• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Foreword
 Elizabeth Virrick and the "concrete...
 The Miami diocese and the Cuban...
 Chapman Field - the evolution of...
 Historical Association of Southern...
 List of members
 Back Cover






Title: Tequesta
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00101446/00061
 Material Information
Title: Tequesta
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Historical Association of Southern Florida
Publisher: (multiple)
Publication Date: 2001
Copyright Date: 2010
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00101446
Volume ID: VID00061
Source Institution: Florida International University: Florida History and Heritage
Holding Location: Historical Museum of Southern Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 2096319
lccn - 42015131
issn - 0363-3705

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 24 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Foreword
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Elizabeth Virrick and the "concrete monsters": Housing reform in postwar Miami
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    The Miami diocese and the Cuban refugee crisis of 1960-1961
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Chapman Field - the evolution of a south Dade army airdrome
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
    Historical Association of Southern Florida
        Page 86
    List of members
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
    Back Cover
        Page 107
        Page 108
Full Text





( THE JOURNAL OF THE HISTORICAL
Ce' l4 CS FA ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA

Paul S. George, Ph.D.
Editor
Sara Mufioz
Managing Editor
Kelly Geisinger
Editorial Assistant

NUMBER LXI 2001


CONTENTS
Editor's Forew ord................... ............ 3
by Paul S. George, Ph.D.

Elizabeth Virrick and the "Concrete Monsters":
H housing R eform in Postw ar M iam i......... ........................................................................... 5
Raymond A. Mohl

The Miami Diocese and the
C ub an R refugee C crisis of 196 0-19 6 1 ............................................................................. ........ ...... ...... 3 8
Francis J. Sicius, Ph.D.

Chapman Field-The Evolution of
a South D ade A rm y A irdrom e ............... .................................... 58
Raymond G. McGuire

Historical Association of Southern Florida Members ............ ........ 86


COPYRIGHT 2001
THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA
Tequesta is published annually by the Historical Association of Southern Florida. Communications
should be addressed to the Managing Editor of Tequesta, Historical Museum of Southern Florida,
101 W. Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130. Tel-305.375.1492. The Association does not
assume responsibility for statements of facts or opinions made by contributors. (ISSN 0363-3705)

On the Cover-Luis Ares, one of the children of Operation Pedro Pan, looks out on to
Biscayne Bay from the sea wall at Mercy hospital, 1963. Luis, age 13, left his parents
and two sisters in Cienfuegos. Courtesy of the Archdiocese of Miami.






2 TEQUESTA


Historical Association of Southern Florida, Inc.
FOUNDED 1940-INCORPORATED 1941


William Ho
Richard A. Wood
Edward A. Swakon
William H. Holly
Neil A. Burell
Robert B. Battle
J. Andrew Brian
Paul S. George, Ph.D.
Sara Muiioz
Rebecca A. Smith


Chairman of the Board
First Vice Chair
Second Vice Chair
Secretary
Treasurer
Past Chair
President
Editor, Tequesta
Editor, South Florida History
Curator ofResearch Materials


Trustees
Andrew Albury
Angela R. Bellamy
Dennis Campbell
Jorge Cano
Donna E. Corredera
Xavier Cortada
Robert G. David
Edward H. Davis, Jr.
Michael Falke
Gregg Guilford
Mark Karris
John Knight
Linda Lubitz
Bruce Matheson
Arsenio Milian
Lewis E Murphy
Dorothy C. Norton
Dr. Edmund I. Parnes
Scott A. Poulin
Lorraine Punancy-Stewart
Raul R. Suarez
Dr. Michael N. Rosenberg
Dinizulu Gene S. Tinnie
Judy Wiggins









Editor's Foreword

In the expansive era following World War II, Greater Miami, like com-
munities elsewhere in America, experienced rapid population growth
triggered by explosive suburban development. However, the tremen-
dous influx of Cuban refugees, the shifting fortunes of tourism, and the
ultimate emergence of a New World Center helped set the area apart
from other urban centers. Each of the articles in this issue of Tequesta
examines, to varying degrees, elements of mid-twentieth century
Greater Miami. Indeed, the time has arrived for an examination of that
era since enough years have elapsed to bring the proper historical per-
spective to a watershed period in the city's and region's history.
No one has paid more attention to the issues, events, processes, and
personalities of mid-century Miami and southeast Florida than
Raymond Mohl, one of the profession's preeminent urban historians, as
well as a prolific chronicler of Florida history. In a series of seminal arti-
cles appearing in a wide array of scholarly journals and focusing on
Miami's African American communities, the impact of 1-95 on inner
city neighborhoods, local labor and political radicalism: and the civil
rights movement, Mohl has brought the scholarly study of Miami's rich
history up to the recent past. In "Elizabeth Virrick and the 'Concrete
Monsters': Housing Reform in Postwar Miami," Mohl, a professor of
history and chairman of the department of history, University of
Alabama, Birmingham, provides the reader with a perceptive article on
a remarkable reformer and the causes she espoused in her lengthy career
as a civic activist in the Magic City.
Tequesta readers may recall the illuminating article by Francis Sicius,
a Professor of History at Saint Thomas University, entitled, The
Miami-Havana Connection: The First Seventy-five Years," which
appeared in this journal in 1998. With "The Miami Diocese and the
Cuban Refugee Crisis of 1960-1961," Dr. Sicius focuses on the critical
role of the fledgling Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami, which, almost
alone in the early 1960s, answered the cries for assistance from thou-
sands of refugees fleeing Castro's Cuba for Miami. In "Chapman
Field-The Evolution of a South Dade Army Airdrome," Raymond G.
McGuire explains the vicissitudes in the uses and fortunes of a widely-
coveted parcel of real estate in south Miami-Dade County. Readers will
marvel over the plans for that parcel, as well as its actual utilization,






4 TEQUESTA


since the era of World War I. Dr. McGuire, who holds a Ph.D. in Plant
Pathology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, served as a
research scientist at the United States Department of Agriculture's
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station at Chapman Field before
turning to teaching. Presently, he teaches biology at South Dade Senior
High School.
Earlier this year, the Florida Historical Society, which traces its ori-
gins to 1856, presented the 2001 Hampton Dunn Award for Print
Media to Tequesta, as the state's top history journal. The Historical
Association of Southern Florida is both proud of and humbled by this
award. We are also gratified by the warm responses of many of our
readers to the 2000 issue of Tequesta.


Paul S. George
Editor, Tequesta






5








Elizabeth Virrick and the

"Concrete Monsters":

Housing Reform in Postwar Miami

Raymond A. Mohl



To the casual visitor, postwar
Miami had all the appearances
of a dreamlike tropical paradise.
This glitzy resort capital of the
nation seemed perpetually
bathed in warm sunshine and
gentle ocean breezes, an urban
landscape buried in lush
foliage, blooming hibiscus, and
bougainvillea, and tall, stately
palms. Its beautiful beaches,
fishing grounds, golf courses,
country clubs, racetracks, and
illegal gambling casinos attract-
ed the rich and famous each
winter season. Endless promo-
tional extravaganzas, intense Elizabeth Virrick in an undated photograph.
national media attention, and HASF, Miami News Collection 1989-011-23561.
the Miami-based popular
television shows of Arthur Godfrey and Jackie Gleason all kept the
public spotlight focused on the tropical resort image of this emerging
Sunbelt city well into the 1950s and after.
But there was trouble in this winter paradise, trouble stemming from
Miami's "Deep South" racial divide. From Miami's origins in the 1890s,






6 TEQUESTA


the city's African American population had been subjected to
second-class citizenship, denied equal educational and job opportuni-
ties, and confined residentially to a few segregated areas of mostly
run-down rental housing controlled by politically powerful slumlords.
As Miami Mayor Perrine Palmer put in a 1947 speech on Miami's
low-cost housing needs, "Even though Miami is the youngest of the
metropolitan cities, it is already rotting at the core, like the older
ones."' It was a shocking admission, coming from the leading public
official of America's number one tourist and recreational playground. At
the time, Mayor Palmer was pushing for Congressional passage of the
hotly debated Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, which provided federal funds
for slum clearance, public housing, and urban redevelopment. Congress
eventually approved the legislation, known as the federal Housing Act
of 1949, but its full implemen-
tation remained problematic,
especially in southern cities
such as Miami.
In the late 1940s, Mayor
Palmer and other Miami advo-
cares of public housing and
urban redevelopment found an
unlikely ally in a citizen's move-
ment for housing reform led by
a diminutive, middle-class,
middle-aged white woman
named Elizabeth Virrick. By
the early 1950s, when she had
become Miami's "number one
slum fighter," community
organizer, and housing advo-
In the early 1950s, the City of Miami began cate, Virrick was a force to be
razing substandard dwellings, such as this reckoned with in the city's
one, in its black neighborhoods. highly contested political land-
HASF, Miami News Collection 1989-011-1691. scape. Throughout the postwar
era, she fought the slumlords
and the speculative builders who were squeezing tremendous profits
from what Virrick called the "concrete monsters"-the newly built two-
and three-story apartments that densely covered Miami's inner-city






Elizabeth Virrick &d the "Concrete Monsters"


Black ghetto. She challenged the implementation of urban renewal
programs that benefited landowners and developers but ignored
low-income housing needs. In the late 1950s and 1960s, when
inner-city expressways threatened to decimate Miami's Black neighbor-
hoods, Virrick launched a virtual one-woman anti-freeway movement.
By the 1960s, Virrick was deeply involved in "Great Society" fair hous-
ing, job opportunity, and social service programs. Most Miamians
generally agreed that for their city, Virrick "fired the first shots in the
war on poverty."2 Urban change is generally a slow and tedious process,
but through her relentless social activism over four decades, Virrick
demonstrated that human agency could make a difference in urban
policy, municipal politics, and community life.
A native of Winchester, Kentucky, and the daughter of an attorney,
Elizabeth Landsberg was born in 1897. She attended the University of
Wisconsin and then Columbia University in New York City, where she
studied architecture but never graduated. At Columbia she met
Vladimir E. Virrick, a young architect from Russia who had been serv-
ing in the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C. when the Russian
Revolution broke out in 1917. He never returned to his native country
and soon went on to the Columbia University School of Architecture.
The Virricks married in 1925 and traveled to Miami on their honey-
moon. At the time, Miami and Miami Beach were in the midst of the
astonishing but short-lived South Florida real estate and housing boom.
It must have seemed a promising time and place for a young architect
to begin building a professional career, and the Virricks never left South
Florida. Vladimir established an architectural practice in Miami, while
Elizabeth kept house, raised a daughter, and for several years ran a ste-
nography business in Miami Beach. The family lived in Haiti for a time
in the early 1940s, when Vladimir worked as the chief architect for the
Societe Haitienne Americaine de Development Agricole, but otherwise
their life in Miami remained uneventful until Elizabeth's conversion to
housing reform and political activism in 1948.
Elizabeth Virrick's emergence as a housing reformer coincided with
dramatic changes in American cities. Indeed, as World War II came to an
end in 1945, urban America stood at the brink of unprecedented
change. Over five million rural dwellers had migrated to the cities for
wartime factory jobs. Many cities experienced severe housing shortages,
intense social service demands, and some nasty episodes of racial conflict.






8 TEQUESTA


Perhaps most significantly, many American city dwellers came to share
the view that the postwar era would be a time for a massive "reconstruc-
tion" of the American city-a view promoted by big-city mayors, urban
planners, downtown civic leaders, and urban real estate interests.
Ambitious plans for urban reconstruction surged to the surface in
postwar America. The urban housing stock often dated to the industrial
era of the late nineteenth century, slums needed to be cleared, and new
housing built. The coming of the automobile posed still another kind
of challenge, since urban street systems built for pedestrians, horses,
and electric streetcars were now outdated; cities needed to rebuild their
transportation systems to accommodate the automobile. At the same
time, several demographic and economic transformations were under-
way. The Black migration from the rural South to the industrial centers
of the North, Midwest, and West Coast had already begun to swell the
central cities. Simultaneously, postwar urban America was on the verge
of spilling out its white population into burgeoning postwar suburbs.
The beginnings of "de-industrialization"-the abandonment of the
urban core by American industry-also could be found by around
1950. These powerful transformations quickened the pace of urban
change after 1945.
Throughout this era of growth and change in American cities, politi-
cal leaders, business interests, and citizens groups fought to achieve
alternative visions of the urban future. Elizabeth Virrick's reform activi-
ties in Miami are best understood in the context of these battles over
the direction of national urban policy. The national Housing Act of
1949 represented the first major effort by the federal government to
address the needs of cities in the postwar period. After a protracted
debate that began in the early 1940s, a compromise housing measure
eventually garnered sufficient votes for Congressional passage. The new
legislation sought to satisfy interest groups with deeply contradictory
aims. In the first place, appeasing the liberal housing lobby, the 1949
housing law stated as its goal the realization of "a decent home and a
suitable living environment for every American family." To reach that
admirable goal, Congress authorized 810,000 units of public housing
over the next six years, primarily funded by the federal government. It
also provided for a program of slum clearance and urban redevelop-
ment. Using the power of eminent domain and with two-thirds of the
funding coming from Washington, city redevelopment agencies could






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters"


purchase slum properties and then resell the assembled land parcels to
private developers at a lower price. One key requirement held that the
land acquired in this way had to be "predominantly residential," either
before or after redevelopment. This permissive loophole made it possible
for private developers to condemn low-income housing areas and
redevelop the land for other, more lucrative purposes-shopping centers,
business buildings, expensive apartment houses, and the like.
The real estate and building lobby found much to its liking in the
slum clearance and redevelopment provisions of the Housing Act of
1949. It promised a profitable subsidy to the real estate developers. By
contrast, public housing advocates initially viewed the slum clearance
section of the law as a necessary compromise that would speed
Congressional approval of the housing provisions. "Public housers," as
the reformers were called, took seriously the stated legislative commit-
ment to provide decent housing to all. They expected that cleared
and redeveloped land, or some of it anyway, would be allocated for
new low-income housing projects. But in actual practice, that rarely
happened. According to one study, of the initial fifty-four urban
redevelopment projects in the early 1950s, only three included any public
housing. Considerably more low-income housing was demolished under
the redevelopment provisions of the law than was built under the public
housing provisions. By 1954, fewer than 200,000 of the promised
810,000 units of public housing had been built. Also, the real estate
interests conducted a bitter campaign to undermine local implementa-
tion of the public housing provisions of the Housing Act of 1949,
causing more frustration to the housing reformers.
Congressional legislation a few years later further shifted national
urban policy away from public housing. The Housing Act of 1954
sought to speed up redevelopment activity, now renamed "urban
renewal." It also added provisions encouraging rehabilitation of existing
properties, requiring relocation of displaced families, mandating citizen
participation, and insisting that redevelopment projects fit into
city-wide zoning and land-use plans. However, practically speaking, the
legislation once again favored developers over public housing advocates.
Indeed, special exemptions freed builders from even the permissive
"residential" provisions of the 1949 law. Consequently, urban renewal
soon came to be labeled "Negro removal," as low-income Black
communities were cleared for inner-city redevelopment projects that






10 TEQUESTA


included little replacement
housing. Moreover, in the
implementation stage, agencies
such as the Federal Housing
Administration failed to
enforce the law, and local hous-

often ignored provisions for
rehabilitation, relocation, and
public housing. Finally,
throughout the 1950s, a conser-
vative-dominated Congress cut
back on annual appropriations
for public housing. In short,
postwar federal housing legisla-
tion seemingly promised much,
but left a legacy of failure. In
Elizabeth Virrick is seen here clutching a the process, cities across the
trophy awarded her as Dade County's nation became battlegrounds
Outstanding Citizen for the year 1948. between real estate developers
HASF, Miami News Collection 1989-011-23560. and housing advocates.
As varied plans for postwar
urban redevelopment unfolded, urban places and spaces became
contested arenas. In the South, where hostility to federal activism and
intervention persisted unchecked into the 1950s and 1960s, urban
reform that depended on federal largesse or that challenged entrenched
racial segregation remained problematic. The real estate industry-
especially private builders and slumlords-fought bitterly against any
form of public or subsidized housing that threatened their profits.
Moreover, the anti-Communist fervor unleashed in the late 1940s by
Senator Joseph McCarthy and his ilk confused the national debate on
urban issues. In Florida and in the South, McCarthyism had the unfor-
tunate consequence of linking housing reformers and civil rights
activists with socialism, communism, and un-American activities.
The national and regional battles over public housing and urban
renewal were replayed in Miami in the late 1940s and 1950s. Southern
attitudes still endured in postwar Miami, and the anti-Communist
crusade resonated widely in this South Florida tourist spa. Thus, urban






Elizabeth Virrick e the "Concrete Monsters" 11


reform that focused on public housing, federal programs, and a fair deal
for African Americans faced an uphill battle. Convergent ideologies in
business and politics-anti-communism, pro-segregationism, and hos-
tility to federal social programs-dominated Miami's political landscape
throughout the period. Under such circumstances, grass-roots social and
housing reformers such as Elizabeth Virrick faced formidable challenges.
Elizabeth Virrick's political awakening took place in 1948. The insti-
gating issue did not seem especially momentous at the time. The place was
Coconut Grove, one of the oldest communities in Miami. A self-contained
village within the city, Coconut Grove had expensive waterfront villas, neat
blocks of middle-class white homes, and a sizable Black community. Black
immigrants from the Bahamas and their descendants made up most of the
residents of Black Coconut Grove. White landlords owned a large portion
of the Black Grove's tiny wood-frame homes and small apartment build-
ings. A compact and badly overcrowded area of about forty blocks, heavily
planted with gardens and fruit trees, Black Coconut Grove suffered from
inadequate municipal services such as water supply, police protection, and
garbage collection; few houses had both running water and indoor toilets.
The one large tract of empty land that still remained in the Black Grove
the so-called St. Albans tract of about seventeen acres-had recently been
purchased by two well-known Miami speculative builders, John Bouvier
and Malcolm Wiseheart. Already active in Miami's Black housing market,
Bouvier and Wiseheart saw potential profit in Coconut Grove and planned
to build apartments and duplexes on the St. Albans tract.
Announcement of these plans stirred passions in the Coconut Grove
community. Nearby white residents had mixed views, most arguing that
the land should be reserved for expansion of an adjoining elementary
school or for white housing, a few others accepting the need for Black
housing but not in the form of multiple units. Some Black spokesmen
made the case for additional Black housing, although not necessarily
large-scale apartment units. For their part, Bouvier and Wiseheart
noted that the St. Albans tract, and indeed all of Black Coconut Grove,
was zoned for commercial and industrial uses and that legally they
could do what they wanted with the land.
Enter Elizabeth Virrick. She and her husband had just invested in
a small, newly constructed apartment building in a white section of
Coconut Grove. When the lily-white Coconut Grove Civic Club held
a public meeting in August 1948 to protest the Bouvier-Wiseheart






12 TEQUESTA


plan to put multiple units of Black housing on the St. Albans tract,
Virrick attended to see what all the commotion was about. Also
invited to attend was the Reverend Theodore Gibson, a Black
Episcopal priest from the Grove, who gave an electrifying speech
about the desperate living conditions in the Black community. A
deep-voiced and stirring orator with roots in the Bahamas, Gibson
proclaimed that "My people are living seven deep." He demanded
that the white community take some responsibility for lack of
enforcement of municipal sanitation ordinances and for the uncon-
trolled activities of the white slumlords. It was a transforming event
for Virrick, who felt at the time that Gibson was speaking directly to
her. As she later remembered in a set of autobiographical notes,
Virrick went to see Gibson at his church the next day, asking what
could be done. Consequently, they organized a second meeting, this one
focused on conditions in Black Coconut Grove and attended by over two
hundred people, both Blacks and Whites, which in itself was a remarkable
event in deeply segregated Miami. Converted by now to grass-roots
activism, Virrick came to the meeting with a reform agenda and a plan
of action. One observer reported what happened: "Father Gibson spoke.


Elizabeth Virrick with Reverend Theodore Gibson, 1969. Father Gibson was Dade
County's foremost Civil Rights leader and an outspoken critic of the city of Miami's
failure at code enforcement, and the uncontrolled activities of white slumlords.
HASF, Miami News Collection 1989-011-0821.






