By Coral Gables Gazette staff

The August 13 Planning and Zoning Board meeting ended with a pointed exchange between two members whose appointments reflect different camps in Coral Gables politics. Robert Behar, appointed by Mayor Vince Lago, publicly challenged the conduct of Sue Kawalerski, appointed by Commissioner Melissa Castro, over her questioning of Miami-Dade County Commissioner Raquel Regalado at the board’s July session.

In that July meeting, Regalado had appeared to support a county-backed development initiative near the University of Miami Metrorail Station — a project that drew opposition from many residents. Kawalerski, who ultimately voted against the proposal, questioned Regalado on the project’s impact and urged slowing it to address community concerns. The county commissioner bristled at the tone, remarking that she did not want to be “berated.”

At this week’s meeting, Behar returned to the episode, calling it disrespectful and saying it reflected poorly on the city. Kawalerski defended her approach as necessary advocacy for residents who felt their interests were being sidelined. It was a disagreement over style, but also over substance: whether the greater duty lies in maintaining cordial relations with outside officials or in pressing them hard when city priorities seem threatened.

That tension is familiar in Coral Gables. Advisory boards operate at the intersection of local and regional politics, where collaboration can be crucial but can also be complicated by differing visions of growth, density, and neighborhood preservation. When projects fall under county authority, city representatives have limited leverage — making their tone and relationships with county officials a strategic consideration. Behar’s position reflects the view that preserving goodwill is essential if the city hopes to influence outcomes. Kawalerski’s stance reflects the belief that influence comes from persistence, even at the cost of friction.

The political backdrop gives the dispute added weight. In Coral Gables, commission appointments to boards often reflect broader policy positions and alliances. Lago and Castro have clashed often, and their appointees sometimes carry those differences into board deliberations. This exchange fit a familiar pattern in which appointments serve as extensions of the officials who selected them — in this case, a Lago–Castro proxy battle.

Kawalerski’s criticisms of the county commissioner’s position on the project carried a strong neighborhood-protection focus — what critics might call NIMBYism, but what supporters see as safeguarding the city’s scale and character. This outlook is common among residents who resist high-density projects near single-family neighborhoods and who view county zoning overlays as eroding local decision-making.

Behar’s comments revealed a different calculation: that the city’s effectiveness depends partly on how county leaders perceive and interact with its boards. By his account, his own encounter with Regalado days later was awkward — a sign that the July exchange might have left her less inclined to engage. To him, that risk outweighed the benefits of pointed questioning in a public meeting.

The contrast was striking not just in their views but in their manner. In August, Behar’s challenge to Kawalerski was more animated than her questioning of Regalado had been in July. The irony was not lost on those watching: the most heated moment in the ongoing discussion of “respect” came not from the initial exchange, but from the debate about it.

The dispute also underscores a larger question for Coral Gables boards: what does representation mean in practice? For some, it is about serving as a bridge between residents and higher levels of government, which requires diplomacy and careful messaging. For others, it is about giving voice to resident frustrations as directly as possible, trusting that candor is more valuable than courtesy in shaping outcomes.

The balance between advocacy and diplomacy will remain a defining test for both board members and the officials who appoint them — especially when the county has a say in projects.