Fair and Imbalanced: Tough Questions for KFC's Proxy Candidates

The candidate forum questions that won't make the cut.

Tonight at 7:00pm, local PTSA groups are hosting a Coral Gables Candidates Forum focused on education. With uncertainty surrounding how many forums we'll see this election cycle, I'm submitting questions for the two candidates I view as KFC's chief proxies in the upcoming commission races.

Five Questions for Tom Wells:

1. You've made serious allegations that Mayor Lago's proposed millage rate reduction was designed specifically to “repay gifts” from developers. Given your platform of "intelligent civility," could you explain how publicly accusing an elected official of corruption without evidence aligns with civil discourse? And as an attorney, aren't you concerned about making such unqualified assertions of criminal conduct?

2. During your numerous appearances before the commission advocating for Burger Tom's—excuse me, I meant Burger Bob's—reopening, you presented yourself as a concerned resident. However, your wife, Diane, was reportedly serving as the would-be tenant's attorney. As someone running on a platform of transparency and integrity, why didn't you disclose this clear conflict of interest to the public? And were there other instances, such as with Fritz and Franz Bierhaus, where you similarly failed to disclose potential conflicts?

3. You've been appointed to the Charter Review Committee by Commissioner Menendez, yet claim to be an independent voice. Given your previous pattern of undisclosed relationships, how can voters be confident that you're being fully transparent about your political alignments and potential conflicts of interest? Specifically, what other business relationships might your law practice have with entities that regularly interact with the city?

4. You've repeatedly criticized Mayor Lago for not maintaining order during commission meetings and allegedly failing to follow Robert's Rules of Order. However, when the mayor has attempted to implement stricter controls over public comment to restore order—specifically on two historic occasions where he was overruled by the commission majority—you remained silent. Given that the primary source of disruption comes from politically aligned speakers like Maria Cruz, and given your appointment to the Charter Review Committee by Commissioner Menendez, isn't your selective criticism of the mayor while ignoring disruptive behavior from your political allies inconsistent with your platform of "intelligent civility"?

5. You were notably vocal about former City Manager Iglesias's compensation, calling his $300,000 compensation package “excessive” and insisting that any new manager should have significant municipal experience and be selected through a formal national search committee (see video below). Yet when the current commission majority appointed Amos Rojas—who had zero municipal experience—as city manager without any search process, without allowing two commissioners to even meet him, without public notice, and at the same "excessive" salary you previously criticized, you remained completely silent for over a year. How do you explain this striking inconsistency? Is your standard for good governance and fiscal responsibility dependent on who's in power?

Five Questions for Felix Pardo:

1. While you campaign on a platform of among other things, civility and intelligent leadership, you signed a recall petition against Mayor Lago that was predicated on demonstrably false allegations—including claims of FBI investigations, real estate fraud, and theft of millions from the city. Either you failed to properly vet these serious allegations before endorsing them with your signature, or you knowingly supported false claims. Which explanation better exemplifies the intelligent leadership you're promising voters?

2. Despite serving on the Planning and Zoning board as Commissioner Fernandez's appointee and positioning yourself as an anti-development expert, your colleagues have frequently needed to correct your misstatements of facts and procedures. How do you reconcile your campaign's promise of intelligent leadership with this record of factual misunderstandings on the very subject you claim as your area of expertise?

3. As an architect and P&Z board member who focuses intensely on development issues, residents might reasonably expect you to have developed equally thoughtful positions on other crucial matters facing our city. Yet your campaign appears singularly focused on development while offering little substance on finances, public safety, infrastructure, or government transparency. Why should voters entrust comprehensive governance responsibilities to a candidate with such a narrow focus?

4. You've aligned yourself with a political faction that has doubled commissioner salaries, spontaneously installed new city managers without public input, and consistently voted against greater electoral participation. Given your association with these actions through your P&Z appointment and your support of the recall effort, how do you plan to convince voters that you represent a meaningful alternative rather than simply a continuation of the current commission majority's approach?

5. Despite your self-portrayal as a development expert on the P&Z board, your contributions have yielded few concrete policy accomplishments. Meanwhile, your colleagues have often needed to correct inaccuracies in your statements. What specific evidence can you provide that demonstrates your ability to effectively translate criticism into constructive policy outcomes rather than merely offering commentary without results?

Bonus question for both candidates: In light of your being KFC appointments to powerful boards (Wells to the Charter Review Committee and Pardo to Planning & Zoning) and your names, along with Claudia Miro's, appearing on the KFC push-poll that was disseminated before either of you announced your candidacy, do you really expect the public to believe you're not aligned with KFC?