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 13


Mrs. Virrick spoke. Some people spoke who seemed aroused only by a fear
of Negro encroachment. But there were many others who were shocked into
action for improvement." This memorable mass meeting ended with the
formation of the Coconut Grove Citizens Committee for Slum Clearance,
with Elizabeth Virrick as chairman.
With her newly formed institutional base, Virrick became a human
dynamo devoting her energies toward social reform and social action.
She had already begun exploring Black Coconut Grove, discovering living
conditions and social problems for herself. Her friend Marjory Stoneman
Douglas, a well-known writer and Florida environmentalist, described
Virrick's voyage of discovery in an unpublished essay from 1953, "Slum
Clearance, Community Style":

She took her first walk in Coconut Grove colored town, up
one narrow, littered, crowded street and down another...She saw
that whole families were packed into single rooms of
broken-down old houses, into boarded up porches, shacks like
lean-tos and in a few flimsy, over-crowded, too expensive apart-
ment houses...She grew to know intimately every untidy backyard,
heaped with refuse and uncollected garbage, on which rats
fed... She knew exactly where more and more bars were being
built and were running wide open on all the street corners.
Garbage was irregularly picked up or not at all. Flies were every-
where. Children played in the streets without sidewalks. There
were no parks, almost no street lighting...Nobody seemed to pay
any attention to city ordinances against overcrowding, to build-
ings badly built, to uncollected filth. There was little or no
police protection here where no police would bother to enforce
what seemed like unenforceable laws."

Virrick's forays into the Black Grove provided her with insight and
information, which she quickly transformed into a program of action
for the Coconut Grove Citizens Committee.
With Virrick at the helm, the Citizens Committee wasted little time
in getting down to the work of neighborhood improvement. She
appointed subcommittees on sanitation, rezoning, and exorbitant rents.
She convinced the Miami city commission to conduct a survey of sani-
tation and public health in Coconut Grove. She persuaded the city to






14 TEQUESTA


collect garbage regularly and prompted the local water company to
extend water mains to every street in the Black Grove. Virrick success-
fully used her contacts in the press and local radio to publicly pressure
Grove landlords to reduce rents to the same level paid by white families
for comparable housing. Powerful opposition to sanitation and rent
reform came from Miami slumlords, mostly represented by Luther L.
Brooks, who managed a large rent collection agency for apartment
owners. Nevertheless, the Citizens Committee prevailed upon the
Miami city commission to enact several ordinances in October 1948
requiring every Coconut Grove residence to have running water, flush
toilets, and septic tanks, replacing the outdoor wells and privies that
were commonplace throughout the area. When Citizens Committee
members showed up en masse at the city commission debate on the
new ordinances, the crafty Virrick reportedly said: "We have not come
to insult your intelligence by pleading with you to sign these [ordi-
nances]. We are merely here to give ourselves the pleasure of witnessing
your unanimous affirmative vote."7 When some landlords refused to
comply with the new rules, the Citizens Committee got the city health
department to initiate legal action. To assist Black homeowners, a
low-interest loan fund was created to facilitate compliance with the new
ordinance. Successful passage of the city sanitation ordinances seemingly
empowered Virrick and her reform colleagues.
The Citizens Committee soon initiated a variety of other programs
and reforms. A new system of block clubs mobilized the Grove's Black
residents in behalf of community betterment. As a result, a massive
clean-up campaign was initiated, complete with parades, bands, speeches,
and prizes for the best lot improvements. Neighbors banded together to
clean up and transform empty spaces into small parks and playgrounds.
Plans for a community center, a health clinic, adult education pro-
grams, and a day nursery were implemented. The health department
began a campaign of rat, fly, and mosquito extermination. For the first
time, the city hired Black policemen to patrol the Grove area. Within a
year, through persistent local action, Virrick's Citizens Committee had
sparked a remarkable transformation of Black Coconut Grove.
These early achievements of the Coconut Grove Citizens Committee
represented a modest beginning. Coconut Grove, after all, was a small
neighborhood. The slumlords still owned most of the rental housing.
Little had been accomplished on the issue of rezoning Coconut Grove






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters"


from commercial and industrial to single-family residential. The specu-
lative builders had already begun putting up some new apartment
blocks in the Black Grove. The slumlords represented by Brooks and
apartment builders such as Bouvier and Wiseheart had much to lose
and were more intransigent on the zoning issue, and they used their
collective influence to stave off city commission action. The rezoning
issue became Elizabeth Virrick's next big battle for urban reform.
The rezoning campaign pitted the increasingly relentless Virrick and
the Citizens Committee against the locally powerful real estate lobby
and their political allies. Several prominent architects worked with an
interracial subcommittee of the Citizens Committee to develop a new
zoning plan for Black Coconut Grove that would prevent the further
construction of multiple housing units. They sought to retain the
primarily small home, single-family character of the neighborhood.
Residential densities in the area surpassed forty-two persons per acre;
more multiples would intensify the overcrowding that had already
created severe social problems. Moreover, the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) routinely rejected mortgage insurance for
single-family homes in areas zoned for other purposes. Virrick antici-
pated, perhaps unrealistically given official federal government support
for racially segregated housing, that FHA mortgage insurance
approvals would follow a rezoning of the Black Grove. Time con-
straints also motivated the zoning reformers, since construction had
already begun on several new apartment projects. In addition, Bouvier
and Wiseheart were seeking approval of their extensive building plans
for the St. Albans tract.
In January 1949, after numerous hearings and much-heated debate,
both the Miami planning board and the five-member Miami city com-
mission voted down the Citizens Committee rezoning plan for
Coconut Grove. Further debate a month later on compromise propos-
als providing a mix of single-family and duplex units also met defeat,
despite the large crowds of rezoning supporters who jammed into city
commission hearings. Only two of the five commissioners, Mayor
Palmer and H. Leslie Quigg, had consistently supported housing and
zoning reform. Virrick had lobbied vigorously for the rezoning plan,
working the phones, chairing meetings, talking to people in the streets,
getting people out for commission hearings, using her new-found
political clout, pushing for favorable editorials in the local press, even






16 TEQUESTA


threatening to campaign for a seat on the city commission-but ulti-
mately to no avail. After the vote against the new zoning plan, Virrick
publicly blasted the offending commissioners: "You have dedicated
yourselves to those who exploit the Negro," she declared. Coconut
Grove, Black and White, seemed united in support of the plan. In
numerous editorials, the Miami Daily News lashed out at recalcitrant
public officials as "willing tools" of the land speculators and ghetto
builders. But, the builders and landlords came away from the political
debate over zoning with a free hand to put up their "concrete mon-
sters," as Virrick began calling the planned multiple apartment units.
The Coconut Grove reformers did not give up. Defeated by the
builders, the slumlords, and the city commissioners, the Citizens
Committee decided to use an initiative petition to force approval of the
rezoning ordinance. Under Florida law, petition signatures of at least 10
percent of the city's registered voters would compel the city commission
to approve the ordinance or submit it to a referendum in the next gen-
eral election. As Virrick noted at the time, "The issue is whether a civic
group, backed by almost all the citizens of an area, is to have a voice in
deciding an issue they feel is vital to the welfare of the community."'
Between February and June 1949, Citizens Committee activists can-
vassed Miami neighborhoods and set up tables outside stores, banks,
and movie theaters, collecting over eleven thousand signatures, consid-
erably more than the required 10 percent. Two local newspapers, the
Miami Daily News and the Black community's Miami Times, endorsed
the Citizens Committee rezoning petition. The reformers seemed
encouraged by the progress of the petition drive.
The speculative builders fought back in a variety of ways, however.
They were able to get a favorable editorial in the Miami Herald support-
ing their multiple apartment project on the St. Albans tract. At several
points during the petition campaign, Bouvier and Wiseheart sought a
compromise with the Citizens Committee permitting fewer multiple
apartments. The reformers refused, holding out for the best zoning plan.
Later, unidentified burglars broke into the committee's office, rifling
through desks and file cabinets, apparently seeking to thwart the peti-
tion drive. The burglars overlooked the accumulated petitions stored in
a small cabinet obscured by other paperwork. A few days later, the
Miami Herald ran a photograph of Elizabeth Virrick handing over a
two-foot stack of petitions to the Miami city clerk. The petition drive





Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters"


was successful, but on a split vote in July 1949 the Miami city commis-
sion refused to endorse the Coconut Grove rezoning measure, sending it
instead to a referendum vote in the November election.
The rezoning referendum campaign heated up in the fall, replaying
the earlier petition drive. Once again, the debate pitted the Citizens
Committee against the speculative builders and slum landlords. Once
again, the real estate interests worked actively against the rezoning pro-
posal. Bouvier and Wiseheart, for instance, spent heavily on full-page
newspaper ads, some of which "attempted to mislead the public into
thinking that Mrs. Virrick...was endorsing their plan."'0 The Citizens
Committee countered that claim in a last-minute newspaper ad of its
own. On election day, apparently swayed by Virrick's reformist vision of
better housing for all, Miami voters approved the rezoning plan by a
large majority. It was the first time in Florida history that the initiative
and referendum method had been implemented successfully. In the
aftermath of the two-year Coconut Grove struggle, Virrick received
local and national recognition for her community work, including the
Dade County "Woman of the Year" award.
For Elizabeth Virrick, the Coconut Grove zoning battle of the late
1940s turned out to be a mere beginning. In the months and years that
followed, the Citizens Committee carefully monitored activities of the
city planning board, which had the authority to approve zoning vari-
ances. Miami planning officials and city commissioners, not to mention
the builders and slumlords, remained hostile to housing reform, even
after passage of the national Housing Act of 1949, which promised fed-
eral assistance to cities for slum clearance and public housing. Many
southern cities and states rejected federal assistance of any kind because
of a narrowly held conception of states' rights. Such views were still pow-
erful in Miami in the 1950s, when federal support for public housing
seemed to many an opening wedge to take control of local programs.
Moreover, the real estate lobby, nationally and in south Florida, por-
trayed public housing as dangerously un-American and socialistic. At the
same time, they soon recognized the huge profit potential in slum clear-
ance and urban redevelopment activity. Virrick's next big battle sought to
secure, against powerful opposition, local implementation of the public
housing provisions of Housing Act of 1949. She also began shifting her
focus from the small and compact neighborhood of Coconut Grove to
the larger and more complex arena of metropolitan Miami.





18 TEQUESTA


The reformers sparked a protracted struggle in early 1950, a struggle
that lasted more than a decade, when the Miami city commission
rejected federal funding for slum clearance and public housing. As
noted earlier, the Housing Act of 1949 had authorized 810,000 units of
public housing and provided the mechanism for a widespread program
of slum clearance and urban redevelopment. The trouble, as might be
expected, lay in local implementation of the new legislation. Poorly
constructed "shotgun shacks" and more recently built multiple apart-
ments-Virrick's overcrowded concrete monsters-covered Miami's
largest inner-city Black neighborhood, then called the "Central Negro
District" and later known as Overtown. Located just northwest of the
city's relatively small central business district, the area had been targeted
for destruction by Miami's civic elite since the 1930s. Many downtown
business and political leaders sought to eliminate Overtown and move
all the Blacks outside the city limits, thus paving the way for expansion
of Miami's business center. An early housing project, Liberty Square,
completed in 1937 about five miles from downtown Miami, was con-
ceived locally as the nucleus of a new Black community that ultimately
would siphon off Overtown's population. Some white civic leaders
believed that more public housing for Blacks, if located in unincorpo-
rated Dade County, would speed the process of Black dispersal from
the center city. However, slumlords and builders involved in Overtown
felt threatened by any federal programs that might diminish their profits
and their control of inner-city Black housing."
The issue came to a head after Congressional passage of the Housing
Act of 1949, signed by President Truman on July 15. Subsequently, the
Miami city commission (ironically, the same commission that had
opposed the Coconut Grove rezoning) authorized the Miami Housing
Authority to apply for federal slum clearance and public housing funds
under the new law. However, a snag in completing the appropriate
paperwork delayed submission of the federal housing application until
after the November 1949 city commission elections. The outcome of
the voting altered the political landscape, as two newly elected commis-
sioners, along with one holdover commissioner, stood firmly opposed
to public housing. Obviously, differing positions on public housing
reflected a deep split within Miami's civic leadership, with some
adamantly opposed to any federal funding and others willing to use
federal funds to achieve long-term goals of racial separation. In any






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 19


case, Miami city commission meetings once again became a battle-
ground between housing reformers and the real estate owners and their
attorneys, as well as among the commissioners themselves. In March
1950, after hours of heated
oratory and by a three to two
vote, the new Miami city com-
mission formally voted to
reject federally assisted slum
clearance and public housing.
Politically charged concep-
tions of free enterprise lay at
the heart of the Miami housing
debate. In April 1950, under
Mayor Wolfarth's prodding, William M. Wolfarth and Perrine Palmer,
the city commission enacted a Jr., pictured here in 1953, were two Miami
slum clearance ordinance of its mayors who spoke to Miami's low-cost
own, one that did not rely on housing needs. HASF, Miami News Collection
federal funding. The new ordi- 1989-o11-22793.
nance required more rigorous
self-enforcement of sanitation and building codes by the slum landlords
themselves. Parrying the public houses, Wolfarth also contended that
the local private housing industry could build all the low-income hous-
ing that was needed, which is what the builders themselves maintained.
The new mayor claimed to be interested in slum clearance and better
housing, but he argued that the private real estate industry was best
positioned to achieve these goals.
Virrick publicly scoffed at these claims. The mayor's housing plan, she
wrote, was "merely a patchwork job of slum perpetuation." The new
Miami slum clearance ordinance "had no more chance of accomplishing
this end than a jack rabbit." She also linked Wolfarth and the local real
estate interests: "This ordinance was dreamed up by the opponents of
public housing as a panacea," and then put into place by the politicians.
The Miami Herald agreed with Virrick this time, editorializing in March
1950 that, "Free enterprise has nothing to do with the issue. Yet it has
been the slogan which has been used as the sandbag to beat to its knees
every slum clearance proposal which has dared to show its head to the
public in the last twenty years." The landlords and builders waved the
flag of Americanism and free enterprise to advance their financial





20 TEQUESTA


interests, and the politicians went along. It was a carefully calculated
strategy in 1950, in the midst of the anti-Communist crusade we have
come to know as McCarthyism.'
The feisty Virrick ominously noted that "the storm clouds [are] now
gathering," but she did not shy away from another fight." There was
immediate talk of a recall campaign directed against the anti-housing
commissioners. Virrick wrote to a Congressional committee investigat-
ing the housing lobby, inviting a probe of the Miami situation. Virrick
also pressed Mayor Wolfarth, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to freeze
building permits in Overtown, pending a proper zoning plan for the
area-a move to stave off the landlords and builders who had begun
replacing shotgun houses with concrete monsters.
However, these approaches soon gave way to another strategy.
Emboldened by their earlier success, the housing reformers resurrected
the initiative and referendum petition process that had worked so well
in Coconut Grove, hoping in this way to implement a city ordinance
on slum clearance and public housing. Reformers established an ad hoc
Miami Citizens Housing Improvement Committee, with Virrick and Abe
Aronovitz, a local attorney, playing major roles to challenge the Miami
commission's rejection of federally
financed public housing. The new
Housing reform committee
launched the petition campaign in
early April at a mass public rally at
Miami's downtown Bayfront Park
that drew over two thousand peo-
ple, although not all of them were
housing supporters. Aronovitz made
an impassioned pro-housing speech,
A sarcastically attacking the "big-bel-
lied builders."4 Over the next two
months, Virrick, Aronovitz, and
S other housing advocates spoke at
Bill Baggs, a crusading Miami News innumerable gatherings, including
editor, and a strong supporter of at least one meeting of unfriendly
Elizabeth Virrick's movement for better real estate brokers and builders.
housing for Miamians. HASF, Miami Debates were held at local club and
News Collection 1989-011-19270. association meetings, as well as on






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 21


Miami radio and television shows. Bus tours of Miami's inner city areas
were conducted for leaders of the city's many civic and religious organiza-
tions. As with the earlier Coconut Grove campaign, the reformers sought
to engage the public on housing issues.
The builders and landlords, with profits at stake, defended their posi-
tion aggressively. They formed a Committee Against Socialized
Housing, with the appropriate acronym of CASH, to parry Miami's
public housers. The group had the backing of the Miami Board of
Realtors, several leading bankers, and top politicians, including the new
mayor, William Wolfarth. CASH distributed printed leaflets, brochures,
pamphlets, and cartoons against public housing. These materials had
been sent to Miami by the national real estate lobby, composed of the
National Association of Real Estate Boards, the Mortgage Bankers
Association, the National Association of Home Builders, and the U.S.
Savings and Loan League. Newspaper ads, some the expensive full-page
variety, trumpeted the builder and landlord position. Public housing,
CASH contended, represented the first "step toward the socialistic
state."' One CASH newspaper ad suggested that the reformers'
expressions of concern about "poor slum dwellers [was] a mere senti-
mental smoke screen to close the eyes of the sympathetic American
people, while socialism takes over this country."' Similar battles
against public housing were underway in other cities, using, as Virrick
noted, "the same slogans, the same billboards, the same distorted and
untruthful arguments.""
Thanks to Virrick's earlier work in Coconut Grove, public conscious-
ness on housing issues had been raised substantially in Miami by 1950.
Consequently, opponents of housing reform often found themselves on
the defensive. Newspaper columnists attacked the builders and land-
lords as heartless, selfish, and greedy, seeking only to maximize profits
from building and renting in the slums. Miami News columnist Bill
Baggs, a big supporter of Virrick's movement (he fondly called Virrick
"my ol' Kentucky babe"), labeled CASH as "an outrageously stupid and
dangerous group,"' In several columns, he suggested collusion and pay-
offs between the real estate people and some city commissioners.
Columnist Jack Bell of the Miami Herald considered as laughable the
builders' claim that they would supply all the needed low-income hous-
ing and accept lower profits. "Altruism isn't exactly running rampant
among that group," Bell wrote in a column dripping with sarcasm."





