By the Coral Gables Gazette editorial board
Before anyone testified about Crystal Residences, Coral Gables required an oath.
Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to provide will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
The oath does not magically transform every opinion into legal evidence. But it does establish something more basic: truthfulness is required.
That distinction became important Tuesday, when attorney David Winker presented videos and witness statements alleging that multiple supporters of Crystal Residences had appeared before the city, under oath, using addresses that were nonexistent, commercial or belonged to people who said they did not know the speakers.
The commission ultimately referred those allegations for investigation.
It also kept voting.
That sequence should trouble anyone who has ever spent hours at City Hall waiting for three minutes at the microphone.
City Attorney Cristina Suárez correctly explained the law. A resident simply saying “I support this project” or “I oppose this project” does not constitute the competent substantial evidence required to support a quasi-judicial land-use decision. Factual testimony can.
That is an important distinction.
It is not an excuse for indifference about whether people appearing before the City Commission told the truth.
The alleged falsehood Tuesday was not merely whether someone liked Crystal Residences. It concerned who speakers said they were and where they said they lived. Those are factual representations made after taking an oath.
And even if those representations ultimately prove immaterial to the legal criteria for approving a planned area development, they plainly matter to the integrity of the public process.
Developers display supporters. Opponents organize neighbors. Commissioners hear repeatedly about community backing and neighborhood opposition. Hundreds of letters of support for Crystal Residences were invoked during its years-long review. Public participation may not decide a quasi-judicial application by head count, nor should it. But nobody who has watched a contentious land-use hearing can seriously maintain that the appearance of community support has no civic or political significance.
That is why Winker’s presentation deserved more than a referral running on a parallel track with final approval.
He showed clips of people giving Coral Gables addresses, followed by residents or building occupants who said those people did not live there. He showed at least one speaker giving different addresses at different hearings. He showed several of the same people appearing at an unrelated Miami-Dade County development hearing. He raised questions about a frequent Crystal Residences supporter who had also helped gather hundreds of letters backing the project.
None of that establishes who, if anyone, organized the speakers. It does not establish that they were paid. And nothing presented Tuesday established that Fifield Companies, its attorneys or anyone else associated with Crystal Residences knew about any alleged misrepresentation.
Those are questions for an investigation.
That is precisely the point.
An investigation is what should establish the facts before government decides how much they matter.
Winker is also not politically detached from Coral Gables. He served as registered agent for the committee that sought unsuccessfully to recall Mayor Vince Lago in 2024 and has represented Commissioner Melissa Castro in unrelated matters. Readers deserve to know that history.
But political history does not determine whether an address exists. It does not determine who lives in an apartment. And it does not explain why someone would give one address at one hearing and another at another.
Test the evidence. Do not test the messenger instead.
The reactions Tuesday made the problem clearer.
Police Chief Ed Hudak acknowledged that false testimony under oath potentially “could be construed as a crime.” He then said such an investigation could be lengthy and compared the situation to someone falsely claiming to be 60 when he is actually 65.
“Is that technically perjury? Yes,” Hudak said. “Is that something that would rise to the level of a prosecution? No. I don’t believe it would.”
But lying about your age and falsely claiming a Coral Gables address while speaking to the city about a controversial development are materially different. Whether that difference has legal significance is something investigators should determine, not something City Hall should assume away before investigating.
Commissioner Richard Lara, an attorney, said he did not support anyone coming before the city “trying to deceive.” But he called the argument that commissioners should hold up the vote until the record was clear “specious.”
“It rings hollow to me,” Lara said.
What mattered to him, he said, was the competent substantial evidence accumulated during five years of review.
Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson said the allegations should be investigated and promised to disregard statements from anyone found to have falsified information. Then she proceeded to support the project while the allegations remained unresolved.
Mayor Lago’s language was stronger. He called it “atrocious” that anyone would lie about supporting or opposing the project, as well as “embarrassing” and “shameful.” And, to his credit, he did more than complain.
After the commission approved the first Crystal Residences item 3-1, Lago temporarily handed off the gavel and personally moved to refer the allegations through the Police Department to whatever outside authorities were appropriate. Castro seconded him. The motion passed 4-0.
Commissioners then resumed voting and approved the remaining Crystal Residences items 3-1.
That sequence captures the problem better than anything anyone said.
The commission considered the alleged misconduct serious enough to warrant police involvement and possible referral to prosecutors or ethics authorities, but not serious enough to wait for any of them to determine what happened before completing the approvals.