---

Make Forums Great Again

I awoke this morning ready to tackle the third and final installment in the Kirk series when one of those little reminders popped up on my monitor: Coral Gables Candidates Forum, February 27, 2025, 7:00pm. Lo and behold, that's tonight. Where oh where, my friends, does the time go?

I've been meaning to write a forum-oriented post, and thanks to what I perceive as a growing uncertainty about these events, it seems the moment is now or never.

This appears to be an education-themed forum being orchestrated by a consortium of local PTSA groups. I've always been ambivalent about these hyper-specialized events, particularly when they focus on issues that largely fall outside municipal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the organizers seem well-intentioned, and in this election cycle, any forum that resembles a debate is probably a net positive.

Speaking of debates, the Coral Gables Chamber of Commerce has traditionally hosted one of the most substantive and professionally executed forums/debates in the city. However, in light of Mark Trowbridge's devastating and untimely passing, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chamber opted to forgo the event this cycle. Mark was so much more than the president of that organization; he was its heart and soul, bringing professionalism, understated intellectualism, and genuine warmth to everything he touched. His leadership transformed the Gables Chamber into one of the very best in the nation, and the void he leaves envelops not just the Chamber, but the entire community. It is a void I fear may never be filled.

Because there’s no telling how many forums we'll see this election cycle beyond this education-themed event, I thought it prudent to go ahead and submit my list of questions for the two candidates I view as KFC's chief proxies in the upcoming commission races. While not education-focused, I believe these questions merit consideration at any meaningful forum.

On Partisanship and This Newsletter's Purpose

Now, before the inevitable cry of "wHat ABoUt LaRa?" begins ringing through the comments section, let me remind you for the 1,457th time what this newsletter represents. I provide political commentary and analysis from a specific, partisan perspective. I've never pretended to occupy some mythical middle ground of perfect neutrality, nor am I obligated to manufacture artificial balance where none exists. Like every other resident in the Gables, I have preferences. I've chosen my side.

Because lets be realistic here: in politics, just as in life, there comes a point where the facade of neutrality serves no one. After all, said no one ever: "Gee whiz, if only Frederick Douglass hadn't been such a diehard abolitionist. If only he had played devil's advocate for the pro-slavery side of the debate, we could have taken his arguments more seriously."

Indeed, as James Madison noted in Federalist No. 10, "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire," acknowledging that in a free society, competing interests naturally emerge. The Founders never expected impartiality from their commentators—indeed, pamphleteers like Thomas Paine and publishers like Benjamin Franklin were unabashedly partisan in their advocacy. If partisanship was good enough for giants like them, then it's more than good enough for little ol' me.

This newsletter exists precisely because a bunch of other crappy one-sided narratives dominated local discourse for far too long. While outlets like Gables Insider and Political Cortadito have operated as unchecked propaganda machines for certain interests, I've made my positions clear: I support candidates who demonstrate competence and oppose those who view public office as little more than a vehicle for personal aggrandizement, a surrogate for professional achievement, and a taxpayer-funded paycheck that conveniently exceeds what their modest talents could command elsewhere.

I have no questions for Richard Lara—only my vote come April 8th. Those seeking criticism of Lara can surely find some clumsy version of it elsewhere. I make no apologies for declining to manufacture balance where I see none needed.

P.S. A friend just checked the education-forum hosts' Google Drive, and while Kirk finally posted his answers this morning—less than 12 hours before tonight's event and a full 11 days after the February 16th submission deadline, despite other candidates turning in their homework on time—the supposedly federally-indicted Abbott still stands alone as the only candidate across all three races who hasn't bothered to respond (as of writing, at least). Kirk's last-minute submission is perfectly on-brand, of course, given his legendary reputation for diligence, hard work, and unwavering commitment to the residents who pay his doubled salary. One has to wonder whether responding to concerned parents simply didn't make Kirk's meticulously prioritized to-do list until the absolute final moment, or if perhaps he was simply waiting for Ariel to tell him what his educational opinions are. In any event, something tells me Kirk was that kid we all saw hastily gluing the pages onto his science project on the bus ride to school weeks after it was due.

Correction Notice

In a previous iteration of this post, I incorrectly stated that Ariel appointed Tom Wells to the Charter Review Committee. This was an error. Tom Wells was, in fact, appointed to the Charter Review Committee by Kirk.