22 TEQUESTA


Investigative reporter Luther Voltz of the Herald demonstrated that the
builders' private redevelopment plan was simply "rebuilding" new
slums, replacing older shotgun shacks with multiple-unit concrete
apartment houses that quickly became overcrowded, but that also pro-
duced greater income." Leaders from the Black community similarly
condemned CASH's motives. Typically, the Reverend Edward Graham,
Miami's leading Black Baptist minister, attacked opponents of public
housing as "persons seeking to profit from their own rental units at the
expense of human misery."" Harry Simonhoff, editor of the Jewish
Floridian, strongly endorsed public housing, but blasted Miami's white
establishment: "The treatment accorded to Negroes in metropolitan
Miami is a blot upon American civilization."2
And so it went through forty-six days of the petition campaign in the
spring of 1950. By early June, over thirty-two thousand Miami voters
had signed the initiative petition, forcing the city commissioners to
either accept the slum clearance and public housing ordinance or
call a special election. The commissioners chose the latter path,
scheduling the election for later that same month. Meanwhile,
attorneys for the builders and landlords went to court seeking an
injunction to halt the election, but their suit was dismissed. A few
days later, the housing reformers won a sizable vote of confidence, as
the referendum endorsed federal slum clearance and public housing
in Miami by a vote of some fourteen thousand to ten thousand. But
the victory was short lived. Housing opponents went to court again
seeking to declare the referendum vote illegal, and this time they
were successful. The Florida Supreme Court voided the referendum
election on the grounds that the ballot did not contain the full text
of the reformers' housing ordinance and that, therefore, the voters
were insufficiently informed of the issues. Virrick was incredulous,
later writing that "in truth and in fact no matter that had ever been
before the people of Miami up to this time had ever received as
much attention in the press, on the air and been discussed as widely
and as thoroughly." But the Court had spoken. It was another vic-
tory for the landlords and ghetto builders.
Bowed but unbroken, the housing reformers pressed for another elec-
tion with a more explanatory ballot. In early 1951, Miami's city attorney
ruled that the 1950 petitions remained valid, and eventually the public
housing ordinance was placed on the ballot for the November 1951 city






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 23


elections. The housing issue simmered through most of the year, but by
the beginning of November, things heated up once again, with a new
ad hoc committee, the Miami Citizens Committee for Slum Clearance,
orchestrating the publicity campaign. Virrick wrote a series of pro-housing
articles for the Miami Daily News, focusing on "The Slum Disgrace."24
The columnists cranked back into action, while numerous public
meetings aired the issue. The new reform committee publicly vetted
candidates for the city commission on their stance on public housing,
refusing to accept evasive answers.
The opposition remained active, as well. Just a few days before the
election, Mayor Wolfarth used his appointment authority to pack the
Miami Housing Authority with anti-public housing members. At the
same time, the landlords were still trying to keep the housing question
off the ballot. They went back to the Florida Supreme Court, this time
claiming that the ballot question was too long and too time consuming.
However, a few days before the election, the Supreme Court ruled that
the referendum could take place. The election on November 20, 1951
represented another major victory for Miami's housing reformers, as
voters supported the slum clearance and public housing ordinance by a
convincing two to one margin-20,563 for and 10,461 against. A
run-off election the following week put a pro-housing majority on the
city commission, as well. Three years of housing activism had put
Elizabeth Virrick at the center of urban reform in Miami.
Virrick's initiative and referendum victories between 1949 and 1951
demonstrated that Miami's voters were ready for housing reform.
Unexpectedly, more legal entanglements soon prevented any immediate
public action on urban redevelopment. In August 1952, Miami's hous-
ing and redevelopment plans were thrown into disarray by a Florida
Supreme Court decision in the case of Adams v. Housing Authority of
the City ofDaytona Beach, Florida. The ruling declared that using the
eminent domain process for federally funded redevelopment was
unconstitutional in Florida. This legal decision delayed public redevelop-
ment and urban renewal programs in Miami by more than a decade.
Virrick spent a good part of the 1950s trying to get an amendment
to the Florida constitution through the legislature that would authorize
urban renewal. Failing that, she actively promoted four separate efforts
to put urban renewal enabling legislation on the Florida statute books.
She sponsored public forums to educate the public, but also denounced





24 TEQUESTA


the Florida legislature at every opportunity. As Virrick told a Miami
reporter: "We have officials who are supposed to be leaders, but who
don't have any common sense. They talk about sin and motherhood,
but everything they utter shows they don't know anything about urban
renewal."2 Not until 1959, when the state supreme court upheld a
Tampa redevelopment law, did Florida join other states in accepting
urban renewal funds from the federal government. Political and juris-
dictional disputes in the early 1960s between the city of Miami and the
newly established Dade County metropolitan government, now known
as Metro, delayed implementation of urban renewal still further.
There were other battles in the years and decades to come. Throughout
the 1950s, Virrick hammered away on the issues of slum clearance,
public housing, and building and zoning controls in Miami's expanding
Black neighborhoods. However, none of these housing reforms did
anything to diminish racial segregation in Miami neighborhoods or
public housing projects. Dating back to the early twentieth century,
official housing policies in Miami and Dade County established and
preserved residential segregation. In particular, racial zoning was used to
maintain physical distance between Blacks and Whites, even though
that practice had been outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
of Buchanan v. Warley in 1917. Miami's housing reformers accepted res-
idential segregation as a given in the 1950s, but sought better housing
for Blacks and expansion areas for new Black housing developments.
Miami's Black civil rights leaders at the time, notably preachers
Theodore Gibson and Edward Graham, also worked for housing
reform within the context of a racially segregated society. Elizabeth
Virrick was not a civil rights activist, but instead sought to expand
housing availability through public housing and urban renewal. Later,
by 1960, perhaps influenced by the emerging Black freedom struggle,
Virrick came to recognize that ending slums depended on ending racial
segregation: "It is a plain hard fact," she contended in 1960, "that we
will never get rid of slums if we have segregation, and vice versa, if we
did not have segregation, we could get rid of slums."2"
Maintaining the status quo seemed to be the official watchword
throughout the 1950s. Federal redevelopment funding was banned at
the time, but city and county officials did little to develop alternative
slum clearance plans. Miami established a Department of Slum Clearance
and Rehabilitation in 1952 after Virrick packed city commission meetings






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 25


with hundreds of supporters, but eventually the new department came
to be headed by an ally of the slumlords. Building codes went unen-
forced for years; repair notices and condemnations were ignored by
landlords. The Miami Housing Authority, controlled for a time by
anti-housing appointees, made little progress on new public housing
until the mid-1950s, when a single new project was completed.
Minimal as this effort was, given the city's need for low-cost housing,
the Miami Board of Realtors went to court to halt construction. In the
late 1950s, Miami city commissioners were still undermining the efforts
of the Miami Housing Authority to build new public housing. As
Virrick put it in 1958, "The opposition to any change in the status quo
here is unbelievable and is carried on by the very influential and
wealthy so-called respectable people who own the extensive and prof-
itable Negro slums." Not only did the slumlords have friends in govern-
ment, but as Virrick bitterly suggested, "Almost none of our officials
[seems] to be interested in anything from which they cannot profit."2
During the 1950s and 1960s, Virrick engaged in a long running battle
with Miami builders, realtors, and slumlords. Most of Miami's housing
problems, Virrick sarcastically noted in 1958, could be attributed to
"the number of real estate people to the square inch."28 These were the
people who were reshaping Miami's residential landscape in a major
way in the 1950s. By the time Virrick's petition drives were taking
place, residential transitions were already underway, as white neighbor-
hoods gave way to African Americans seeking better housing. Segments
of the local real estate industry facilitated the process of neighborhood
turnover. For instance, builders Bouvier and Wiseheart moved Black
families into Knight Manor, a white apartment complex they owned
on Miami's north side, changing the name of the complex to Carver
Village. Nearby White residents protested, demonstrated, and demanded
that city officials protect White neighborhoods from "Negro encroach-
ment." Punctuating these demands, on three occasions in late 1951
dynamite bombs blew up several empty apartments in the complex-
bombs almost certainly planted by local Ku Klux Klansmen. The
bombings brought national media attention to Miami's housing
problems, with critical articles blaring such sensational titles as "Miami:
Anteroom to Fascism" and "Dynamite Law Replaces Lynch Law."29
City and county officials sought to contain the racial fallout from the
bombings. Hoping to prevent black migration to an established white






26 TEQUESTA


neighborhood, the Miami city commission asserted its intention to buy
Knight Manor and turn it into a public housing project for Whites only.
Around the same time, the Dade County commission set up a "Negro
housing committee" to seek out undeveloped properties in distant fringe
areas where the private sector could build new Black housing. The idea
of maintaining residential segregation remained a powerful imperative in
Miami, and the corollary idea of moving all the Blacks beyond the city
limits had not died out either. In Miami's Overtown, slumlords were
moving quickly to replace thousands of small, wooden houses with the
much larger and ultimately more lucrative concrete monsters.
Despite Virrick's persistent warnings about the spread of slum condi-
tions to new areas, things seemed to get worse in the 1960s. In August
1965, the Miami Herald reported on a wave of new apartment house
construction all over metropolitan Miami, a trend fostered by inadequate
zoning laws and the weakness of planning controls. "Big blockbusters
wedged on tiny plots of ground and surrounded by asphalt are crop-
ping out all over," reporter Juanita Greene noted. Greene traced this
construction pattern back to the mid-1950s, when the city of Miami
began granting more building permits for apartments than for single-
family houses or duplexes. By 1963, the movement had "engulfed" all
of Dade County. Up to that point, the concrete monsters had been
mostly confined to the inner-city Black community of Overtown. But,
Greene went on, "in the past three years the monster has migrated from
his original habitat.""' Virrick had been throwing out caution signs
about the multiple-unit apartments since the late 1940s, but the ghetto
builders had continued and mostly prevailed.
Luther Brooks, owner of the Bonded Collection Agency and Miami's
chief slumlord, emerged as the special target of Virrick's scorn during
these years. By the late 1950s, Brooks's company collected rents from
over ten thousand rental units in Miami, making it one of the largest
rental firms in the country. Brooks was politically connected, and said to
be "chummy" with four of the five Miami city commissioners. Press
reports in 1958 and a subsequent grand jury investigation linked Brooks
to city officials charged with enforcing building and sanitation codes.
Records on over five hundred already condemned Brooks properties were
somehow "lost" by Frank A. Kelly, Brooks's friend and head of Miami's
Department of Slum Clearance and Rehabilitation.3 Reported violations
in hundreds of other Brooks properties were never followed up.






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 27


An outspoken opponent of public housing, Brooks cleverly used the
furor over slum clearance to benefit the slumlords, and his own company
as well. Using the slogan of "free enterprise," Brooks took the lead in
encouraging property owners to replace aging wooden slum houses with
new concrete monsters. In doing so, he argued that the private real estate
sector was able to provide for the housing needs of low-income families.
Later, when urban renewal and expressway building destroyed thousands
of Overtown rental units, Brooks essentially managed the process of
"block-busting" by which displaced Blacks moved into transitional White
neighborhoods. Trading barbs at city commission meetings, in the
newspapers, and in radio debates, Virrick and Brooks engaged in a bitter
sparring match that lasted more than two decades.
Although a consistent advocate of public housing, Virrick eventually
became a hard-edged critic of urban renewal in the 1960s. The
Housing Act of 1954, by using eminent domain to assemble land
parcels for private developers, had become nothing but a massive "real
estate promotion." The program, she said, was "rigged in favor of the
slum owners," who profited from government purchase of their rental
properties. The builders and developers "eat a rich meal and we grab
the check and pay it," she wrote with her typical flair for the dramatic
phrase. Unless revisions were made to urban renewal enabling legisla-
tion in Florida, the program would simply create more permanent
slums. Virrick was vehement: "Why should there be a profit for any-
body in clearing slums? Why should a sugar tit be given to the slum
owners or the real estate and home builder people to pacify them so
they will permit us to clear our slums?"3~ She wanted safeguards built
into Miami's urban renewal plan that would provide decent, low-income
housing and that would guarantee appropriate relocation provisions for
those dislocated by redevelopment. Equally important, she promoted
the idea that all urban renewal housing should be built by philanthropic
or non-profit organizations-a means of insulating urban renewal from
the real estate speculators and slumlords.
Virrick enjoyed word games and had a habit of writing clever, dog-
gerel verse, which she often recited at meetings. One such piece, tied
simply "Housing," skewered urban renewal:

Said Congressman Botch to Congressman Bungle
Let's give a thought to the darn slum jungle;






28 TEQUESTA


Previous bills gained their authors fame
And there are votes galore to be had from same.

So off with their notebooks went Bungle and Botch
To speech-make and hand-shake, to pry and to watch.
Their erudite study of five days or so
Conclusively proved that slums had to go.

The Congressmen thrilled to the challenge before them;
The bills and amendments would surely restore them
To office again when their terms had expired.
With campaign hopes high, they worked and perspired.

Bill number X was proposed forthwith
To care for poor people and all their kith.
Filibustering went from morn till night
And they finally agreed that right was right.

Just as success seemed forthcoming at last,
From the town's leading hostess, they felt a cold blast.
To her gala occasions they weren't asked to come.
The reason uncovered was: she owned a slum.

The real estate lobby howled with rage
And the bill went into the amendment stage.
"All right," said Bungle, so gay and witty,
"We'll let them have their hands in the kitty."

We'll buy up the slums with taxpayers' dough
And sell it for less than it costs us, you know.
Then enterprise private will grab at the deal
Because it has a big business appeal.

So they wrote and rewrote until finally they had
A masterful bill that made nobody mad.
After all this ado, is it naughty to wonder
If the whole blessed thing has been one great, big blunder?






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 29


Cause people who need housing are left in the lurch,
Going hither and yon in search of a perch.
They haven't the money to pay the high cost
So the cause of the people seems dismally lost.

Is it possible, really, in this day and age
That we haven't the people sufficiently sage
To solve this slum problem that gnaws at our core
And spreads in our vitals, a cancerous sore?

It takes courage and vision and thinking it through
And not caring a whit what the lobbyists do.
No, Botch, no, Bungle, you have not succeeded
In giving the people the housing that's needed.33

By the mid-to late 1950s,
expansive plans for interstate
highway construction in down-
town Miami complicated
Virrick's campaign for housing
reform. Interstate planning
called for an expressway that
traversed the heart of
Overtown. A contemplated
downtown interchange would
eventually level twenty square
blocks, including densely pop-
ulated Black housing and the
entire Black business district in
Overtown. As these expressway
plans became public in 1956 Dade County's vast expressway system
and 1957, Virrick immediately ripped out the heart of historic Overtown
recognized the devastating con- and parts of other nearby communities.
sequences for Black Miami. As HASF Miami News Collection 1989-011-5416.
she wrote to Wilbur Jones,
director of the Florida State Road Department, "the pathway of the
new expressway will cause great hardship to the Negroes in the Central
Negro area, both home owners and tenants, who will be displaced."






30 TEQUESTA


She urged the creation of a relocation agency that would survey avail-
able housing in Miami and provide assistance to those displaced by
expressway construction. Without such relocation assistance, Virrick
argued, population densities in the Overtown area would rise rapidly,
aggravating the miserable slum conditions that already exist."3
Virrick did not get very far with the state road department, because
the business of that agency was highway building, not relocation housing.
In fact, the Florida road department provided only a thirty-day eviction
notice to those in the path of the Miami expressway. This policy con-
formed to federal Bureau of Public Roads guidelines on housing reloca-
tion. Federal policy required relocation assistance for those displaced by
urban renewal activities but not by interstate highway construction.
Construction of the south leg of the Miami expressway through
Overtown and into the central business district began in 1964.
Influenced by the writings of urban critic Jane Jacobs, Virrick intensi-
fied her attack on the highway builders. As Virrick framed the issue,
"the helter-skelter spewing out of expressways without proper fore-
thought and planning" would destroy the urban fabric. In a series of
hard-hitting articles in her monthly newsletter, Ink: The Journal of
Civic Affairs, she mounted an assault on a new type of monster-the
inner-city expressways (she called them "great Frankensteinian monsters")
that destroyed neighborhoods and parks, disfigured the city, and created
new slums. Virrick painted a harsh picture of the consequences of
expressway building in Miami:

With shocking ruthlessness, the expressways slash through our
city without regard to the grim results...building an impenetra-
ble wall that will cut the city in half, separate many stores from
the people who deal there, [and] uglify pleasant areas and make
bad areas worse. We are told to take it or leave it. In our
over-anxiety to move automobiles faster, we bow our heads to
this dictatorship and take it...Hasn't anyone heard of San
Francisco where the road program was stopped and replanned
because an alert citizenry demanded it?

Miami was suffering badly from "bulldozitis followed rapidly by
asphaltitis." As Virrick phrased it with typical sarcasm, "The theme
appears to be: never mind about anything, but Woodman, spare those






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 31


twelve lanes for the automobile!" Echoing the national outcry against
urban expressways that had emerged by the early 1960s, Virrick pleaded
often for "a fresh evaluation of the entire expressway system."
Throughout the expressway-building era, Elizabeth Virrick was a
lonely but publicly respected voice speaking out on the necessity of
linking highway construction with public housing and relocation pro-
grams. But it was not to be. Virrick was the closest thing Miami had to
an anti-expressway movement, but a one-woman crusade was not
enough. The Miami expressway system was completed by the late
1960s, but at the cost of uprooting most of Miami's inner-city Black
community. A formerly vibrant community despite its poor housing
conditions, Overtown soon became a rubble-strewn urban wasteland
left in the shadows of an elevated expressway.
By the end of the 1950s, Elizabeth Virrick had become highly expert
on housing issues. She kept up with housing issues in cities around the
country and developed a large correspondence with the nationwide
community of housing officials and reformers. She attended meetings
of the National Housing Conference and the National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Officials, published articles in the public
housers' Journal ofHousing, contributed chapters to scholarly books on
housing, and toured European cities with others investigating alterna-
tive models of housing reform.6 With her friend Marjory Stoneman
Douglas, she began researching and writing a book on slums and housing
in American cities-a project left unfinished. In the mid-1950s, she
began publishing her own Miami housing and slum clearance newsletter,
Ink: The Journal of CivilAffairs, which became an influential vehicle for
her monthly critique of city officials, housing bureaucrats, slumlords,
and the local real estate industry. In the mid-1960s, the Coconut Grove
Citizens Committee became the Dade County Conference on Civic
Affairs, reflecting Virrick's wider urban interests and involvements. She
became something of an institution in Miami, and she seemed to be
everywhere, serving on over a dozen advisory boards and committees
from the 1950s through the 1970s. Serving on the Dade County
Community Relations Board in the 1960s, for instance, put Virrick at
the center of emerging conflict between Miami's African Americans and
the growing community of Cuban exiles.
Virrick demonstrated her political savvy in three successful initiative
and referendum campaigns. Her appeals to blacks and whites and across






32 TEQUESTA


social and economic boundaries reflected extremely effective interperson-
al and organizational skills. She quickly developed persuasive powers as
an articulate and impassioned speaker, soft-spoken but confident and
powerful nevertheless. Her writings for local newspapers and later for
her own newsletter were hard-hitting, known for impatient criticism and
biting sarcasm, but also for sensible analysis and carefully crafted policy
prescriptions. Her ability to
connect with powerful voices in
the media, especially local news-
paper columnists and radio and
TV newsmen, cemented her
position as Miami's trusted
voice on housing matters.
Virrick was the gadfly, the
crusader, the militant watch-
dog, operating outside the offi-
cial power structure, badgering
city commissioners and plan-
ning and housing officials into
action. Politicians learned that
to cross swords with Virrick
might shorten their careers in
office. Slumlords, builders, and
attorneys for the local real
A busy Elizabeth Virrick at her desk, 1977. estate lobby hated to see her
HASF, Miami News Collection 1989-011-23537. show up at hearings and meet-
ings. She often made public
officials squirm at those open forums, as she demanded full public
accountability. As one observer put it, "No one could storm into city
commission meetings and lay 'em low so effectively with invective."37
Her opponents called her a communist for advocating public housing,
but Virrick easily turned that argument around, often making the case
that "slums are the most fertile soil for the seed of communism.""8 She
was knowledgeable, unintimidated, impatient, tenacious, witty, and
sarcastic-and she made good press copy. "She mostly battles in the
open," one scribe reported, "but if the need arises, she doesn't hesitate
to play a cloak and dagger role.""' Perhaps most of all, Virrick's role was
one of educating the public about urban renewal and housing issues.






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters"


On these matters, Virrick wrote, "Miamians need educating, and I am
the teacher."4
By the late 1960s, twenty years of community organizing and reform
militancy had taken its toll. Now in her seventies, Virrick cut back on
her activism, retreating to the arena she knew best-Coconut Grove.
Reflecting this shift in priorities, by 1970 the Dade County Conference
on Civic Affairs took on the new name of Coconut Grove Cares. The
new organization engaged in various social service functions in the
Black Grove, but Virrick was most proud of the Elizabeth Virrick
Boxing Gym, a former Coast Guard seaplane hangar transformed into
an athletic facility for Miami teenage boys aspiring to Golden Gloves
fame. In the late 1980s, Virrick still came to work everyday, sitting at
her desk and keeping an eye on things at Coconut Grove Cares. When
she died in 1990 at the age of ninety-three, Virrick left a lasting legacy
of urban commitment and accomplishment. Given the social and
cultural constraints imposed on southern women in the 1940s and
1950s, Virrick established a remarkable public career. For the Miami
metropolitan area and its citizens, Virrick and her reform activism
made a difference at a time of dramatic urban change.
Postwar urban policy on many issues emanated from Washington
D.C., but implementation took place at the local level under the
direction of mayors, city councils, city and county commissioners, and
local agency bureaucrats. Consequently, a full understanding of late
twentieth-century urban history and urban change requires an examina-
tion of the decision-makers and opinion-shapers in cities across the
nation-the activists and gadflies as well as the mayors and public offi-
cials. In Miami, Elizabeth Virrick confronted local power, appealed to a
larger public, and often forced the resolution of conflict on housing
and urban reform issues. Every city had such individuals, women and
men who made a difference. Virrick's public career puts a human face
on American urban history, demonstrating the ways in which individual
action mediated, moderated, and shaped the larger patterns of postwar
urban change.