Fifield has said it was shocked by the allegations, does not condone lying or misleading information and supports a full investigation. There is no basis at this point to say the company knew about or participated in any alleged misconduct.
Good. Then everyone should want the same thing: facts.
Castro was already opposed to Crystal Residences and had numerous other objections to the project. She was hardly a neutral vote waiting to be persuaded Tuesday.
But on this question, she had the better instinct.
“To stand before a commission, raise your hand, swear to tell the truth, and then provide false information, that is not public participation,” she said. “That is a direct attack on the integrity of this process.”
She was right about the process.
The question is not whether the disputed testimony would ultimately have changed the legally supportable outcome for Crystal Residences. Perhaps it would not have. City staff, professional experts and multiple boards created a substantial record supporting the project over five years.
The question is what a government should do when credible evidence surfaces suggesting that people may have deliberately falsified factual information while participating in that process under oath.
Surely the answer cannot be: approve now, investigate later.
The commission was right to order an investigation. It was wrong to act as though determining whether its own sworn public record had been manipulated could wait until after the land-use decisions were made.
Perhaps investigators will find innocent explanations. Perhaps some addresses were mistakes. Perhaps every disputed statement proves legally irrelevant to the project approval.
If so, say so after establishing the facts.
An oath is not ceremonial decoration. Coral Gables cannot require people to swear that what they are about to say is true, then treat credible evidence that some of them may have lied as an administrative matter to sort out later.
The next time someone raises a right hand before a Coral Gables commission meeting, the city owes that person, and everyone watching, an answer to a simple question:
If the truth can wait until after the vote, what exactly was the oath for?
This Post Has 9 Comments
There is reason to believe Fifield PAID substantial money for the recruitment of this testimony.
This goes to the CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPER!
What is the difference between Fifield similarly CUTTING CORNERS ON COMPLYING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY CODES?
CHEAT ON COMMUNITY SUPPORT, CHEAT ON SAFE CONSTRUCTION.
This is Corruption which is comparable to lying to the public about need for structural repairs at City Hall.
Not acceptable behavior.
Sincerely,
Jackson Rip Holmes
This is why we should vote for anyone but Lago in November. What happened to transparency? Couldn’t this have been deferred until they investigated a bit?
Mayor Lago has no legal training as evidenced by his ignorant statements about the law. City Attorney Suarez remains silent to keep her excessive compensation (base salary $268,693, annual retirement of $67,173, annual car allowance of $8,446 +++). For Zoning Code and land use exceptions, testimony of neighbors constitutes competent substantial evidence on issues of compatibility. Miami-Dade County v. New Life Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, Inc., 750 So. 2d 738, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). That is because testimony by neighbors as to density, traffic, noise and safety are significant factors that must be considered before granting any exception. Statements by Anderson and Lara to the contrary are either ignorant or malicious lies. Everybody knows that a traffic impact study (“TIS”) is REQUIRED prior to approval of any planned area development per City Code Section 74-208(a). The developer’s lobbyist agreed that the TIS submitted was stale and would be updated. Lago, Anderson and Lara break the law by giving Zoning Code exceptions to a developer who makes substantial contributions to their campaign and/or PAC without a TIS using fraudulent testimony as to compatibility.
.
As to the fraud, City Code Section 38-42 requires all persons presenting before the Commission be duty-bound to be truthful. Lago acknowledged the fraud. Section 38-45(b) provides that any beneficiary of a false claim shall also be found to have submitted a false claim to the City – this includes the Chicago-based developer of Crystal Residences. Section 38-45(e) authorizes the Commission to revoke any approvals granted with respect to such lies. Section 38-45(c)(4) prohibits such developer from contracting with the City (e.g., the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants submitted with the proposed development) for a period of 5 years – that is not discretionary. Lago promoted amending the Charter to create an inspector general. Why is Lago referring this matter elsewhere when the City has an IG whose investigation can determine whether Fifield’s conduct prevents the destruction of The Garden of Our Lord? Because he wants these wrongs buried due to his knowledge/involvement or based on Fifield’s $10,000 and/or Pino/Century’s $25,000 contribution? Unless fully investigated, this will taint his future political campaigns. And such investigation should start immediately with a report issued before early voting starts on October 24, 2026 – unless Lago is hiding the truth from voters.
