Letters from the Issue of July 10-16, 2003

No secret deals, no hidden agendas, no disguises: After reading Kirk Nielsen's second article on the attempt by Miami-Dade [Community] College to acquire the Freedom Tower, I feel compelled to set the record straight and provide some facts to supplement the two highly misleading pieces he wrote ("Bad Man on Campus, Part 1 and Part 2," June 19 and July 3).

The facts are as simple as this: The Mas family owns a piece of property they felt was worth millions of dollars more than the college was willing to pay. While the sellers were willing to reduce the purchase price, the sellers wanted to make the last reduction by way of a donation to the college. In this way the sellers thought they might be able to obtain a deduction for a charitable contribution, since they would be transferring property worth much more than the price they would receive. All of this was set forth in black and white in one document, which is publicly available. There were no secret deals, hidden agendas, side letters, or attempts to disguise the facts -- something that is done extensively in Nielsen's two articles. The transaction did not come to fruition because, even with the donation, the net purchase price to the college was more than the college was willing to pay.

Most of the conjecture in Nielsen's two articles, particularly in the opinions of his "experts," is based on the supposition that the college was considering paying (for reasons that are never explained) an "inflated" price for the Freedom Tower. At no meeting or discussion I attended or in which I participated was there any consideration given to the payment by the college of an "inflated" price, nor did anyone raise the possibility that the purchase or the purchase price would be "inappropriate."

As [former MDCC vice president] Adis Vila knew very well, the college, as required by law, was always going to obtain its own two appraisals of the Freedom Tower before committing to purchase the building and was not going to rely on the seller's appraisal, which, incidentally, on a preliminary basis, appraised the building at several million dollars more than the sellers were asking the college to pay. In fact in Vila's memorandum of November 4, 2002, in which she "strongly" recommended to the president of the college the purchase of the Freedom Tower, Vila stated that "presently, the building is valued at approximately $35 million (formal appraisals would need to be ordered)." By the way, the price mentioned by Vila is more than twice the price the sellers were proposing to the college. In addition to mentioning the Mas family's willingness to make a gift to the institution purchasing the building, Vila listed in her memorandum as "positive aspects of the purchase" 21 facility, programmatic, and resource-development opportunities.

Despite having a copy of Vila's memorandum to college president Eduardo Padrón, and knowing of her many positive statements while urging the purchase of the Freedom Tower, Nielsen never makes mention of it in his articles; nor does he question, as any responsible reporter would, why Vila now finds so many things wrong with it.

Mr. Nielsen's fiction does harm to an important institution in our community and to all those who labor there.

Rene Murai

Miami

Editor's note: Attorney Rene Murai was hired by Miami-Dade Community College to negotiate the purchase of the Freedom Tower.

Yes, I said this and yes, I said that -- but an important distinction was missing: My ethics commentary cited in Kirk Nielsen's "Bad Man on Campus, Part 2" deserves clarification. Like many investigative journalists, Nielsen elicited my commentary by posing a hypothetical, in this case regarding a contemplated real estate transaction between a public college and a private corporation.

Nielsen correctly reported that, based on the facts put forward in this hypothetical, I deemed the transaction itself facially unobjectionable and enforceable. Nielsen also correctly reported that, based on our wide-ranging discussion of public-policy matters unrelated to the precise subject of his investigation, I looked with skepticism upon a public college adopting a practice of steering vendor contracts to private third-party donor prospects.

It is important to note, however, that the above-described real estate transaction posited in his hypothetical raised none of these specific public-policy considerations. To overlook this noteworthy distinction risks not only misleading readers but also unfairly sullying the parties to the transaction.

Anthony V. Alfieri, professor

University of Miami School of Law

Coral Gables

Absolutely clueless when it comes to teachers: Merrett Stierheim has to go. He does not understand or care about the backbone of the educational system -- its teachers! Ask him a question and he defers to a staff member to answer. It is simply beyond him. We need an educator to run the system.

Mark Wilson

Westchester

In that disgusting cesspool, he's the only one we can trust: It's absolutely essential that Merrett Stierheim be able to stay long enough to finish his job. He is the only person with the brains and independence to clean up the mess. The citizens of this county no longer will put up with the waste of billions of our tax dollars. We are shocked beyond rage at the details coming out of that cesspool! Many friends and neighbors agree with me that if anyone should go, it is the school board members themselves.

All we need is for our children to be properly educated in comfortable conditions. The rest of the details can be taken care of by relatively fewer caring and honest managers who have their priorities set in the right direction.

Ellie Monnette

Cutler Ridge

That's easy -- it was deplorable: I'm writing to voice my support for R. Donahue Peebles as well as all people of color. I found the headline "Bitch-Slapping Whitey" (June 5) and the insinuations contained in Francisco Alvarado's article to be deplorably racist. Using terminology associated with pimping in the headline is not clever wordplay; it simply perpetuates tired stereotypes.

I've often suspected that Miami, though touted as a cosmopolitan city, has a long way to go before it catches up with a bare minimum of the progressive social paradigms found elsewhere. This editorial epithet did little to dispel the notion.

When I saw that blatantly racist headline (yes, I understand irony, but if that was the effect New Times was going for, you missed the mark), I was overwhelmed with disgust. It was particularly shocking since I had considered New Times to be an alternative weekly. In this case, it resembled a right-wing publication dating from the Jim Crow era. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the manner in which Peebles conducts his business, most would agree that a more nuanced approach could have been used to convey the editorial content. Indeed I find it hard to fathom the scene in which that image was presented to the editor and somehow met his approval. What was he thinking?

Thanks for alienating the black community!

C. Barrow

Miami Beach