34 TEQUESTA


Endnotes
SPerrine Palmer, Jr., "What the Taft-Ellender-Wagner Bill Means to
Miami," undated typescript, c. 1947, in Elizabeth Virrick Papers,
Historical Association of Southern Florida, Miami, Florida (hereafter
cited as Virrick Papers). See also Study and Investigation ofHousing,
Hearings before the Joint Committee on Housing, Miami, Florida,
80th Congress, First Session, October 27, 1947 (U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1948), 928-940.
2 William Tucker, "She's No. 1 Slum Fighter," undated clipping,
c. 1958, Virrick Papers; "Elizabeth Virrick: She Fired the First Shots in
the War on Poverty," Village Post: The Magazine ofMiami, 13 (March
1967).
Marc A. Weiss, "The Origins and Legacy of Urban Renewal." In
Urban and Regional Planning in an Age ofAusterity ed. Pierre Clavel,
John Forester, and William W Goldsmith (New York: Pergamon Press,
1980), 53-80, quotations on pp. 54, 62. See also Richard O. Davies,
Housing Reform During the Truman Administration (Columbia:
University of Missouri Press, 1966).
SRichard M. Flanagan, "The Housing Act of 1954: The Sea Change in
National Urban Policy," Urban Affairs Review, 33 (November 1997),
265-286; Mark I. Gelfand, A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government
and Urban America, 1933-1965 (New York: Oxford University Press,
1975), 167-176.
5 Elizabeth Virrick, Autobiographical Notes, undated typescript, Virrick
Papers; Marjory Stoneman Douglas, "Slum Clearance, Community
Style," undated typescript, c. 1953, Virrick Papers, 4.
' Douglas, "Slum Clearance, Community Style," 2-3.
SMaxine Phyllis Harris, "Coconut Grove Citizens Committee for Slum
Clearance, Inc.," unpublished typescript, 1960, Virrick Papers, 5. On
the work of the Citizens Committee, see also Elizabeth Virrick, "Civic
Cooperation in Miami," in Alfred De Grazia, ed., Grass Roots Private
Welfare (New York: New York University Press, 1957), 64-68.
SStephen B. Harris, "St. Albans Developers Win Commission's Vote,"
Miami Daily News, February 4, 1949.
SBert Collier, "Slum Clearance Volunteers Show Citizenship in
Action," Miami Herald, March 20, 1949.
'" Elizabeth Virrick, "Rezoning of the Coconut Grove Negro Area,





Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 35


1948-1949," unpublished typescript, 1954, Virrick Papers, 19.
Raymond A. Mohl, "Trouble in Paradise: Race and Housing in
Miami during the New Deal Era," Prologue: Journal of the National
Archives, 19 (Spring 1987), 7-21.
Elizabeth Virrick, "History of the Site Selection for Public Housing,"
undated typescript, c. 1954, Virrick Papers, 5; "Same Story with Same
Sad Ending," Miami Herald, March 17, 1950.
Virrick, "History of the Site Selection for Public Housing," 6.
"4 Lawrence Thompson, "Heated Slums Debate Draws 2000," Miami
Herald, undated clipping, c. March 1950, Virrick Papers.
Committee Against Socialized Housing, "Can You Afford to Pay
Somebody Else's Rent?" undated newspaper ad, c. March 1950,
Virrick Papers.
Jack Kofoed, "Ads Opposing Federal Housing Termed Ridiculous
Propaganda," Miami Herald, April 18, 1950.
17 Virrick, "History of the Site Selection for Public Housing," 7.
I8 Bill Baggs, "In the Bag," Miami Daily News, undated clipping,
c. June 1950, Virrick Papers; Bill Baggs to Elizabeth Virrick, October 8,
1968, Bill Baggs Papers, Richter Library, University of Miami, Coral
Gables, Florida.
Jack Bell, "Letter to Mayor Wolfarth," Miami Herald, undated
clipping, c. March 1950, Virrick Papers.
20 Luther Voltz, "Rebuilding of Slums Underway," Miami Herald,
undated clipping, c. March 1950, Virrick Papers.
2 "Slum Clearance Group Asks Action on Housing Project," Miami
Herald, March 14, 1950.
22 Harry Simonhoff, "Low Rent Housing and Negro Segregation,"
Jewish Floridian, March 31, 1950.
23 Virrick, "History of the Site Selection for Public Housing," 8.
4 Elizabeth Virrick, "The Slum Disgrace: Remedy in Hands of Miami
Voters," Miami Daily News, November 18, 1951; Elizabeth Virrick,
"The Slum Disgrace: Public Housing Pays Taxing Bodies More,"
Miami Daily News, November 19, 1951.
25 Tucker, "She's No. 1 Slum Fighter."
26 Harris, "Coconut Grove Citizens Committee for Slum Clearance,"
17. On these issues, see also Raymond A. Mohl, "Whitening
Miami: Race, Housing, and Government Policy in Twentieth-





36 TEQUESTA


Century Dade County," Florida Historical Quarterly, 79 (Winter
2001), 319-345.
27 Elizabeth Virrick to Arthur Field, March 14, 1958, Correspondence
Files, Virrick Papers; Elizabeth Virrick to Marion Mason, August 31,
1958, Correspondence Files, Virrick Papers.
8 Elizabeth Virrick to Dorothy S. Montgomery, April 23, 1958,
Correspondence Files, Virrick Papers.
29 Stetson Kennedy, "Miami: Anteroom to Fascism," The Nation, 173
(December 22, 1951), 546-547; Joe Alex Morris, "The Truth about the
Florida Race Troubles," Saturday Evening Post (June 21, 1952), 24-25,
50, 55-58; William S. Fairfield, "Florida: Dynamite Law Replaces
Lynch Law," The Reporter, 7 (August 5, 1952), 31-34, 41. On black
migration to white areas and subsequent bombings, see Raymond A.
Mohl, "Making the Second Ghetto in Metropolitan Miami,
1940-1960," Journal of Urban History, 21 (March 1995), 395-427;
Teresa Lenox, "The Carver Village Controversy," Tequesta, 50 (1990),
39-51.
'0 Juanita Greene, "Booming New Slums Blight Miami Scene," Miami
Herald, August 23, 1965.
" Morty Freedman, "Slum Agent Has Right Friends," Miami Herald,
March 17, 1958; Morty Freedman, "'Dead File' Saves Slums: 500
Condemned Hovels 'Lost,'" Miami Herald, March 16, 1958.
3 Elizabeth Virrick to Joe O. Eaton, March 26, 1957, Correspondence
Files, Virrick Papers; Elizabeth Virrick to Frederic Sherman, December
5, 1960, Correspondence Files, Virrick Papers; Draft Letter on
Redevelopment, undated typescript, c. March 1957, Virrick Papers;
Untitled Article Draft on Housing and Redevelopment, undated type-
script, c. late 1950s, Virrick Papers.
' Elizabeth Virrick, "Housing," typescript poem, c. early 1960s,
Virrick Papers.
34 Elizabeth Virric to Wilbfr Jones, May 9, 1957, Correspondence
Files, Virrick Papers; "What About Negroes Uprooted by Expressway?"
Miami Herald, March 4, 1957
35 Elizabeth Virrick, "Expressways: Boon or Blight," Ink Newsletter, 16
(April 1964), 2-3; Elizabeth Virrick, "Expressways," Ink: The Journal of
Civic Affairs, 16 (November 1964), 3-4; Elizabeth Virrick, "Is This
Planning?" Ink: The Journal of CivicAffairs, 17 (January 1966), 6.






Elizabeth Virrick & the "Concrete Monsters" 37


For comparison, see Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American
Cities (New York: Random House, 1961), ch. 18. See also Raymond A.
Mohl, "Race and Space in the Modern City: Interstate-95 and the
Black Community in Miami," in Arnold R. Hirsch and Raymond A.
Mohl, eds., Urban Policy in Twentieth-Century America (New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1993), 100-158.
6 For some of Virrick's articles, see Elizabeth Virrick, "Pardon Me,
Miami, Your Slums Are Showing," Florida Home, 3 (June 1953), 6-7,
38; Elizabeth Virrick, "People vs. Slums," Florida Home, 3 (July 1953),
6-7; Elizabeth Virrick, "The Separate Department for Housing Law
Enforcement-What Happened to It in Miami," Journal ofHousing, 11
(June 1954), 193-194, 214; Elizabeth Virrick, "New Housing for
Negroes in Dade County, Florida," in Nathan Glazer and Davis
McEntire, eds., Studies in Housing and Minority Groups (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1960), 135-143.
7 Ian Glass, "Little Battler Against Slums to Get Honor," Miami News,
May 25, 1967.
3 Elizabeth Virrick, Untitled Position Statement on Public Housing,
undated typescript, c. 1950, Virrick Papers.
" Tucker, "She's No. 1 Slum Fighter."
40 Elizabeth Virrick, "Biographical Information," typescript, 1974,
Virrick Papers.














The Miami Diocese and the

Cuban Refugee Crisis of 1960-1961

FrancisJ. Sicius, Ph.D.



In 1959, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami was less than a year
old, yet it grasped the reins of public service leadership when the
Cuban refugee crisis paralyzed the established social welfare systems of
the city. Diocesan leaders did not seek this role; it was thrust on them
by events in Cuba. Initially their coreligionists in Cuba supported the
revolution, but soon Catholic prelates and laity became leaders of the
counter-revolution, and when that movement failed, they became
refugees. Having urged and supported the counter-revolution, the
Church had a moral obligation to aid its vanquished warriors, and this
burden fell on the Catholics of Miami.
This story begins in Cuba, where in early 1959, the leaders of the
Catholic Church hailed the revolution as a new beginning for the poor
and oppressed of the island. When the revolutionary government declared
a land reform act, Cuban Church leaders praised it as a document which
breathed the spirit of the papal encyclicals., One Catholic intellectual com-
pared the philosophy of Castro to that of the French Catholic social
thinker Jacques Maritain.' Cuban Catholic leaders, however, were not
guileless. They knew that there were Communists in the Castro govern-
ment, but they were not going to surrender the soul of the revolution
without a fight. However, for many reasons, including the growing ani-
mosity of the American Government toward the revolution and
Catholicism's four hundred year alliance with forces of oppression in Cuba,
the Church could not co-opt the revolution. Furthermore, the revolution-
aries understood that they had to destroy or at least seriously weaken the
Church because in Cuba it remained the only institution with powers of
ideology, propaganda and organization equal to their own.






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 39


Within a year of Castro's triumphant march into Havana, disillusion-
ment erupted throughout the island, and the Catholic Church in Cuba
became the focal point of the rapidly developing counter-revolution. By
the summer of 1960, sporadic conflicts had broken out in various parts
of the country. Those actively opposing Castro chose the Christian fish
as the sign of their movement and this symbol began appearing on
walls throughout the city of Havana as a sign of protest against the rev-
olution.4 The Catholic urban and middle class represented the core of
the rapidly developing counter-revolution.5 As one historian has pointed
out, "At first the anti-Castro movement was amorphous, but as the
tempo of the revolution increased and communists gained in strength,
the counter-revolution took definite form. The Church provided the
framework for student anti-communist activities, offering them a doc-
trinal alternative to Communism."'
In April 1960, the leader of the Communist party in Cuba, Juan
Marinello, declared war on the Catholics, threatening to attack those
Catholics who opposed communism as traitors to the revolutionary
regime of Fidel Castro. By May, conditions had deteriorated to the
point that Jos6 Rasco, founder and leader of the Christian Social
Democratic Movement, fled Cuba under a death threat, and in June,
the Christian Social Democrats announced that the termination of free
speech in Cuba had ended their effectiveness and forced them to sus-
pend their activities as a political movement.7 Relations between the
Government and the Church finally reached a breaking point on May
20, 1960, when the Archbishop of Santiago, Perez Serants, who had
long been a close friend of Castro and who had saved his life in 1953,
publicly denounced the infiltration of Communists into the Castro
regime. He warned Catholics not to cooperate in any way with com-
munism. "We can no longer say that the enemy is at our door,"
declared Perez, "because he is now inside and speaking loudly as though
settled in his own domain."' On Sundays, churches became scenes of
political clashes between pro-Castro and anti-Castro forces. In Havana,
violence erupted after a number of masses following a three hour
speech by Castro in which he denounced the "Fascist priests of Spain."9
The summer of 1960 represented the bloody last stand of the
Church in Cuba as an organized counter-revolutionary force. In
August, Cuban bishops collectively and publicly denounced the
Communist takeover of the Cuban revolution and the government's






40 TEQUESTA


suppression of Catholic radio and television programs in Santiago and
Havana. This letter, which was read in all the churches of Cuba, marked
the first time that the bishops had made a joint statement against the
regime since Castro had come to power.' For many young Catholics,
the bishops' declaration represented a call to arms, as bloody street fights
erupted throughout the summer between predominantly Catholic anti-
Castro forces and the pro-Castro militia. In August, pro-Castro militants
shot a priest and severely beat six students who were attending the first
annual meeting of the National Catholic Youth Conference."
Government officials arrested the injured priest and brought him before
a military tribunal on charges of inciting a riot.' In reaction to the vio-
lence and faced with official government indifference, the archbishop of
Havana threatened to close all the churches in Cuba and considered
declaring Cuba a church in silence." Official war against the Church
was declared on August 11, 1960, when Castro issued a blistering attack
calling on "good Christians to root out those who are turning churches
into counter-revolutionary trenches."4 Early in December, the bishops
delivered another pastoral letter of protest against the Castro govern-
ment. They accused Castro of promoting communism, conducting an
all-out anti-Catholic campaign on radio and television, suppressing the
Catholic press and television, and disrupting liturgical services. They
also accused him of secretly attempting to create a new national church.
Castro responded with another three-hour speech against the Church
in which he branded the cardinal of Havana a Judas, and a supporter
of the Batista regime. Priests were arrested for reading the bishops' anti-
communist pastoral letter, and three churches were bombed.'5 In the
same month, Cuban militiamen occupied ten Catholic churches and
four seminaries, jailed five priests, and closed the Catholic periodical
La Quincena, the last Cuban periodical to speak out against the govern-
ment. For two years, from the summer of 1960 until mid-1962, when
machine gun bullets rained down on a group of Catholics who attempt-
ed to hold their traditional procession to Our Lady of Charity, the
Castro government waged a war of words and blood against the Church.
By that time, Castro's victory seemed complete. There were less than
fifty priests left in Cuba and laws restricted them to saying mass only.
The government did not go so far as to forbid church membership, but
those who did practice their religion could not participate in government
activities nor receive any government benefits.






The Miami Diocese 6e the Cuban Refugee Crisis 41


For those middle-class Catholics who had first supported and now
fought Castro, there was nothing left to do but flee Cuba, and when they
left, they carried with them a deep feeling of betrayal. Dr. Ruben Dario
Rumbault, the intellectual leader of the Catholic Social Action movement
in Cuba, joined those who fled Cuba that summer. He admitted support-
ing Castro "because he spoke in terms of Humanism, even Christian
Humanism," but by the middle of 1959, Rumbault declared, "Castro
replaced that (Christian Humanism) with a new national chauvinism."'
By the summer of 1960, the Church had lost the war for the soul of the
Cuban revolution. Its soldiers, the priests, religious, and laity who had
dreamed of a different vehicle to social justice, created a Cold War Dunkirk
as they fled their homes weary and beaten, and in fear for their lives. For
the first time in the Cold War era, the United States became the initial
country of asylum for political refugees, and by the accident of geography,
Miami became the port of entry. Few cities could have been less prepared
for such a human catastrophe than Miami. The state of Florida rivaled
Mississippi as the state spending the least on welfare. And in Dade County,
what little welfare existed was available only to those who had lived in the
county for five years. Jim Crow still ruled society in Dade County: laws
prohibited interracial high school athletic events, and suburban communi-
ties such as Coral Gables prohibited Blacks from spending the night there.
Cuban presence in Miami is as old as the city itself, and refugees from
the most recent revolution had been trickling into the city since the fall
of 1958. But until 1959, Cuban 6migrds had always kept a low profile.
They were usually bilingual, American-educated and well connected in
the community. There was an attempt to maintain this image during the
first days of the refugee crisis. Families that came from Cuba, normally
on visitor's visas, had enough resources or connections in Miami to main-
tain a respectable presence. But with the collapse of the resistance to
Castro in mid-1960, the collective face of the refugee changed. If not the
sheer number (between fifty thousand and one hundred thousand,
depending which statistics are cited), the fact that refugees were no longer
able to take anything with them when they left, transformed the image of
Cuban refugee from wealthy Latin visitor on a weekend shopping spree,
to the confused and desperate refugees that many had only previously
seen coming out of East Berlin. And the European immigrants appeared
on television news reports originating in far away places, not on Wayne
Fariss' evening report of the local news.






42 TEQUESTA


Initially, the Cubans took care of their own. Budgets were tightened,
living rooms became dormitories for extended family, and vacation
apartments became permanent family dwellings. In extreme cases, as
reported in Senate hearings, there were as many as nineteen people liv-
ing in a single family residence." But in the summer of 1960, as Bryan
O. Walsh, Director of Catholic Charities, recalled many years later, "the
roof fell in," and desperate families had to swallow their traditional
pride and seek outside help in a
place where little existed. Doors
S were closed everywhere, but there
i was an old Church, Gesu, in the
o center of the city that offered a
Cpos glimmer of hope, for there, on the
side of the old paint peeled build-
ing was a sign in a familiar language
that promised help. The sign read
i t "Centro Hispano Cat6lico." In
1960 it represented the only source
of welfare private or public, large
or small, that could speak the lan-
guage of the refugees.
The Spanish colonized
Florida, and for most of the state's
430 years since the Euro-African
Sister Nikoletta, who headed the staff encounter, it has been populated
of the Centro Hispano Catdlico, 1967. primarily by Spanish-speaking
Couresy of he Archdiocese of Miami Archives. people. But little evidence of that
culture existed in 1960s Miami. Of
the population that approached one million, less than 5 percent were
Hispanic, the majority of whom had assimilated into the dominant North
American culture. Aside from two or three hours a week of Spanish on a
local radio station, a few scattered Cuban pastry and coffee shops, and a
weekly Spanish newspaper, the Latin presence in Miami remained mini-
mal and for the most part ignored."1 The only institution that paid any
attention to the Hispanics was the Catholic Church. Since 1953, Bishop
Joseph Hurley had been inviting Spanish priests into the southern half of
his St. Augustine diocese to minister to the migrant Hispanic community
of mostly poor Mexicans who arrived annually to harvest crops." In 1957,






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 43


Hurley appointed a young, recently ordained Irish priest, Bryan Walsh, as
director of Catholic Charities in the Miami area and the Latinos became
one of his initial priorities. A year later when the southern half of the St.
Augustine diocese became the new Diocese of Miami, Walsh convinced
the new bishop, Coleman Carroll, to address the needs of his Hispanic
flock, transient as they may have seemed.
Coleman Carroll, the son of William J. Carroll of County Offaly
and Margaret Hogan Carroll, of County Carlow Ireland, was born in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1906. He was the second of three sons
all of whom entered the priesthood and made an important mark on
the American Catholic Church. Bishop Carroll's brother, Walter, was
a Vatican diplomat during the Second World War and continued in
the Vatican State Department
until his death in 1950. Another
brother, Howard, served as Bishop
of Altoona-Johnstown,
Pennsylvania. After receiving his &A
doctorate in Canon law from
Catholic University of America,
Carroll headed the philosophy
department for four years at
Duquesne University. Returning
to parochial duties in 1943, he
organized a new parish before
serving as auxiliary bishop of
Pittsburgh until 1958, when he
was named bishop of the new ..... .
Diocese of Miami by Pope Pius Bishop Coleman Carroll entering
XII. A philosopher, who had the Centro Hispano with Sister Myriam,
practical experience of starting a the director of the center. Directly
new parish and of working within behind Carroll is Father Bryan O.
the bureaucracy of a major uni- Walsh, director of Catholic Charities,
versity and the Catholic hierarchy, November 1959. Courtesy of the
a man whose brother dined with Archdiocese of Miami Archives.
the top luminaries of the Church
in the Vatican and at the same time was the son of immigrants,
Carroll was particularly prepared to be the first bishop of the new
Diocese of Miami.






