink any kool aid. I can clearly see when something is wrong. I am 100% for holding someone accountable. However, being an advocate for your political beliefs doesn’t merit this slander. I happen to agree that Lago is a corrupt politician, just like all Miami & every other politician currently in power. Again this article does nothing to help, it just attacks an older woman for her advocacy & puts her in danger.
Oh my dear Sara, publishing public records obtained through legitimate channels isn't "doxing.” It's called journalism. Police reports, watch orders, and municipal spending data are public information specifically so citizens can scrutinize how their government operates and their tax dollars are spent.
If you think reporting on documented waste of public resources is "doxing," then you've fundamentally misunderstood both terms. And your threat to "report" Aesop for... what, exactly? Using Florida's public records law for its intended purpose? Good luck with that.
As for your claim that the police department should determine threats based on evidence, yeah that's precisely Aesop's point. They should, but they're not. That's the entire problem being documented here.
It’s a personal attack with malicious intent. She can raise concerns about her opinion of wasting public resources without attacking the person. How does this so-called journalist know there is no evidence for the watch order? Is it just because she says so. No evidence of her claims were provided. The claim of the statement to Lago’s wife is only that unless there is evidence. Usually journalism provides proof & not just videos of someone plucking their face hair.
The laws & police are the ones that would need to hold her accountable if there is wrong doing. You don’t get to be the judge & jury. The article calls her crazy & attacks her personally- it’s slander. Also, putting a target on her when people know where she lives is doxing. Just because the address isn’t printed doesn’t mean it’s not doxing. Either way we can let Substack decide. I have my option & you have yours.
I’ll keep this very short and simple: This isn’t misogyny or doxing; it’s a performance review of one political actor who’s burned through 140 hours of police time and roughly $42,000 in taxpayer money because she “has issues with the mayor” and thinks he’s “a little crazy,” while, per the article, telling his wife she hopes he kills himself “like Sergio Pino did.” Her address and appearances are already public record every time she walks up to that podium…that’s how commission meetings work! You don’t get to run recall efforts, monopolize meetings, weaponize the police department, and say something that vile to another woman, then claim you’re just a “silenced older lady” when someone finally publishes the receipts. This isn’t targeting women; it’s what accountability looks like when you turn an entire city into your personal stage!
Do you even watch the commission meetings? Cruz, and everyone else who speaks as a resident, must state their home address!
I know that. Exactly why putting a target on her is doxing.
The intention of the article is malicious. Definition of doxing
the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.