Is it a good idea to have three districts in Coconut Grove?

 

Some have wondered if having three commissioners represent parts of Coconut Grove might be a good thing.  That's a reasonable question at first.  We thought three commissioners might be okay, but after consideration, we conclude it is not a good idea.  It is a bad idea.  These questions helped frame our thinking:

Q.  Which commissioner would be accountable for the quality of life in Coconut Grove? 

A.  None would be accountable.  Diluting accountability among three commissioners would ensure that none are accountable.

Example: Limiting Home Depot’s footprint to its current small size saved the Grove from being overrun by heavy commercial businesses.  Making a single commissioner accountable for its effects made the Home Depot constraints possible and preserved the Grove’s quality of life.

Q.  Would Grove voters have power over the other (proposed) commissioners?

A1.  No.  Grove voters would not affect District 3 elections.  Grove voters would make up less than 4% of District 3 (Joe Carollo) voters.  4% is far less than Carollo’s last margin of victory. 

A2.  No.  Grove voters would not affect District 4 elections.  Grove voters would make up less than 4% of District 4 (Reyes) voters.  4% is far less than Reyes’ last margin of victory. 

Q.  Would each commissioner look out for Grove interests?

In the past, the commissioners of Districts 3 (Carollo) and 4 (Reyes) have routinely voted against District 2 (Coconut Grove) interests.  During the recent meeting, they each refused to even discuss Grove interests.  Would their successors be likely to be different?

 Q.  Who would speak for Coconut Grove?

A.  There would not be a clear spokesperson for the Grove.  The opinions of the other commissions—often in opposition to each other—could always be considered as “speaking for (part of) the Grove.”  Unclear messaging and reduced influence would result.

 For these reasons, having a single commissioner represent One Grove is the best choice.