44 TEQUESTA


After listening to Walsh explain the needs of the Hispanic members
of the diocese, Carroll, the son of immigrants, responded by establish-
ing "El Centro Hispano Cat6lico in the four story school building of
Gesu Church. Located at 130 NE Second Street in a traditionally
transient neighborhood, the center was created to provide a variety of
social services for poor Latinos living in the area. But between the years
1960 and 1962, Centro Hispano provided medical care, child care,
legal aid, employment service, food, clothing, and cash to over 250,000
Cuban refugees and during that period it became the focal point of
Cuban refugee activity. Through services offered at Centro Hispano, the
new Diocese of Miami became the first institution to address the Cuban
refugee problem. Although a relative newcomer among Miami's welfare
agencies, the new diocese assumed leadership in addressing the refugee
crisis. The refugee crisis presented three major hurdles for the diocese. The
first challenge was the immediate relief of seventy-five thousand refugees
who had flooded into Miami in the summer of 1960. Most came with
only the clothes on their backs and the allotted five dollars in their
pockets. Secondly, the diocese had to awaken the rest of Miami's com-
munity leaders to the seriousness of
the problem and to mobilize them.
Finally, together with local leaders,
the diocese had to convince the fed-
eral government that the Cuban
refugees represented a national, not
a local, problem.
The immediate challenge
remained the spiritual and material
welfare of the immigrants.
Although it was originally planned
as a modest pastoral center for all
Hispanics, Centro Hispano quickly
became the Cuban refugee center
in the summer of 1960. This cen-
ter collected and distributed food,
helped refugees find apartments
Food Distribution at Centro Hispano, and work, started a high school
1961. Courtesy of the Archdiocese of and a day care center, and with
Miami Archives. help from volunteer doctors and





The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 45


lawyers, established medical and legal clinics.20 In the first year, the
Church, through its own resources and private donations, financed the
entire operation. In addition to providing immediate emergency assis-
tance, the Centro Hispano kept records, which provided the only
statistics available on the first Cuban immigrants. These figures became
extremely important in facing the bureaucratic and statistical challenge
of convincing the federal government of the seriousness and enormity
of the refugee problem."
Everyday hundreds of refugees would pass through the doors of
Centro Hispano. Some came to leave their young children while they
went off for a few hours of menial labor, others for a medical exam, or
in search of a few cans of food. Others simply needed bus fare to get to
a job. Whatever human challenge
tested these new immigrants, the
center attempted to solve it. By the
summer of 1960, the Centro
Hispano was attending to over four
hundred people a day. In its first
two years, the Centro Hispano
recorded over 250,000 visits and ,
spent over half a million dollars.
And when costs of medical care .
and education were included, the
diocese spent over a million dollars Lunchtime at the Day Care Center of
that first year.22 To put that amount Centro Hispano, 1962. Courtesy of the
in perspective, it represented about Archdiocese of Miami Archives.
6 percent of the entire city of
Miami budget for 1959."
The most dramatic episode related to the Miami diocese's care of
Cuban immigrants is the story of the fourteen thousand Cuban children
who arrived unaccompanied in Miami. When people discovered that
young children were put on airplanes alone from Havana to Miami with
no expectation of who would meet them, the first question asked by
many, including the children involved, was, "How could parents have
done it?" The explanation and the story begins in Cuba, where rumors
began to spread that the Cuban government was planning to take
children away from their parents at the age of three. The words "Patria
Potestad," which referred to the proposed government proclamation,





46 TEQUESTA


were on the lips of every parent in Cuba in 1960-61. Although
denounced as a forgery by Fidel Castro himself, parents continued to
believe that at any moment the document being circulated by the
Cuban underground would become law." Another proclamation insisting
that Cuba would send children to Russia for training in language and
economics actually occurred.' Finally, there were many young people,
especially Catholics, who were involved in the counter-revolution and
their parents wanted to get them out of Cuba before they themselves
were arrested.'"
The movement of children, whose code name was "Operation Pedro
Pan," began in December 1960, when Bryan Walsh, head of Catholic
Charities, received a visit from James Baker who had been head of
a school for Americans and wealthy Cubans in Havana. Baker asked
Walsh if Catholic Charities could help find homes for children in
Miami. Baker initially viewed Catholic Charities as one part of a
complex conspiratorial plan whose goal was to get children out of Cuba
and away from the Communists. Walsh's response was that the Church
would not take part in a haphazard scheme, that this was a job for a
social agency that would take complete care of the children from the
moment they arrived, or the Catholic Charities would not participate.7
Baker accepted the priest's caveat, and, overnight, under the leadership
of Walsh, the Catholic Church became responsible for the welfare of all
unaccompanied children migrating from Cuba. The financial backing
for the project came from American businesses whose executives had
recently left Cuba." The first children arrived by plane on the day after
Christmas 1960, and the exodus continued for the next two years, until
there were fourteen thousand children under the care of Catholic
Charities. Local convents, camps and boarding schools soon overflowed
with children, and eventually the Miami diocese secured the aid of 130
Catholic Charities offices throughout the United States. "The Catholic
Welfare Bureau was the source of our confidence in accepting this chal-
lenge," recalled Walsh, "and history would testify that this confidence
was not unfounded."29 No children were lost in what for many agencies
would have been an organizational nightmare. Many letters came into
the Chancery office in the next few years regarding these children.
"Dear Reverend Carroll," one began, "I would like to inquire about the
whereabouts of a niece and nephew...they were sent from Havana,
Cuba, to Miami." Within ten days Walsh had written a letter explaining






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 47


that the children were in the care of a family in Detroit and could be
reached through Catholic Charities in that city.3" The entire story of
Operation Pedro Pan, which included smuggled documents, late meet-
ings at the State Department in Washington, spies and subterfuge
cannot be told completely or
fairly in this essay.3 Not every .*1 i
child was happy to be taken
from their homes and placed
in a foreign country in foreign
surroundings. Although
Church leaders in Miami did
not instigate this migration of _
children, they alleviated many
of the consequences of the
decision. And as a result of Future City of Miami Mayor, Maurice Ferre,
diocesan action, fourteen thou- with children from Operation Pedro Pan,
sand children found shelter 1961. The Ferre family donated their house
and security in forty-seven dif- on Brickell Avenue to be used as a shelter for
ferent dioceses in thirty states, the unaccompanied refugee children. Courtesy
This was a monumental task of the Archdiocese of Miami Archives.
for any agency, let alone one
that was less than two years old.2
Members of the Miami press knew about the movement of children
from Cuba, but they kept quiet about the story at the request of Walsh,
who feared reprisals against parents and children in Cuba. Finally, in
1962, a reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer broke the pledge when
he included the story in an article on Cuban children being sent to
Russia. After that story broke in February, the Herald reporters followed
with an avalanche of human interest stories on the children of "Operation
Pedro Pan."3 And as expected, the Castro government used the story as
propaganda against the Church, the United States and the counter-revo-
lutionaries still in Cuba. As recently as the Pope's visit in 1998 to Cuba,
Walsh was asked by a reporter about the "lost children" of Pedro Pan, to
which he responded, "give me the name of one lost child.""
After caring for the immediate material and spiritual needs of the
refugees, a second challenge facing the new diocese in Miami was to
mobilize the community. Outside of the group of nuns and priests
working at the Centro Hispano there were few in the Miami community






48 TEQUESTA


that knew a crisis was brewing in late 1959 and early 1960. When it
exploded in the summer of 1960, and there was no system in place to
deal with it, the young Diocese of Miami filled this vacuum, and mobi-
lization began in the Catholic community. The bishop called together
Catholic Hispanics in Miami and enlisted their aid in putting together
a group to find jobs and solicit donations for the new immigrants.5 At
the same time, he organized another group of leaders from the English
side of the bilingual fence for the same purpose.' It is an interesting
commentary on Miami at the time, as well as the political savvy of
Carroll, that he never brought the Hispanic leadership together with
the English-speaking leadership. He convened the groups separately,
except for public meetings, and he remained the lynchpin between the
two.7 Finally, using the moral suasion of his position, Carroll wrote an
open letter to business and civic leaders of Miami. "The Church is con-
tributing $100,000 a month to aid Cuban Refugees," he announced,
"but the Church cannot do it all." He called on corporations, especially
those who formerly did business in Cuba, to contribute to help ease the
plight of the refugees."
One reason bishops are selected is for their political prowess, and
Carroll did not disappoint those who had put their faith in him.
Within a few months of having nothing with which to address the
Cuban crisis, the Church had mobilized the civic leaders of Miami, had
collected significant donations and captured the attention of the federal
government.39 In November 1960, President Eisenhower sent the bishop
a letter thanking him and the diocese for their work with the Cuban
refugees. He also sent Tracey Voorhis, the former director of the
Hungarian refugee program, to Miami as his special envoy to report on
the crisis in Miami.40 Voorhis was taken to the Centro Hispano where
he was shown both the physical and the statistical evidence that docu-
mented the human tragedy. He returned to Washington with a report
that convinced Eisenhower to immediately release one million dollars
in order to establish a Cuban refugee relief program. In a letter to
Carroll, Voorhis wrote "I want to express my admiration for all that
you and the diocese did to help the refugees and the community of
South Florida as they dealt with this crisis."4'
At the end of January, and under the auspices of the federal govern-
ment, the diocese organized the "National Resettlement Congress."
Ostensibly, the diocese instigated Congress to promote national interest





The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 49


in the resettlement of Cubans, but knowing full well that the majority
of Cubans wanted to stay in Miami, the real reason for the Congress
was to draw national public attention to the drama unfolding in
Miami." The event was attended by the national leaders of the National
Catholic Charities as well as by the new Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare, Abraham Ribicoff, who was also taken on the obligatory
tour of the Centro Hispano.3 The national publicity reaped benefits
when in the next few months the initial $1 million contributed by the
Eisenhower administration grew to a monthly federal stipend of $2.4
million." The Bishop continued to exercise his political clout. When
the AFL-CIO Executive Committee held its annual meeting in Miami
Beach, Carroll urged them to issue a statement calling for more aid for
the Cuban refugees.5 The culmination of the attempts to mobilize the
government came at the end of 1961, when a subcommittee of the


Senate Judiciary Committee
held public hearings on the
refugee problem in Miami.
When Carroll testified, he
reminded the Senators of some
very important facts. First of
all, during the first two years of
the immigrant crisis from
January 1959, until the
Voorhis visit in December of
1960, the refugees received no
public assistance whatsoever.
During this period, the
Diocese of Miami organized
and financed the entire welfare
program for refugees. Secondly,
the Bishop pointed out that
although President Eisenhower
authorized the expenditure of
one million dollars, it was only
for resettlement to other loca-


Abraham Ribicoff, Secretary of Health
Education and Welfare in the Kennedy
Administration, visiting Centro Hispano
with Sister Miriam, the director of the
Center, and Father Bryan Walsh, director
of Catholic Charities. The Miami diocese
was instrumental in bringing national atten-
tion to the refugee crisis, 1961. Courtesy of
the Archdiocese of Miami Archives.


tions; no money was provided for distribution at a local level. He also
noted that since only people living in Florida for five years are eligible
for any local relief, Catholic hospitals had to provide all medical relief





50 TEQUESTA


for the refugees, including prenatal
care, surgery, and maternity care at
no charge to the patients. Finally,
no bishop when talking to those
who control the public purse strings
can forego an opportunity to bring
up the subject of education. Carroll
informed the senators that 3,858
Cuban Children were attending
Catholic Schools in Miami at a sav-
ings to the Government of $1.2
million a year. He reminded the
n Senators that these children were
invited to the United States, that
The clinic at Centro Hispano provided many were accustomed only to
free medical care for refugees, July Catholic education, and therefore it
1961. Courtesy of the Archdiocese of would be prejudicial against them
Miami Archives. not to assist their Catholic educa-
tion. "The Cuban people cannot
understand why," chided the bishop, "in a country that has shown such
goodness and charity by assisting them in every other welfare depart-
ment, in the field of education there should be such discrimination."44
The national mobilization instigated by the Diocese of Miami bore
fruit. By 1976, the National Cuban Refugee Fund had pumped in $1.6
billion into the Cuban community in Miami. Additionally, other tradi-
tional government sources of disbursement, such as the Small Business
Association, targeted Cubans as recipients of benefits; as Professor
Raymond Mohl has pointed out, of the one hundred million distrib-
uted by the small business association in the early seventies, over half
went to Hispanics, the great majority of whom were Cuban.4
The young Diocese of Miami led the way in providing aid to the
Cuban refugees. Individuals such as Bryan Walsh and Coleman Carroll
remain heroes in the Cuban community and their names are spoken
with reverence. But there is another side to the story. When Cubans
began arriving in Miami in 1959, the Diocese of Miami was only three
months old. According to a 1960 census, 331,000 Catholics lived in
the new diocese that stretched north into Palm Beach and west to
Naples. Of that number, 231,000 were under 44 years old. All but






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 51


30,000 were under 64 years old and 120,000 were children of school
age. The Catholic population was young and growing in a very different
direction than the one that became its destiny.4" Although the Cubans
arrived to find the South Florida region in an economic depression, the
area had just experienced a tremendous construction boom. In the
fifties, hundreds of young families with Veterans Administration loans
catalyzed stimulated the creation of new suburbs, as thousands of acres
of former Everglades swamplands became bedroom communities.
Carroll came to Florida as a "bricks and mortar" bishop. The local
diocesan newspaper reported a new
groundbreaking every week. The '
people that populated these new
churches came from the Northeast -
and the Midwest. They brought
with them their faith and their
prejudices. Although geographically
Cuba was only one hundred miles
to the south, the problems of the
Caribbean island were intellectually
light years away from the average
Miamian at the time of the revolu-
tion. North American transplants For these children the Diocese imple-
from the Midwest and Northeast, mented a high school program. Here
many of whom had grown up in Father Walsh is looking at the degree of
families who had quickly assimilated one of the graduates, June 1961. Courtesy
into the American culture, could of the Archdiocese of Miami Archives.
not understand these new immi-
grants who seemed overly excitable, loud, and altogether too different.
A letter to Coleman Carroll complained about "these Cubans who use
the mass as a pubic congregating hour and speak whenever they please
during the mass." Another wanted to know why the priest had to inter-
rupt his sermon to allow a Cuban to translate for him."' In an interview,
Monsignor Walsh stated that he received many personal threats for his
role in bringing Cubans to Miami.)o Even the clergy of Miami were not
totally in favor of the rapidly changing face of the Church in Miami.
Walsh remembers giving a talk in October of 1962 to a conference of
clergy on the new immigrants. In it he informed his audience that it
should not be the role of the church to force assimilation, that the culture






52 TEQUESTA


and tradition of Cuban Catholics ought to be respected. His talk at best
was received with cordial indifference, and one priest expressed the
thoughts of many when he told Walsh that he had given a nice talk
"but that [acceptance of the Cuban religious heritage] will never happen
in my parish."5 The official policy of the diocese was expressed by
Coleman Carroll on July 27, 1961: "It is hoped that they (refugee
priests and laity) will learn the language and within six months be of
some service to the Diocese.""
Wayne Farris, a nightly reporter on a local television station, summed
up the thoughts of many South Floridians when he commented on the
air that Miamians view the Cubans as "house guests who have worn
out their welcome, who feel it is now time to move on. The Cubans are
a threat to our business and our tourist economy." Farris continued, "It
would appear that the hand that holds Miami's torch of friendship has
been overextended."" Across the Florida straits in Cuba the actions of
the Miami Church were noticed and also criticized. Castro accused the
Miami Church of being in league with the Kennedy government in
supporting counter-revolutionaries, and when Cardinal Spellman
donated fifty thousand dollars to the refugee program, Castro called
him a "protector of criminals and gangsters."54
By 1962, when the Bay of Pigs failure and the missile crisis had
become a part of the sad history of conflict that continues today
between Havana Cubans and Miami Cubans, the new Diocese of
Miami began to enter a second phase of its short history. The first stage
dominated by the immediate care of the Cubans continued, but thanks
to the Church's efforts, that obligation was now primarily in the hands
of the federal government. Another reality was setting in: the Cubans
were not temporary visitors. The Church was the first institution to
recognize the refugee problem, and it was also the first to realize the
eventual permanence of the Cuban refugee community. In 1962,
Carrofllstablishea the La' Americln Chancry. In 1966, another
important step in the acceptance of the rapidly developing bicultural
Church in Miami occurred when Saint Vincent de Paul Seminary
became the first and only bilingual seminary in the country.5
The Church anticipated correctly, the Cubans did not go home as
the television commentator had suggested, and in their process of
relocation, they transformed the Miami Diocese in ways that the
Vatican or clerics could not have imagined in 1958. A diocese of some






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 53


300,000 primarily English speaking Catholics from the Midwest and
Northeast spread over about twelve counties became, by the 1980s, a
diocese reduced geographically to three counties, but one containing a
population of 1.1 million, 62 percent of whom are Hispanic. The
diocese boasts a bilingual seminary, a weekly paper that is printed
only in Spanish, a diocesan radio station broadcasting in Spanish, and
an auxiliary bishop who is Cuban. On Sunday, more, or as many,
masses are said in Spanish in most parishes as English, and the domi-
nant language in the Archdiocesan offices (outside the archbishop and
chancery offices) is Spanish. A diocese that some feared could not
survive in 1958, is now the
tenth largest Archdiocese in
the United States.
The transformation of the .
Diocese of Miami, which
reflected the transformation of
the city itself over those years,
was the most radical to occur
in the diocesan history of the
American Church. When
historians begin to examine
more carefully the causes of the Mother Theresa visiting Centro Hispano
massive Cuban migration, the at6lico in 1974. Courtesy of the Archdiocese
role of the Catholic Church of Miami Archives.
will become central. First, it
was the Catholic Church in Cuba that became the focal point for the
Cuban counter-revolution, providing it with organization, philosophy
and leadership. Second, when that counter-revolution failed and the
flight to Miami began, the Catholic Church became the first institution
to welcome the refugees. In this role, the Church provided food, shel-
ter, and most importantly a political voice. Finally, the Diocese of
Miami was the first organization to recognize the permanence of the
Cuban migration and began very early on to adjust its institutions to
this social reality. In the midst of an indifferent if not hostile Miami
community, the early Cuban refugees found comfort, sustenance and
voice within the Catholic Diocese of Miami. Without the initial sup-
port of the Church, the story of the Cuban migration to Miami may
have been a completely different one.






54 TEQUESTA


Endnotes
'Jaime Fonseca Mora, "Catholics View Castro With Guarded
Approval," The Voice, April 10, 1959, 16.
2 Gustavo Pena Monte, "Havana Bishop Endorses Castro Plan To Break
Up Cuba's Larger Estates," The Voice, June 5, 1959, 9.
3 Jaime Fonseca Mora, "Castro Seen Influenced By Christian
Humanism," The Voice, June 12, 1959, 8.
4 The Voice, February 10, 1961, 2.
5 Bryan Walsh, "Cuban Refugee Children," Journal of Inter-American
Studies and World Affairs, Volume XIII (July-October, 1971), Nos. 3 &
4, 384; Jaime Suchlicki, University Students and Revolution in Cuba,
1920-1968, (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1969) 95.
" Jaime Suchlicki, University Students and Revolution in Cuba,
1920-1968, (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1969) 95.
S"Sale de Cuba Jose Rasco," The Voice (Spanish Section), May 6,1960, 20.
"Castro Aims To Replace Church With Communism," The Voice,
October 7, 1960, 1.
S"Castro Calls Prelate Judas As Attacks On Church Mount," The Voice,
December 23, 1960, 3.
10 "Cuba Bishops Blast Reds Demand Religious Rights," The Voice,
August 12, 1960, 1.
S"Violence Mounts As Red Curtain Falls On Cuba," The Voice, August
26, 1960, 1.
12 "Wounded Priest May Face Military Tribunal In Cuba," The Voice,
September 2, 1960, 4.
13 Ibid.
4John Sheerin, "Castro Lights Way For The Reds," The Voice, August
26, 1960, 7.
' "Castro Calls Prelate Judas," The Voice, December 23, 1960, 3.
16 "Castro Branded As Betrayer By Cuban Freedom Fighter," The Voice,
August 19, 1960, 1.
7 "Testimony of Bryan Walsh, Executive Director of Catholic Charities,
Diocese of Miami," Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate
Problems Connected With Refugees and Escapees. Committee on the
Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second
Session, part 2. December 2, 3, & 4, 1962, 231. (hereafter Senate
Hearings)
is Francis Sicius, "The Miami Havana Connection: The First Seventy






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 55


Five Years," Tequesta, LVIII (1998), 28-29.
" Interview, Francis Sicius with Monsignor Personal Interview,
Bryan O. Walsh, Former Director Of Catholic Charities Miami
Diocese, Miami Florida, November 16, 1999.
2o The Voice, May 27, 1960, 14; "Testimony of Bishop Coleman
Carroll," Senate Hearings, 15.
2Interview, Bryan Walsh.
2 "Carroll Testimony,"15.
B Sicius, "Miami Havana Connection," Senate Hearings, 36-37.
SYvonne Conde, Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Story of the Exodus
of 14,048 Cuban Children, (New York: Routledge, 1999), 40-43;
Walsh, 382.
" Walsh, 383; "Children to Moscow," The Voice, January 27, 1961, 1.
26 Ibid., 384.
27 Ibid., 392.
2" Ibid., 390-391.
" Ibid., 393.
o0 Letter, Henry Boyle to Bishop Coleman E Carroll, May 30, 1961;
Letter, Bryan Walsh to Chancery Office, June 10, 1961. Archdiocese of
Miami Chancery Records, Letters of Coleman Carroll Box "A-Z Laity
Prior 1962."
3' This entire story is told in much greater detail in Walsh's article (op.
cit) and Conde's book (op.cit).
32Walsh Testimony, Senate Hearings, 226; Walsh Interview.
9 Walsh Interview; Conde, 43.
34Walsh Interview.
S"Lay Committee Organized to Aid Centro Programs," The Voice,
February 5, 1960, 14; Among those joining lay committee to aid
Centro Hispano were the Fanjuls, who were the largest producers of
sugar in Florida and the Caribbean, and the Ferres, who owned the
largest construction material factory in South Florida, as well as Dr.
Nestor Portocarrero, Horacio Aguirre publisher of Diario Las Americas,
Rafael Riero Cruz president of the Latin American Bar Association,
Pierre Perez Inter American division of the City of Miami Publicity
department, Eduardo Morales Metropolitan and Manuel Gonzalez
Central Bank"
3" Among this group were Congressman Dante Fascell, Clyde Atkins,
president of the Florida Bar, Franklyn Evans president of the Dade