I have raised my right hand to pledge the oath when I joined the Navy, the FBI, and also during court cases. The Oath to Truth is more than a gesture; it is a discipline, a moral anchor, and a safeguard against the corrosive pull of ego, ideology, and convenience. To take an oath to truth is to commit yourself to evidence over emotion, integrity over influence, and accountability over applause. It demands the courage to confront uncomfortable facts, the humility to correct your own missteps, and the resolve to resist narratives shaped by power rather than reality. In a world where misinformation spreads faster than clarity, an oath to truth becomes a quiet act of defiance and a powerful act of service: a pledge to uphold the principles that protect institutions, communities, and the rule of law itself. Though I have retired, The Oath has not.
The apparently fraudulent public comments fit a pattern. Last month the Gazette reported that Steven Fifield, the founder and CEO of the development company, gave $10,000 to the mayor’s PAC twelve days before commissioners voted on the developer’s proposal.
That pay-for-play was legal. To my knowledge, none of the commissioners who voted to approve the proposal have publicly affirmed or denied that the campaign contribution affected their votes.
They do, though, now implicitly maintain that their votes were not affected by public comment. That is the meaning of the mayor’s stated rationale for proceeding to vote on the developer’s proposal even after attorney Winker’s demonstration of how much of the public comment in support of the proposal was based on lies.
The proposal has generated opposition primarily because it entails demolition of the Garden of Our Lord. The developer can keep it and provide new facilities for the school but wants to monetize the space that the garden occupies. Express public opposition specifically to new facilities for the school is scant to nonexistent. So is express public support to bulldoze the garden. One benefit of the controversy over the proposal is that it has clarified what city officials value and what they do not.
Vote now and investigate later? I, for one, was shocked regarding the false testimony of “supposed residents” who appeared to be there for some other reason. This needs to be investigated fully and these people need to be stopped from doing this again somewhere else in the future. Apparently, from what was presented, they have done this before at other meetings. What will prevent them from doing it again unless there is a full investigation and they are caught. But more importantly, why did they do it? Were they hired by someone? Again, someone needs to get to the bottom of this. Something is extremely “fishy.”
Also, there was plenty of testimony from folks like Kariela Carbonell, President of Historic Preservation Association of Coral Gables who made excellent points as to why the zoning should NOT be changed. All these points were simply ignored by the Commission and the project appeared to be pushed through because, “The Developer has waited so long and this has been tied up for no reason and the poor children of Crystal Academy are suffering. The children of Crystal Academy are going to suffer when they are moved to another location during construction and no one seems to address this.
This is a great editorial and I love the last line:
If the truth can wait until after the vote, what exactly was the oath for?
I can’t wait to hear what the truth is!
This is outrageous. At least now the faces of these liars are in the public record. They should be posted at city hall the way a business would post the pictures of somebody writing bad checks.
If testimony by neighbors as to density, traffic, noise and safety are significant factors that must be considered BEFORE granting any exception, then every single person who swore an oath but falsified their addresses needs to the removed from those who testified in support of the change of zoning. They won’t be affected by increased density, a towering building, increased traffic, and the incompatible development that they helped to enable. They won’t mourn the loss of the Garden of Our Lord because they don’t live in that neighborhood. They are bald-faced liars, who committed perjury, but the majority on our city commission chose to look the other way. Ordering an investigation AFTER voting to approve what has been obtained under false pretenses is just for appearances sake.
The mayor spouts legal misinformation and the two actual attorneys on the dais go right along with him. They are more at fault than the mayor because they should be held to a higher standard since they are “Officers of the Court”. They should act like it.
My takeaway here is that the majority of our City Commissioners do NOT hold the truth, as demanded by affirming to an Oath prior to making public comments, to be that important. The fact that both attorney Vice Mayor Anderson ‘promised to disregard statements from anyone found to have falsified information’ (too late for that) and attorney Commissioner Lara disregarded this as ‘it rings hollow to me’ continued to vote in favor of the developer’s project in light of these fraudulent allegations shows that both the truth AND public comments do not actually matter.
Aside from the obvious advantage of proponent statements favoring Chicago developer Fifield, it’s really Crystal Academy that has the most to gain privately from this project with a free 99-year lease which does not benefit residents at all. I’ve attended several meetings at the Board of Architects where a disproportionate number of speakers support Crystal Academy (ergo Crystal Residences) vs actual CG residents living near the project who oppose. I would start looking there for some good ol’ Miami-style dirty business if The City every delves into this travesty in earnest, which they absolutely should do. No integrity in the process leads to no faith in our city’s government.
The real hero here has been Commission Castro, who is so often openly disparaged by the Mayor and Comm. Lara that I cringe. Over the last several years, she has shown nothing but integrity and support for issues her constituents really want and care about.