Last evening I attended a debate between State Senator Gwen Margolis and Miami-Dade County Commissioner Sally Heyman on the subject of changing the county charter to create a "strong mayor." The event was held at the American Legion Hall, and was hosted by Nancy Leibman of the Urban Environment League.

I walked in the room with an open mind. I hadn't done any in-depth research on the subject, but hearing that the county commissioners were willing to spend a lot of money in attorneys' fees trying to keep the charter change off the ballot and out of the hands of the citizens was enough to turn me off a little. I was genuinely curious to hear an open debate on the topic, and to have the ramifications explained to my satisfaction. Unfortunately, the first indication that I wasn't going to get an open debate came when I saw they didn't have enough microphones for the moderator and both guests, and when the moderator made it clear she supports the pending proposal. This was not a professional debate in any way.

I'm happy to say that thanks to Senator Margolis's arguments in favor of the "strong mayor" proposal, I am now solidly against the idea. Her smug and condescending attitude toward the debate, her barely concealed contempt for the very idea of a county commission, her blasé remark that she didn't do anything about corruption during her time as a county commissioner because she "didn't want to embarrass Alex [Penelas]", and her cynicism toward local elections turned me off so much that had she been unopposed in the debate I would have likely gone the other way.

I expect bloggers to be cynical about elections, and about the role money plays in them. But to hear a sitting state senator say "to be a mayor here you just need $3,000,000" and "Anyone with $400,000 can be a county commissioner" was pretty staggering. Even more astounding is that somehow this is supposed to reinforce the idea that we should give unchecked power to anyone who can raise three million bucks.

By and large I am in favor of political gridlock. In an organization the size of the county government with a multi-billion dollar budget, giving one political animal that much power (including hire-and-fire over 30,000 county employees) is a huge risk, and one I'm not willing to take. All department head positions will be political appointments by the mayor, similar to presidential cabinet positions. If someone can come up with a better scenario to create a Boss Tweed/Old Daley political machine, I'd like to hear it.

Strong leader positions are great, provided you get a qualified and decent person. Unfortunately, we don't get to set up a system where we say "Okay, this guy is good, so we'll give him additional powers," and then in four years "This guy's a weasel, let's strip his powers." You make the change and to a great extent, you are stuck with it. It's like I tell my conservative friends who get all lathered up when I complain about Bush's signing statements and power grabs, saying that the president needs that power: imagine President Hillary Clinton, and tell me you want her to have those same powers.

Sure, maybe Alvarez isn't that bad (but having been at the FTAA demonstrations a few years back, I have my own doubts), but what if a complete numb-nuts got elected? After all, Gwen Margolis says it's all about money, and god knows there are plenty of rich idiots out there.

The current commission is a mess, and political maneuvering has allowed our long-standing Miami tradition of rampant development-based greed and corruption to reach new heights. However, handing the mayor new powers without significant oversight isn't going to fix the problem, it's just going to put us on the express train to hell. The solution is complex, but better enforcement of existing laws and regulations is the place to start.

On the other hand, the developers and lobbyists must love the prospect of a strong mayor. It will simplify their bookkeeping so much, with all the payoff checks being made out to the same name.