56 TEQUESTA


Country Medical Association, John Fitzpatrick, the Archdiocesan attor-
ney, Wendell Rollason, Miami Inter American Affairs Commissioner,
and H. Franklin Williams, head of the Miami Welfare Planning
Council. Harold Buell, Protestant Chairman of the Miami Latin
Center. The Voice, October 7, 1960, 1.
7 Walsh Interview.
* The Voice, February 24, 1961, 11.
3 The owner of a local dog racing track( ($6,000), Texaco Oil
Company ($50,000) and Cardinal Spellman ($10,000) to name a few;
Carroll Letters, Diocese of Miami Chancery office archives.
40"President Praises Inspiring Refugee Relief By Diocese," The Voice,
December 16, 1960, 1. The story noted that: "President Dwight D.
Eisenhower expressed his gratitude to the Diocese of Miami for the
inspiring work on behalf of the Cuban refugees of South Florida..."
4 Letter from Tracey Voorhis to Bishop Coleman Carroll, February 17,
1961, Archdiocese of Miami Chancery Records, 'Laity, 1961 file V."
42 Walsh Interview.
4 The Voice, February 3, 1961, 1.
44 Sicius, 36; "Senate Hearings," 4.
5 The Voice, March 3, 1961, 1.
6 "Senate Hearings," 18.
Raymond Mohl, "Race Ethnicity and Urban Politics in the Miami
Metropolitan Area," Florida Environmental and Urban Issues, 9 (April,
1982), 24.
"331,668 Catholics In The Diocese," The Voice, July 29, 1960, 1.
9 Letters from Bishops Secretary to "Mrs. Carrier," February 24, 1961;
to "Mrs. Flynn," January 22, 1961, Archdiocese of Miami Chancery
Records, "Letters, Laity 1961 and prior."
50 Walsh Interview.
5 Msgr. Bryan O. Walsh, "A Many-splendored people, Reflections on
the evolution of a multicultural Church: 1958-1991," in Ana
Rrodriguez-Soto, ed., A People Called..., (Miami: Archdiocese Of
Miami, 1992), 28-36.
52 Ibid.
" Wayne Farris, Crisis Amigo, WCKT Channel 7 Special Report"
(December 5, 1961, 8:30-9:00 pm).
54 The Voice, December 30, 1960, 2.
5 According to Bryan Walsh, this may have been clever politics rather






The Miami Diocese & the Cuban Refugee Crisis 57


than cultural sensitivity since the decision was made at a time when
the Vatican was closing seminaries and Carroll kept his open by
pointing to its uniqueness as a bilingual seminary. Walsh, "A
Splendored People," 34.
6 Ibid., 33. In 1959 the diocese of Miami had been created out of
Bishop Joseph Hurley's Diocese of St. Augustine. At that time Hurley
feared that the Catholic population of South Florida would never be
large enough to support a diocese. Walsh Interview.














Chapman Field-The Evolution of

a South Dade Army Airdrome

Raymond G. McGuire



Cobbled together to encompass more than 850 acres ofpineland, scrub,
marsh, and seashore, the army airfield that came to be named after the
first U.S. flier killed in France during World War I saw active service for
only two months before the war ended. Thereafter local horticulturists
and aviation interests vied for control of the property as development
crept around its perimeter. With much of the acreage remaining park-
land or agricultural through the end of the twentieth century, Chapman
Field has persisted as an identifiable entity in Miami-Dade County with
a locally recognized name long after its airstrips have vanished.
Powered flight had barely passed its first decade when the war in
Europe erupted in 1914, but German, French, and English govern-
ments quickly saw the strategic advantages to be gained from the air-
plane over the battlefield. During the first years of the war the United
States had a chance to watch from the sidelines, and it, too, discovered
that air power was a potentially great new tactic. The U. S. Army had
few pilots, however, and few bases for training more; in Florida, only
the Naval Air Station in Pensacola was operational. America entered the
war on April 6, 1917, and, in a wave of federal spending, $640 million
was appropriated by Congress on July 24 of that year for military
aeronautics. Many private schools of aviation were taken over by the
military, such as Curtiss Field in Miami, and new airfields were estab-
lished throughout the country. Several were built in Florida, including
Carlstrom and Dorr Fields at Arcadia and the seaplane bases at Key
West and at Dinner Key in Miami.
Along Biscayne Bay, fifteen miles south of Miami, the U.S. Army
Signal Corps' Cutler Aerial Gunnery Field was pieced together from






Chapman Field 59


Survey diagram of the Cutler Aerial Gunnery Field, renamed Chapman
Field, produced in 1918. Note the original county road and layout of streets,
which persist today. Courtesy of of the U. S. Department of Agriculture & the archives of
the Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, Miami, FL.

195 acres owned by Walter H. Browne of Kings County, New York,
and 695 acres owned by the Avocado Land Company of Jackson
County, Missouri. Specifically, the site covered all but the southwestern
quarter of Section 24, Township 55 South, Range 40 East, plus frac-
tional section 19 of Township 55 South, Range 41 East, as recorded on
page 44 in plat book 2, office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
Dade County, Florida. The total cost to the government was $71,500
for lands deeded it in April 1920. The tract occupied by the U.S. Army
bordered the eastern edge of the Perrine land grant, and the northwestern
corner is at the intersection of what would become SW Sixty-seventh
Avenue and Old Cutler Road.
During 1918, the army subsequently dredged a portion of the bay-
side marsh to create a marl landing field, a lagoon for water landings,
and channels to Biscayne Bay. Roads were cut through the palmettoes
and slash pines on the limestone ridge a mile inland. Water was
pumped from underground, stored in three tanks of twenty thousand
to one hundred thousand gallon capacity, and distributed across the






60 TEQUESTA


base by underground piping with hydrants for fire fighting. Electricity
was provided by lines to Miami, and steam was generated for heat.
The base was completed in September 1918, under the command of
Capt. William J. Pedrick, Jr. An article in the Miami Metropolis of
August 20, 1918, described the deluxe conditions awaiting the fliers
who would come to the school to finish their training in gunnery prac-
tices. The camp was a model town with electricity, waterworks, and a
sewage system. Constructed on a rock ridge, the base buildings were
situated among
Spine trees and
offered a view of
o the bay to the east.
A medical contin-
gent had already
arrived to man a
hospital complete
with operating
room, a large airy
public ward, and
Army base buildings at the time of the site inspection several private
by Dr. David Fairchild in 1922. View to north of hospital rooms. Nearby,
showing (left to right) officers' mess, quartermaster's officers' quarters
storeroom, and officers' quarters. Courtesy of of the U.S. and mess halls and
Department of Agriculture & the archives of the Subtropical the home of the
Horticulture Research Station, Miami, FL. commanding offi-
cer were built
around an oval field higher up and perpendicular to the original Ingraham
Highway (which had been relocated to the station's perimeter and would
in succeeding years be renamed Old Cutler Road) off which the enlisted
quarters and mess were built. A row of hangars sat along the western edge
of the filled landing field just east ofa road parallel to Ingraham Highway
on which were situated maintenance shops, the headquarters building,
and entertainment centers provided by the Young Men's Christian
Association (Y.M.CA.) and the Knights of Columbus. Off to the side of
the station, a target range had been dug out of the rock, and the material
was used for constructing the network of roads. On November 15,
1918, the airfield was formally renamed the Victor Chapman Military
Reservation3 by Major Kenly, head of the aeronautical division.






Chapman Field 61


Victor Emmanuel Chapman graduated from Harvard in 1913 and,
afterwards, journeyed to Paris to prepare for admission to the Beaux
Arts Academy and studies in architecture and painting. In a preface to a
memorial volume to his son published in 1917,' John Jay Chapman (a
Harvard professor and the great-great-grandson of John Jay, the first
United States Chief Justice) wrote of Victor: "He had no aptitude for
sports, none for books, none for music; but always a deep passion for
color and scenery..." If in school he was dull and uninspired, he
seemed to come alive in natural settings among woods and streams. He
was also thrilled by the threat of danger and almost recklessly threw
himself into life-threatening situations.5 In August 1914, France,
Germany and other European nations found themselves at war.
Americans living in Europe often felt as intensely loyal to their adopted
countries as did the combatants and sought to enlist, but by joining the
army of a foreign power they were threatened with a loss of American
citizenship. Many, therefore, chose to work in an ambulance corps or, if
their loyalties ran toward France, joined the French Foreign Legion,
which, as a mercenary group, was outside the French War Department.
Victor Chapman joined the Third Marching Regiment of the First
Foreign Regiment of the
Foreign Legion as a private in
September of 1914 at the age
of twenty-four and subsequently
fought in the trenches at Frise,
Amiens, and Bas over the next
eleven months.
At the time Chapman
slogged through the trenches,
Norman Prince and other
Americans sought to influence
the French government to Victor Chapman (back row, center) with fel-
establish an air squadron com- low French legionnaires on leave in Paris,
posed solely of American fliers. July 7, 1915. Photo reproduced from Edwin
At the suggestion of his father W Morse, America in the war
in England and uncles William The vanguard ofAmerican volunteers in the
Astor Chanler and Robert fighting lines and in humanitarian service,
Chanler living in Paris, August, 1914-Apri4 1917, (New York:
Chapman sent an inquiry to C. Scribner's Sons, 1919).






62 TEQUESTA


Prince and found himself transferred to French aviation. As a
mitrailleur-bombardier, Chapman flew on bombing runs to Voisin and
across the Rhine into Dilingen, Germany, before applying to the School
of Military Aviation at Avord, where he was admitted in September,
1915. With the receipt of his brevet militaire, and with his uncles'
financial and political influence in the creation of the Escadrille
Americaine, Victor Chapman, as a legionnaire, became one of the
founding members of the squadron. In April, 1916, this squadron of
seven Americans, under the
command of two French offi-
cers was sent to Luxeuil-les-
Bains, an ancient spa at the
Sa s D foot of the Vosges Mountains
s near the Swiss
border, and from there in May
to the Behonne airfield at
Bar-Le-Duc to patrol the rag-
ing battle of Verdun. The
squadron of Americans boosted
Victor Chapman (far right) with other mem- French morale and titillated
bears of the Escadrille Americaine before one newspaper readers in America
of their airplanes, 1916. Photo courtesy of but embarrassed the U.S. gov-
the James Rogers McConnell Collections ernment, and subsequently the
(#2104), Special Collections Department, name of the unit was changed
University of Virginia Library. to the Escadrille Lafayette
on December 2, 1916, in def-
erence to America's continued official neutrality.
As a pilot, Chapman's life was exciting but only rarely dangerous.
Most days, pilots seldom engaged the enemy during scouting missions,
and five kills qualified one as an ace. Individual pilots generally flew
two missions each day provided that the weather was favorable, and
each mission would last two hours. The Vosges sector was relatively
quiet, and off hours at Luxeuil were spent at a villa adjoining the spa
with chauffeured rides to an inn for dinner and nights of drinking and
playing pool. Life was harder near Verdun with more German air incur-
sions and more dangerous reconnaissance across German lines, and the
first American pilot, Horace Clyde Balsley, was seriously wounded and
evacuated to a hospital in Vadelaincourt. Unable to freely drink water






Chapman Field 63


due to a perforated intestine, Chapman volunteered to deliver oranges
to Balsley's bedside daily. On June 23, 1916, Chapman was in the air
headed toward Vadelaincourt when he saw a group of three squadron
mates depart on patrol. Chapman couldn't pass up an opportunity to
engage the enemy, although he was not scheduled for this patrol, and
decided to follow. In time, the regular patrol encountered five German
fighters and after a brief combat, outnumbered, withdrew to French
lines. Unknown to them, Chapman was flying to their aid and was
subsequently left alone with the five Germans. His plane was shot
down behind the German lines near the ruins of the French town of
Beaumont. A body presumed to be that of Victor Chapman was recov-
ered after the war, but dental records didn't match; nevertheless, the
body was placed in a grave under his name in the American Cemetery
at Suresness. Consequently, the remains in that grave at Suresness were
not later removed to a memorial to the Lafayette Escadrille built at
Villeneuve Park in St. Cloud outside Paris, and the crypt bearing
Chapman's name remains empty.'
Three days after the renaming ceremony, World War I ended, and
construction at Chapman Field Military Reservation ceased on
November 25, 1918. The base was declared surplus in 1921 by the War
Department and offered for sale, but a clear title could not be con-
veyed, and the sale was canceled. Subsequently a notice was received at
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Plant Industry that the
property was to be abandoned. This notice was brought to the atten-
tion of Dr. David Fairchild, a plant explorer in charge of the Bureau's
Office of Foreign Seed and Plant Introduction.
Dr. Fairchild was instrumental in establishing several plant introduc-
tion gardens throughout the U.S. to screen plants with a potential to
improve the diets and industry of Americans.7 Excursions throughout the
orient had fostered in Fairchild a passion for exploration and tropical
horticulture, but it was a fellow explorer, Walter Swingle, who under-
took the establishment of a new subtropical laboratory and garden in
Miami.' Swingle convinced Henry Flagler, the man who opened South
Florida to development by bringing his Florida East Coast Railway
south from West Palm Beach in 1896, to give the USDA an acre of
land along Biscayne Bay to be used for construction of a laboratory to
study plant diseases. He also persuaded another prominent Miamian,
Mary Brickell, to give him six acres across Brickell Avenue from






64 TEQUESTA


Flagler's plot, between SE Tenth and Fourteenth Streets, for use as a
plant introduction site. The Department refused the gifts of land
but accepted a lease arrangement in 1898. When the facilities on
Brickell Avenue proved too small, twenty-five additional acres of land
were leased in 1914 from Charles Deering north of there between
NE Twenty-first and Thirtieth Streets on North Miami Avenue in a
section of the city called Buena Vista. It was soon recognized, however,
that this property was also insufficient.
Upon hearing that Chapman Field was to be abandoned by the War
Department, Fairchild investigated and determined that this location
could be ideal for an expanded program of plant introduction. The former
army air base seemed perfect for his dream of creating an "Ellis Island for
plants"-a place where sensitive plants could be propagated and bred for
resistance to colder temperatures prior to their introduction to areas of the
United States farther north. As he would continually declare, Fairchild
sought "a piece of climate"-not simply land, which was plentiful and
cheap inland but more prone to cold temperatures. With more than
850 acres, the base was of sufficient size; several varieties of soil were repre-
sented as well as several ecological zones; the site was easily accessible by
road and by water; but, most importantly, the climate was as close to ideal
for growing tropical plants as would be found in Florida. A freeze in 1917
had severely damaged plants at the Buena Vista lab and, to a lesser degree,
on Brickell Avenue. A break in the barrier islands off Chapman Field
allowed the warm Gulf Stream to come closer to land there, and indica-
tions within local hammocks suggested less severe winter temperatures.
Fairchild also sought to create a living collection of plants-an arbore-
tum-to benefit both teaching and scientific study. He and others were
able to convince the Secretary of War, John W Weeks, to provide a
portion of Chapman Field to the USDA under a revocable lease agree-
ment. On April 26, 1923, the first trees were planted at the new USDA
Plant Introduction Garden.' Fairchild, however, was unsuccessful in his
attempts to transfer title of the entire property, and this preoccupation
dogged him for more than two decades.
David Fairchild thought it was entirely appropriate that the new
Plant Introduction Garden should border the Perrine Land Grant on its
western edge. In 1838, Dr. Henry Perrine was given a township of land
in Florida (specifically below 26 degrees north latitude) to settle with
farmers engaged in the propagation of tropical plants. As American






Chapman Field 65


consul at Campeche in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, Perrine intro-
duced tropical plants into the United States and showed they could be
domesticated in South Florida. Although he was subsequently killed
by Seminole Indians on August 7, 1840, his wife continued to satisfy
the conditions of the grant and brought in settlers who propagated
tropical plants.
Soon after leasing a portion of Chapman Field in 1923, USDA horti-
culturists began propagating their accessions for transfer to the new
property, and many of the plants from the Brickell and Buena Vista
sites had been transferred to the Plant Introduction Garden at
Chapman Field by the time a disastrous hurricane hit Miami in
September 1926. The storm, carrying winds of 130 miles per hour,
destroyed many of the wooden structures from the original air base,
while a later storm in 1945, brought down the water tower. To replace
the older buildings, sixteen laboratories, shops, and residences were
constructed between 1927 and
1934, as well as a serpentine
enclosure wall whose labyrinth
of open rooms shielded the
most cold-sensitive plants from
winter winds. In some cases,
exterior walls were constructed
of the native oolitic limestone.
In other cases, the cement USDA laboratories and the walled enclosure
floors of hangars and other for cold-sensitive crops built of oolitic lime-
structures from the World War stone quarried on-site, 1931. Courtesy of the
I air base were broken up and U.S. Department of Agriculture & the archives of
used; since the cement had the Subtropical Horticulture Research Station,
been poured onto the leveled Miami, FL.
limestone, these walls also have
the appearance of natural rock. Local legend says that these limestone
structures were built as part of one of the New Deal programs of
President Franklin Roosevelt; Col. Robert Montgomery, in The Facts
about Chapman Field, attributed their construction to the Civil Works
Administration (CWA), one of the first of Roosevelt's economic recovery
programs. The CWA existed from November 1933, through March
1934, before being incorporated into the Federal Emergency Relief
Program, which subsequently evolved into the Works Progress






66 TEQUESTA


Administration in May 1935. Lola Dowling, whose father helped main-
tain the USDA plantings and lived on the station from 1923 through
1947, also attributes their construction to the WPA.' Buildings 14, 15,
22, 28, 29, and 33 were built in 1933 and 1934, and, thus, may have
been constructed as a result of the New Deal.
Several USDA buildings were constructed atop the foundations of
the army structures, such as the USDA's Building 18, a pump house
(now carpentry shop) built on the base of the original pump house, and
Building 37, a laboratory built on the foundation of the original boiler
house that heated the hospital. Building 28, the Visitors' Center at the
USDA station, was constructed on the foundations of the airfield's
machine shop, originally a garage for the USDA, it was renovated in
1977 by the Federation of Women's Garden Clubs and dedicated to
Catherine Sweeney, who, incidentally, was a subsequent owner of the
Kampong, David Fairchild's home in Coconut Grove.
The period of great plant explorations continued unabated through-
out the 1930s, with Fairchild and others bringing thousands of new
plant specimens into the station for propagation. Accessions numbered
approximately nine thousand in 1938" (when the horticulturist in
charge, T. B. McClelland, prepared an extensive listing by quadrant),
and, although not every accession was represented by a live plant, space

















USDA research station at Chapman Field. 1940, looking north. Courtesy of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture & the archives of the Subtropical Horticulture Research
Station, Miami, FL.






Chapman Field 67


limitations again became worrisome. The USDA was allowed use of
only ninety-five acres initially, supplemented in 1935 with another
sixty-five acres to aid research in finding alternatives to natural rubber
(Hevea brasiliensis), which had to be imported at great expense from
southeast Asia. Rubber research became increasingly important," but
the many alternatives never produced a satisfactory product. Instead, by
1940, research increasingly involved breeding and adapting Hevea to
Florida's growing conditions. The need was so great that Senators
Charles O. Andrews, Sr., and Claude Pepper were able, in May 1940,
to persuade Congress to restore money that had previously been deleted
from the budget of the Bureau of Plant Industry; that sent an extra
$115,000 to the Plant Introduction Station in Miami." There was also
talk of acquiring more War Department land for the station. By
advancing rubber research, the congressmen hoped price controls on
this commodity could be removed more quickly, and they hoped to
establish a new line of business with nearby countries. The USDA sta-
tion became a clearinghouse for disease-free rubber plants that were
sent to Central and South America for transplantation.
On a portion of the remaining land outside the USDA station, the
government maintained an airfield used by army reservists who prac-
ticed bombing runs over Biscayne Bay during the winter months. Local
antagonism to this airfield was led by Col. Robert Montgomery, a
neighbor on Old Cutler Road who shared with David Fairchild a special
concern for plants and a determination to develop a botanical garden in
the area; he joined Fairchild's continuing effort to have all the property
released to the USDA.'4'1, During the Depression years, however, other
interests in Miami were hoping the War Department would develop a
major air facility on the site, which would provide many new jobs.
Congressman Mark Wilcox led the effort to secure an expanded airfield
for Chapman Field, but he was thwarted by Montgomery and Fairchild
and their Washington connections at nearly every step. Montgomery,
who had recently retired from the U.S. Army, had special access to mil-
itary planners. Most of these men already believed that Chapman Field
was unsuitable for modern aircraft and that its proximity to urbanized
areas was a serious detriment. Although Congressman Wilcox pushed
legislation in 1933 for an $11 million expansion of Chapman Field, no
changes actually appeared. On January 15, 1939, an erroneous claim of
the field's abandonment appeared in the Miami Daily News. Still, it was





68 TEQUESTA


hard for the War Department to part with the property. Eventually,
however, the War Department transferred its operations to a municipal
airfield in Miami and leased the airfield at Chapman Field to the
Embry-Riddle Company, which operated a civilian flight school. In the
autumn of 1941, the War Department was finally set to accept a trans-
fer of title to the USDA, but the onset of World War II put everything
on hold. During the war years, Fairchild and others continued to send
new plant material to the USDA station, and the place was used at
times by the military for survival training.6
The original Embry-Riddle enterprise was organized as an air mail
service and training school in Cincinnati in 1926; it was later sold and
merged into AVCO, which then became American Airlines." Riddle
then moved to Miami and started a new flight school. In 1938, because
of fears of possible war, Congress passed the Civilian Pilot Training
(CPT) program, providing free ground school to college students and
free flight training for the upper 10 percent scholastically. Later, high
school students were enrolled in the program. The air arm of the mili-
tary was considered ineffectual, and there existed few training bases and
trained instructors. The Army Air Corps sent cadets to commercial
flying schools. One school, operated by Embry-Riddle, conducted
flight training in Miami; other schools run by this company were at
Carlstrom and Dorr Fields in Arcadia, Florida. A second company,
Riddle-McKay, ran an aeronautical college in Clewiston.
With the onset of American involvement in World War II, the mili-
tary began to use tourist areas for training programs because these areas
had become financially depressed as tourism and college enrollment
declined due to war. Miami's Chapman Field was reactivated with the
advent of WW II, but it was too small for modern military airplanes.
In August 1942, the army air facilities at Chapman Field were made
available to the Embry-Riddle Corporation, which was contracted to
train civilian and military pilots. Civilians, including prospective
WASPS (Women's Air Force Service Pilots), were taught at the Seaplane
Base on the County Causeway which was renamed MacArthur
Causeway in 1942; written exams and Navy flight training were con-
ducted at Chapman Field.8 Women seeking additional flying time for
WASP approval also took training at Chapman Field. These aviators
attended the Riddle program to amass flying time and secure ratings
prior to their formal training in Sweetwater, Texas. University of Miami






Chapman Field 69


coeds were also trained as WASP pilots under the War Training
Program. With the end of the war, the GI Bill of Rights made available
technical training to returning
vets, and a contract was given .^
to Embry-Riddle to provide
training at Chapman Field. In
1947, a request was made by
Embry-Riddle to make
Chapman Field a commercial
airport, but it was denied by
Dade County, and the compa-
ny eventually moved to Opa
Locka, after which the field Airfield at Chapman Field leased by U.S.
was closed. In 1965, following, War Department to Embry-Riddle
another move to Daytona, Company for use as a flight school during
Florida, the Embry-Riddle World War II. Administration building of
Aeronautical Institute was field. HASP.
established leading to a
Bachelor of Science degree in aviation specialties. Its enrollment in the
1990s surpassed four thousand.
Dade County expressed a desire, as early as 1940, to connect the
excess land at Chapman Field into a county park. In February 1940,
R. V. Waters of the Greater Miami Airport Association wrote County
Commissioner Charles H. Crandon advising that the property could
become available and that the county should consider acquiring the
land." Another stimulus was a letter in March, 1940, from Montgomery
to Crandon, which mentioned that Congress was disposed to cut
appropriations for all foreign plant introduction, suggesting the
USDA might not care to acquire the property, which might instead
be sold for development. By May, of course, this situation had
reversed. The property contained one of the last stretches of undeveloped
white sandy beach in the county. Crandon, an amateur horticultur-
ist, had made it his mission to create a park system in Dade County
and to protect the region's natural beauty, and in March of 1940 he
was able to convince the County Board to go on record to open
negotiations with the War Department to acquire fractional Section
19 of Township 55 South Range 41 East. To this effect, Congressman
Claude Pepper was able to get the Department of Agriculture (which





70 TEQUESTA


had received new funds in support of research at the Miami lab) to
agree that land close to the bay was unsuitable for agriculture, and
therefore, in principle, could eventually be deeded to the County as
parkland. Dade County felt at the time that it had received a com-
mitment from the federal government.
With the end of the war, Fairchild still hoped to incorporate
Chapman Field into the plant introduction station, but the USDA had
by now decided that the upkeep on such a large piece of land would
drain resources from other projects, so it would no longer support
Fairchild's efforts. Moreover, Montgomery's creation of the Fairchild
Tropical Garden in 1938 satisfied the local desire for a botanical gar-
den, and there no longer seemed to have been much public support for
expansion of the USDA property. Although an additional 37 acres was
incorporated into the USDA's plant introduction station in 1947, the
remaining portion of Chapman Field-633 acres-was excluded.
That part of Chapman Field outside the USDA property was declared
surplus by the federal government in November 1947. From the War
Assets Corporation it was transferred to the Farm Credit Administration's
Federal Land Bank and reclassified agricultural when disposal as airport
property was impossible.2" Dade County applied for the property, as did
the city of Coral Gables and the University of Miami. Coral Gables
acceded to the wishes of the county and withdrew, and the county and
university agreed to split the property. As an educational institution,
the university had first choice of the land and chose 150 acres that
included most of the filled area used for airport runways. Dade County
received the remaining 483 acres by quitclaim at 50 percent of the fair
market value of $3,500 on December 19, 1949.
One-hundred fifty acres of Chapman Field, including one airport
building not destroyed by the 1945 hurricane or subsequently demolished,
was acquired for $1,550 for the University of Miami by a quitclaim
deed dated November 16, 1949, subject to certain conditions and the
right of re-entry by the federal government.2' Among other things, the
government was interested in reserving its access to any fissionable
materials that might be discovered on the property. Some conditions
were ultimately abrogated when University President Jay W Pearson
was authorized to pay $1,162.50 to the government in 1954, but the
government's right of re-entry and its reservation of uranium resources
continued to be a problem.






Chapman Field 71


Since its inception in 1926, the university had planned to establish a
tropical research bureau for contributions to tropical agriculture, but
development money was not forthcoming.2 Earlier in 1949, Pearson had
requested from university departments proposals justifying a need to
secure land at Chapman Field. The Department of Botany had suggested
that the land would suit its ecology course and floriculture program and
provide space for a tree nursery and the propagation of tropical and salt-
tolerant plants. The Zoology Department mentioned tests evaluating
termite exposure, the study of animals living in mangroves, and general
field zoology. The Marine Laboratory submitted plans to develop a
swamp station in the mangroves and to pursue research on marine borers,
and tropical deterioration in swampland, as well as for the improvement
of Florida's fisheries; the facility also hoped to build docks closer to the
university than those available to it on Miami Beach.
Specific proposals were submitted in January of 1950, apparently
without the benefit of adequate inspection of the property. In August
1950, the Botany Department had come to realize that there was no
bay footage and that the mangrove area was subject to flooding and of
low diversity. The next month President Pearson noted that there was
no further interest shown by the Department of Zoology and the
Marine Laboratory, and that the Botany Department felt the expense
for preparing the site for research purposes was excessive; he suggested,
instead, that the university concentrate on the Richmond property that
was to become South Campus and either sell the Chapman Field prop-
erty or return it to the government.
Due to the government's right of re-entry written into the property
deed, sale of the land proved difficult. An offer of $250,000 from the
Babcock Company was withdrawn when clear title could not be
proven. In September 1955, United States Congressman Dante Fascell,
whose district encompassed Chapman Field, was asked to intervene
with the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which
could grant a release, but the department's secretary, M. B. Folsum, was
nor helpful. Some conditions of the lease were changed, including a
deed restriction that the land be used for educational purposes.23 By
April 1956, a long-term lessee was found who was not concerned about
the deed's conditions. In October 1956, local developer Ben Cooper
leased 128 acres of Chapman Field from the University for two thou-
sand dollars per year for a period of fifty years. His plan, of which he






72 TEQUESTA


notified the county in late 1957, called for his company, Kings Bay
Corporation, to build a semi-private golf course and clubhouse as a ben-
efit to the people buying his homes in the neighboring subdivision. The
county unsuccessfully protested the sale since the only public access to
Chapman Field Park was through the university's property along
Mitchell Drive (SW 144th Street), which Cooper attempted to close.
Without access, development of the park would have been difficult.
Next, Cooper came to the county asking to buy forty-eight acres of
Chapman Field along the eastern side of the USDA station; there he
planned to construct the last four holes of his eighteen hole golf course.
This request caused a tremendous uproar over the possible sale of pub-
lic lands; instead, a lease arrangement was agreed upon with the county
in February 1958. In exchange for a favorable twenty-year lease, and
with an option for twenty more years, Cooper agreed to make
improvements valued at $250,000 to the adjacent park. He agreed to
dredge a lake in the remaining park property and deposit five hun-
dred thousand cubic yards of fill for a roadway and parking lot;
Cooper also planned to acquire an adjoining piece of property pro-
viding the county with access to the park from Old Cutler Road.
Before the proposed deal was
approved by the county, how-
a l ever, Cooper had already
begun work on the land he
hoped to lease, causing anoth-
er storm of local indignation.24
As an aside, Cooper, in ful-
filling the terms of his lease to
build a new park entrance,25
purchased land from the
Warwick estate, which owned
Entrance to USDA Plant Introduction Station property on the northern side
from Old Cutler Road prior to 1960; it was of Old Cutler Road and adja-
originally constructed for the World War I cent to the northeast corner of
airfield named for Victor Chapman. the USDA station. An addi-
Courtesy of Fairchild Tropical Garden. rional 0.11 acres had to be
acquired from the USDA, and
letters from station leaders Schrum and Loomis in 1958 and 1959,
respectively, itemized provisions for a revocable lease with Dade County






Chapman Field


and its amendment. One item dealt with the reconstruction of the sta-
tion's coral rock entrance gate, which had to be moved to make way for
the new roadway. Surveys indicated the entrance, left from the days of
the World War I airbase, was outside USDA property on land Cooper
had purchased from Warwick since this USDA provision was found
therefore, to be invalid, the gate was demolished, and Cooper declined
to spend the seventeen hundred dollars needed for its reconstruction.
Cooper began to experience financial difficulties, before receiving $1
million from a Washington, D.C. businessman, Gustave Ring. In late
1961, Ring foreclosed on Cooper; Ring not only owned the Kings Bay
Country Club and its county lease, but he also purchased, in 1962, the
university's Chapman Field property formerly leased by Cooper. Ring
next persuaded the county to lease an additional twenty-four acres of
Chapman Field Park in exchange for services such as dredging; then, he
offered to buy all seventy-two acres for seventy-two thousand dollars;
that offer was declined, however. The lease on the seventy-two acres was
extended, in 1964, for ten additional years until 2008. With the sale of
Kings Bay Yacht and Country Club in 1980 to Phil Revitz and Alan
Gordich, the lease on seventy-two acres of Chapman Field Park was
modified to include payments of fifteen thousand dollars per year, but
this lease could be canceled after February 17, 2009, only if Dade
County could prove the land was needed for county purposes." The
lease was subsequently extended twenty-two years, expiring in 2030. In
1981, Kenneth Rosen and Edward Easton purchased the property and
the leases were transferred. The partnership comprising Kings Bay Yacht
and Country Club was subsequently renamed the Deering Bay
Partnership, with Easton as trustee; it combined with Codina TB
Venture, with Armando Codina and others as principals, to form the
joint venture Deering Bay Associates in 1990, for further development of
the property formerly owned by the University of Miami and the county
leases. Subsequently, the property was sold for $32 million to developer
Al Hoffman in May, 1997.27
Although there have been extensive changes to that part of the
Chapman Field property purchased by the University of Miami, little
has been accomplished to develop Chapman Field Park by Dade
County. The original utilization program submitted by the county to
the federal government in 1949 called for a swimming beach, hiking
trails, and a boat marina; Chapman Field Park was to be developed as a






74 TEQUESTA


companion to Matheson Hammock Park, three miles north of it along
the Biscayne Bay. Lack of accessibility, a problem with a clear title to the
land, dearth of development funds, and encroaching urbanization hin-
dered construction of a public park on the property. For many years, the
city of Coral Gables and the county maintained sanitary landfills at the
park entrance, but prospects brightened in 1972, when a general obligation
bond known as the "Decade of Progress" was approved by referendum.2
Included in the provisions for Chapman Field Bond, which provided
$3.9 million for improvements to Chapman Field, were a 200-slip mari-
na, bait and tackle facilities, parking dry boat storage, boat ramp, utilities,
restrooms, and picnicking facilities. Three lighted ball fields were con-
structed near the park entrance, and some grading was completed, but
within three years the other proposed additions had been greatly altered.
The idea of a marina was abandoned in favor of boat ramps that would
serve more people; more ecologically friendly ideas were developed,
including canoeing and sailing on the manmade lakes and canals.
Neighbors and environmental concerns have stalled large-scale
development long enough so that community interest has turned
toward preservation of Chapman Field Park as a natural area. Its origi-
nal features, including mangroves, sandy beach, and tributaries, have
been, for the most part, preserved." Of its 483 acres, 432 are man-
grove forest designated by type as coastal band mangrove, dense
scrub mangrove, sparse scrub mangrove (all primarily red man-
grove), disturbed white mangrove, and transition mangrove.
Although there is limited access by road, shallow draft boats can
approach the bank's waterfront by way of grass flats lying parallel
to the coast; deeper draft vessels can enter via short channels near
the northeastern boundary where the water is eleven feet deep. The
county's site assessment report lists numerous species of native
plants and birds as well as animal life.
At a state of development intermediate between Chapman Field Park
and Deering Bay lies the USDA property, which has occupied
Chapman Field since 1923. The army's temporary wooden buildings
have been replaced with more permanent ones of coral rock and
cement block, but most of the land continues to be agricultural with
pockets of native pineland. Within these pinelands can be found two
endangered plant species-the deltoid spurge and Small's milkpea
which bestow federal protection on these lands.






Chapman Field 75


Chapman Field as it looked in 1998, facing east, with the USDA station in fore-
ground, Deering Bay development to the southeast, and Chapman Field Park along
Biscayne Bay. Courtesy of of the U- S. Department of Agriculture & the archives of the
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, Miami, FL.

The USDA's plant introduction station has continued to develop
tropical agriculture on the bulk of its acreage. Throughout the decades,
plant explorations have continued to bring in new specimens for propa-
gation, but the focus of research has changed over the years.'" Early
introductions sought to improve the diet of Americans, and tropical
fruits seemed to predominate. For example, many new cultivars of
avocado and mango were introduced from Caribbean and Central
American nations and from southern Asia, respectively, some of which
were well-adapted to southern Florida and became widely planted. The
lychee and papaya were also distributed widely from this station, but
many other tropical fruit introductions are less familiar outside specialty
markets. Concurrently, introductions included flowering and shade trees,
such as the white geiger, the Hong Kong orchid, the flame-of-the-forest,
the African tulip tree, and many Ficus species and palms to beautify
city streets and gardens. Other introductions sought to benefit industry,
such as those for the rubber research and trials with bamboo and
medicinals. In the 1950s and early 1960s, as in the previous decades,
this station was closely associated with agriculture as well as fruit and
ornamental horticulture, and new plant varieties were freely distributed






76 TEQUESTA


nationally to nurseries and research institutions, and to private individuals
with an interest in plants. Collections of coffee and cacao were estab-
lished in 1954 since they could be maintained in Florida free of the
diseases common to their native countries, although they could not be
commercially grown here. Currently, this station is one of two quaran-
tine facilities for cacao in the western hemisphere that serve to keep
diseases from moving into the area. While the U.S. does not produce a
significant quantity of cacao (the mainland being too cold), large
amounts of milk, sugar, peanuts, almonds, and other materials produced
in the U.S. are ingredients in the making of chocolate products.
A departmental reorganization in 1972 renamed the USDAs facility
at Chapman Field the Subtropical Horticulture Research Station
(SHRS), and research station-wide was administered through the
Subtropical Horticulture Research Unit. In the latter part of the
1990s Paul Soderholm continued to maintain the plant collections
and breed ornamental plants such as Dombeya, which were distributed
throughout the area. Dr. Robert Knight, Jr. continued the tropical fruit
crops program, and selected for improved characteristics in avocado,
mango, lychee, carambola, and passion fruit. His work produced passion
fruit that could be grown in temperate regions of the U.S.
With the arrival of Dr. R. J. Schnell in 1987, the direction of plant
science research changed.3 The SHRS was designated as a National
Germplasm Repository, one of eight locations nationwide with the mis-
sion to preserve the biological diversity within agriculturally-important
crops. This station has been responsible for maintaining, characterizing,
and enhancing mango, avocado, lychee and longan, annona, carambola,
tropical citrus, banana and plantain, and other tropical fruit species.
Responsibilities also include maintenance of a world collection of sug-
arcane and related grasses as well as a large collection of the forage grass
Tripsacum. A molecular genetics laboratory was established in 1987 to
aid this germplasm research. That lab has also facilitated the develop-
ment of a technique for the detection of Avocado Sunblotch Viroid
that has now been accepted as a diagnostic test for this disease by the
Departments of Agriculture in both the State of California and the
State of Florida.
A breeding program was also established at this station in the 1980s
by the Division of Forestry of the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services to develop disease resistance against lethal






Chapman Field 77


yellowing disease of coconut and other palms. There being no chemical
control, Mr. Bill Theobold supervised a program to cross the Malaysian
dwarf and the Panama tall palms to produce the resistant Maypan
hybrid. The Division of Plant Industry (DPI) is the longest-lived tenant
at the SHRS, being established there in 1959. The office inspects and
certifies plant nurseries; it also places insect traps within the community
to identify new pests and conducts surveys to identify disease outbreaks
that threaten the agriculture of Florida. Asiatic citrus canker, a disease
of many citrus species caused by a quarantined bacterium, was discov-
ered near Miami's international airport in October 1995, and DPI was
charged with surveying for the pest and its eradication.
Another field of plant science research that has been represented at
this station for a number of decades concerns the market quality of trop-
ical fruits and vegetables. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
shown an interest in postharvest quality of tropical fruits since a lab was
established in Homestead, Florida, in 1953. Initially, the Krome Avenue
lab, supervised by Dr. T. T. Hatton, developed maturity standards for
avocado and lime; soon after, it began studies to improve the market
quality of harvested tropical fruits by determining optimal storage and
ripening conditions. In 1956, this market quality lab was moved to the
Plant Introduction Station at Chapman Field. In 1971, Dr. Donald H.
Spalding, a research plant pathologist, arrived to study postharvest quali-
ty of tropical fruits and vegetables. Through 1987, Dr. Spalding studied
methods to improve storage of these commodities and reduce decay and
the quality changes induced by quarantine treatments against the
Caribbean fruit fly. Among other projects, he tested modified storage
atmospheres and low-pressure storage for fruits including mangoes and
avocadoes and evaluated the effects of fumigants, irradiation, and heat
on mangoes and grapefruit. This work was continued from 1989 by the
author of this article in conjunction with entomologists to develop
specific quarantine treatments against the fruit fly in grapefruit, navel
orange, mango, guava, lychee, and longan, and against weevils and scale
insects in sweet potatoes and limes, respectively. By this time, the most
commonly used fumigant, methyl bromide, was being displaced, and
heat, cold, or gamma irradiation were the most common alternatives.
A third program area, the entomology section, was instituted at this
Miami research station in 1968 as a result of the appearance in 1965 of
the Caribbean fruit fly in Florida. In its early work, the entomology






78 TEQUESTA


section learned how to rear millions of the flies on artificial diets for
experiments on sterilization and other control techniques including
trapping and bait attractants. During the mid-1970s, entomology
research shifted to include investigations of quarantine treatments for
commodities infested with the Caribbean fruit fly. Scientists conducted
work during this period that included the development of ethylene
dibromide, methyl bromide and cold as quarantine treatments and the
investigation of fumigant residues on treated commodities. Large-scale
fumigations were tested in a special facility constructed for this pur-
pose, and many of these fumigation treatments were commercialized to
ship a large portion of Florida's citrus crop to Japan.
In the mid-1980s, research shifted to finding alternatives to ethylene
dibromide, which was banned as a carcinogen in 1984 by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. There was also continued work on
insect attractants, which included work with the papaya fruit fly. One
of the treatments developed during this period is the widely-used hot
water immersion treatment for mangos developed by Dr. Jennifer
Sharp; all mangoes entering the United States from foreign countries
use some form of this hot water treatment, as do Florida mangoes
shipped to parts of the U.S.A cold treatment was developed for caram-
bolas, while a hot water treatment was developed for guavas, which
allow these fruit produced in Florida to be exported to large markets in
the western U.S. that quarantine the Caribbean fruit fly now endemic
in this state. Irradiation was further refined as a treatment for a number
of commodities including mangoes, citrus and carambolas by Don von
Windeguth. Dr. Guy Hallman investigated insects infesting a number
of locally-produced commodities including canistels, black and white
sapotes, and spondias, and he sought to refine quarantine treatments by
modifying the internal atmospheres of fruits.3
From the late 1980s through the late 1990s heat treatments were
further investigated to include the development, in cooperation with
other USDA laboratories, of vapor heat and dry heat treatments. Hot
air treatments were developed for citrus, mangoes, carambolas, and
other commodities; development of quarantine treatments for additional
species of insects attacking subtropical fruits and vegetables was also
begun. Treatments were tested against sweet potato weevil, banana
moth, plum curculio, blueberry maggot, diaprepes weevils, mealybugs,
and other insects. After 1990, fruits were evaluated for possible removal






Chapman Field 79


from a list of hosts for the Caribbean fruit fly; eventually, limes,
lychees, longans, and mamey sapotes were determined to be non-hosts,
which makes quarantine treatment unnecessary.
During the period from 1968 to 1986 there were usually three
entomologists and a chemist on staff at any given time, but by the
late 1980s the number in the entomology program had risen to six
scientists. Attrition and threats of station closure after 1993
brought the number down to one entomologist and a chemist at
the end of 1998. Increases in tourism and shipments of tropical
commodities, however, have continued to threaten American agri-
culture, especially that in Florida, with the establishment of exotic
insect pests. A re-direction of the entomology unit will emphasize
work outside the country in preventing the introduction of exotic
pests to the United States and place less effort on the development
of quarantine treatments.
In 1998, the Everglades Agro-Hydrology Research Unit was estab-
lished with Dr. Reza Savabi investigating changes to local agriculture
that could result from the restoration of a natural flow of water in the
Florida Everglades. After fifty years of constructing dikes and canals to
channel water away from developed areas and farmland, state and
federal government had committed themselves to a restoration of the
natural habitat, but this would displace some homeowners and lead to
the flooding of many farms. The new unit is charged with understand-
ing hydrologic processes in South Florida to help sustain the local
agro-ecosystem and environmental quality; more directly, it seeks to
produce maps of flooding possibilities and develop a model relating
hydrology and crop growth in agricultural areas.
The station has known natural disasters. In spite of the station's posi-
tion by the bay, freezes have occurred, the latest in 1989 that killed
sensitive plants such as cacao and damaged plants like avocado. On
August 23, 1992, Hurricane Andrew passed over the southern tip of
the Florida peninsula. The SHRS was in the northern eye-wall of the
storm and suffered a significant amount of damage. Assessments made
several months after the storm revealed a loss of approximately 30 per-
cent of the fruit tree and sugarcane germplasm and 50 percent of the
ornamental germplasm. Most of the fruit crop and sugarcane
germplasm was reintroduced from backup locations, but the ornamen-
tal collections were not replaced. With the exception of minor damage






80 TEQUESTA


to roofs and some windows, the oolitic limestone buildings from
thel930s withstood the hurricane well. Laboratories built in the 1970s
and 1980s fared less well but were quickly restored.
The SHRS was slated for closure with eighteen other ARS stations in
1994 as part of USDA Secretary Mike Espy's 1995 budget reduction
package for President Clinton; reasons cited included costs of restoring
the station and its plantings after the hurricane and urban encroachment
around the station and into the farming areas that made reestablishment
of tropical fruit production questionable." By this time, however, much
of the station's reconstruction had been completed, and local agriculture
was rebounding. Concern over the loss to tropical agricultural research
galvanized the scientific community to support the station. Within the
local community, Frank Smathers, a retired banker and amateur horti-
culturist, assumed the role fostered by Colonel Montgomery, Smathers'
former neighbor across Old Cutler Road, and tirelessly lobbied to keep
the SHRS open. Florida Congresswoman Carrie Meek, especially, and
Senator Bob Graham led a fight in Congress with the help of other
state and federal representatives to rescind closure. The mood among
supporters was alternately gloomy and ecstatic; thousands of letters
were penned to politicians and USDA administrators. In June 1994,
both the U.S. House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
removed the SHRS from the closure list, but, whereas the full House
agreed with its committee's recommendation, the Senate did not. In
September 1994, a congressional compromise provided funding for the
station for one additional year. Subsequently, station personnel and
representatives from Fairchild Tropical Garden, the National Tropical
Botanical Garden, Florida International University, the University of
Florida, and the Dade County parks department met to develop an
organization plan for a public-private partnership, and from the neigh-
borhood and local agricultural and research communities an advocacy
group of two thousand members was formed. A Memorandum of
Understanding between ARS and the Friends of Chapman Field
recognized the cooperation between the two parties in fostering and
publicizing agricultural and horticultural research. Closure formalities
were again initiated in February 1995, but this time both House and
Senate disagreed with the USDAs justifications for closing the station.
No further attempt was made to close the station the following year; not
only was the SHRS preserved, Congress appropriated several million






Chapman Field 81


dollars to upgrade the facility. Everglades research was included, and the
entomology and plant science programs were expanded. Nevertheless,
with future threats of closure a possibility, the county commission in
1996 changed the master plan designation of the USDA property from
"institutional" to "parks and recreation," precluding future development.
Together, the USDAs Subtropical Horticulture Research Station,
Dade County's Chapman Field Park, and Deering Bay's golf club and
recreational community share a historic property in South Dade. From
different perspectives, perhaps, people connected with all three also
share a love of nature and a fondness for the out-of-doors. With the
passage of time, the desire and need to preserve our natural surroundings
has increased, and it is unlikely that further development will be
allowed to mar this setting significantly. As a warrior excited by a life
of danger, Victor Chapman would probably have been proud to have
had an airbase named after him in 1918. As an artist and naturalist, he
would most definitely have experienced great joy in knowing that his
name would become associated with the exuberance of tropical species
native to or introduced upon the spit of land in southeastern Miami-
Dade County known as Chapman Field.






82 TEQUESTA


Endnotes
The author would like to thank the following people and institutions
for providing research assistance: Bert Zuckerman of the Fairchild
Tropical Garden, Dr. Terrance Walters of the Montgomery Botanical
Center, Kevin Asher of Metro-Dade Park & Recreation, William
Brown of the University of Miami, Rebecca Smith of the Historical
Museum of Southern Florida, and Brian Sullivan of the Harvard
University Archives.
SWarren J. Brown, Florida's Aviation History, 2nd Ed.,(Largo, Florida:
Aero-medical Consultants, Inc., 1994), 343.
Howard Kleinberg, "Chapman Field once an air base," The Miami
News, August 31, 1985, 4C.
4V. E. Chapman, Victor Chapman's Letters from France, (New York:
MacMillan Co., 1917), 196.
5 D. Gordon, Lafayette Escadrille Pilot Biographies, (Missoula,
Montana:The Doughboy Historical Society, 1991), 271. This book
provides the most extensive coverage of Victor Chapman, but stories
and references are provided in many other materials including:
W. Brown, Jr., ed., An American for Lafayette. The Diaries ofE. C. C.
Genet, Lafayette Escadrille, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia,
1981), 224; B. Hall and J. J. Niles, One Man' War: The Story of the
Lafayette Escadrille, (New York: Henry Holt & Co., Inc., 1929), 353;
J. H. Mason, Jr., The Lafayette Escadrille, (New York: Random House,
Inc., 1964), 340; J. R. McConnell, Flying for France, (New York:
Doubleday, Page & Co.,1916), 157; E. W Morse, America in the War
The Vanguard ofAmerican Volunteers in the Fighting Lines and in
Humanitarian Service, August, 1914-April, 1917, (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1919), 243. Documents are also available through the
Harvard University Archives including "Victor Emmanuel Chapman,
13, excerpted from Memoirs of the Harvard Dead by M. A. de Wolfe
Howe, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919); in The Harvard
Bulletin, October 30, 1919; and stories that appeared in the Boston
Transcript on June 24 and June 30, 1916.
' Additional information on the life of Victor Chapman can be found
in: Raymond G. McGuire, "A Tribute to Victor Chapman, namesake of
South Dade WWI airfield," South Florida History, 28, No. 4
(Fall/Winter 2000): 26-33.
7 P. J. Pauly, "The beauty and menace of the Japanese cherry trees.





Chapman Field 83


Conflicting visions of American ecological independence," 87 Isis.,
51-73 (1996).
SDavid Fairchild, "Reminiscences of early plant introduction work in
South Florida," Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 51
(1938), 11-33.
" U.S. Department of Agriculture. Office of Foreign Seed and Plant
Introduction. Chapman Field Garden, by David Fairchild (Washington,
D.C.: 1923), 151. Volumes can also be found in the archives of the
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station and Fairchild Tropical
Garden. This report documents events leading to the establishment of
the USDA station at Chapman Field, describes the former airbase and
its buildings, and relates the property to the Perrine land grant.
0 Donna D. Gilbert, Growing up on Chapman Field, the inside story,
1923-1947, (Miami, Florida: Hallmark Press, Inc., 2000), 85.
" From a total of 4,389 plant introductions in 1924, the number
increased to 11,000 in 1941; 12,000 in 1949; 14,000 in 1956; 17,000
in 1960; and 22,000 in 1973. Generally only 3,000 to 4,000 accessions
were growing at any particular time, however-the others being repre-
sented in seed collections or having died. McClelland's 58 page list is in
the station's archives.
" H. E Loomis, "South Florida aids in the tropical rubber program,"
The Garden Journal of the New York Botanical Garden, 3 ( Fall 1953),
101-104.
S"Chapman Field to grow rubber," The Miami Herald May 27, 1940.
14 Robert H. Montgomery, The Facts about Chapman Field, (Miami,
Florida: privately published, 1935), 4. Copies are available in the
archives of the Montgomery Botanical Center and Fairchild Tropical
Garden. See also a letter to the Editor published in the Miami Daily
News, January 15, 1939, and reproduced in an article by H. Kleinberg,
"Chapman Field once was an air base," The Miami News, August 31,
1985, 4C.
'5 David Fairchild, "Reasons for a large general plant introduction gar-
den in southern Florida," Proceedings ofthe Florida State Horticultural
Society, 47 (1934), 117-120.
SU.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Summary, (Washington,
D.C., 25 January, 1945). See also W H. Hodge, H. E Loomis, L. E.
Joley, and J. L. Creech, "Federal plant introduction gardens," National
Horticultural Magazine, 35 (1956), 86-92.





84 TEQUESTA


7 Brown, Florida's Aviation History 2nd Ed., (Largo, Florida: Aero-med-
ical Consultants, Inc., 1994), 343.
" See Lola Dowling's history for a more personal account of the war years
at Chapman Field. Found in Gilbert, Growing up on Chapman Field.
SCopies of correspondence contained in the 1995 Chapman Field
Park Site Assessment Report prepared for the Metropolitan Dade
County Parks & Recreation Department by Wallace, Roberts & Todd,
Planning Consultants, MA. Roessler & Associates, Inc., Environmental
Consultants, and Margot Ammidon, Historical Consultant.
20 Ibid.
21 "Chapman Field" file, Special Collections, Otto G. Richter Library,
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. Dade County, Deed Book
3215, 421.
2 Charlton W. Tebeau, The University ofMiami. A Golden Anniversary
History, 1926-1976, (Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press,
1976), 418.
23 B. Donaldson, "County land taken; public warned off," The Miami
Herald, April 15, 1957.
24 P. Fortman, "Builder grabs county's lands; beach blocked," The
Miami Herald, 1957. Photocopy of article.
25 "Chapman Field" file, correspondence in the archives of the Dade
County Parks & Recreation Department.
2" Juanita Greene, The Miami Herald, August 17, 1980.
27 A. Ellerson, "Builder is developing a life of luxury," The Miami
Herald, 11 August, 1997.
28 R. Elder, "A final victory for no-man's-land," The Miami Herald,
March 16, 1975.
29 Chapman Field Park Site Assessment Report prepared for the
Metropolitan Dade County Parks & Recreation Department, 1995.
Found in "Chapman Field" file, Dade County Parks & Recreation
Department.
30 The following articles describe research through the early 1970s: W.
H. Hodge, H. F Loomis, L. E. Joley and J. L. Creech, "Federal plant
introduction gardens," National HorticulturalMagazine, 35 (1956),
86-92; M. Miller, "Introduction garden is world-famed," Tropical
Homemaker and Gardener, 7 (1956), 9-32; J. J. E. Shrum, "U. S. plant
introduction station at Coconut Grove, Florida," The Garden Journal of
the New York Botanical Garden, 9 (1959), 203-205; A. K. Burditt, P. K.





Chapman Field 85


Soderholm, D. H. Spalding and R. J. Knight, Jr., "Seventy-five years of
USDA research at Miami," Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural
Society, 86 (1973), 303-308.
1 R. G. McGuire, R. J. Schnell, and W. P Gould, "A century of
research with USDA in Miami," Proceedings of the Florida State
Horticultural Society, 112 (1999), 224-232.
32 J. L. Sharp and G. J. Hallman, eds., Quarantine Treatments for Pests of
Food Plants, (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1994), 290.
' See, in The Miami Herald, 1994, articles by Georgia Tasker, February
12: "USDA to shut center"; April 17: "(Chapman) Field of dreams gets
national hearing Monday"; June 27: "Senate spares ag station from clos-
ing"; July 22: "Agriculture research station on a roll-downhill now";
October 5: "Supporters chart future for spared research station"; also in
New Times, 1994, by Kirk Semple March 31: "Fore! If the USDA's
downsizing program kills off the historic Subtropical Horticulture
Research Station in South Dade, it wouldn't be a total loss";
and in The Miami Herald, 1995, Georgia Tasker's April 30 article:
"Chapman Field fans given ray of hope"; and September 22: "USDA
station off chopping block."
4 See, for example, in The Miami Herald, 1996, articles by Charles
Rabin, September 1: "Gables, Pinecrest vie to get Chapman Field";
September 12: "Change may keep USDA site a park"; November 15:
"Metro acts to protect Chapman Field."





86 TEQUESTA


Historical Association of
Southern Florida

Membership List



Members of the Historical Association of Southern
Florida enjoy a wide variety of benefits. These
include free admission to the museum; subscriptions
to three museum periodicals: Tequesta, South Florida
History and Currents; invitations to special events; use
of the Research Center; discounts on purchases at the
museum store; discounts on educational and
recreational programs; and new this year, reciprocal
memberships with many historical museums nation-
wide through the Time Travelers program. For
inquiries, call Hilda Masip, the Historical Association's
Membership Coordinator, at 305.375.1492.

The following listing is in descending gift order, as of
October 1, 2001. Any changes on your category or
gift level transacted after that date will appear in the
2002 Tequesta. Thank you for supporting the
Historical Museum through your membership and
endowment gifts.







List of Members 87


The Comptie Constituency

The Comptie Constituency is a distinguished society established to honor donors who have
already supported the endowment in a significant way, or who have made specific provisions in
their estate plans that will benefit the future of the Historical Museum of Southern Florida.
The museum created this society as a way of recognizing and thanking donors for gifts that will
impact the museum and the community for years to come.



Charter Members


Mr. Mitchell Wolfson, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Louis N. Tilley
Mr. & Mrs. John C.
Harrison, Sr.
Mr. & Mrs. William A.
Graham
Mr. & Mrs. Arnold C.
McLean
Mr. & Mrs. Lewis M. Kannter
Mr. & Mrs. David Mesnekoff
Ryder System Charitable
Foundation, Inc.
John S. & James L. Knight
Foundation
Mr. & Mrs. Allen Corson
Estate of Thomas B. Haggard
Estate of Phyllis M.G.
Dawson
Mrs. Avis Kent Goodlove
Northern Trust Bank of
Florida
Dr. Charlton W. Tebeau
Mr. Peter L. Bermont &
Family
Mr. & Mrs. Charles P
Munroe
Barnett Bank of South
Florida, N.A.
The Miami Herald
Knight Ridder, Inc.
Miss Lamar Louise Curry
Mrs. John W. Prunty
Mr. & Mrs. Teofilo A. Babun
Burger King
Estate of John M. Frohock
NationsBank
BellSouth


Sun Trust
Estate of Elizabeth H. Peeler
Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Erickson
Mr. & Mrs. Clifford Russ
Mr. & Mrs. David Younts
Deloitte & Touche
Mr. & Mrs, William D. Soman
Mr. & Mrs. R. Layton Mank
Mr. & Mrs. Alvah H.
Chapman, Jr.
The Dunspaugh-Dalton
Foundation, Inc.
First Union Foundation
Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman,
Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, PA
Miller Family Foundation
Mr. & Mrs. Cal Kovens
Mr. David C. Neale
Dr. & Mrs. T. Hunter Pryor
Mr. Samuel J. Boldrick
Mr. & Mrs. Marshall S. Harris
Mrs. Shirley Haverfield
Mr. & Mrs. Lee Hills
Sears Roebuck & Co.
Mrs. Peyron L. Wilson
Mr. & Mrs. James A Wight 1m
Mr. John S. Sherman
Mr. & Mrs. Randy E
Nimnicht
Mr. & Mrs. Jack Lowell
Blackwell & Walker, EA.
Estate of Dr. Herman
Selinsky
Mr. & Mrs. Raul Rodriguez
Mr. & Mrs. Carlton W. Cole
Mr. & Mrs. William G. Earle
Mr. & Mrs. Robert C. Hector


Members
Mr. & Mrs. Henry Z. Norton
Mr. & Mrs Hunting E Deutsch
Dr. & Mrs. Michael Rosenberg
Dr. Anna Price
Dr. & Mrs. Edmund Parnes
Mr. & Mrs. Lewis Ress


Mr. & Mrs. Arnold L.
Greenfield
Mr. Walter R. Ferguson
Ms. Sally M. Kennedy
Ms. Lamar J. Noriega
Silver Springs Foundation
Dr. & Mrs. Joseph H.
Fitzgerald
Mrs. Tom Lynch
Mr. & Mrs. Walter Shockey
Mr. John W. Thatcher
Dr. & Mrs. Howard Zwibel
Mr. & Mrs. C. Frasuer
Knight
Mr. & Mrs. Lon Worth Crow
The Batchelor Foundation
Mr. & Mrs. John M.
Brumbaugh
Mr. & Mrs. Dennis M.
Campbell
Mrs. Sue S. Goldman &
Family
Mrs. Leatrice Aberman &
Family
Mrs. Rosemary Dommerich
Stieglitz
Mrs. Eleanor Bristol
Ms. Judith A. Hunt &
Dr. Ronald K. Wright
Mr. Oscar Mederos
Mr. & Mrs. Alan Lubitz
Ms. Cynthia Lawrence
Mr. Dan Laxson
Mr. & Mrs. Stuart Block
Mrs. Ruth D. Myers
Mr. Sam La Roue, Jr,
Mr. Mitchell S. Green







88 TEQUESTA


Foundations


Alma Jennings Foundation
Burdines
D. Richard Mead Charitable
Foundation
First Union Foundation
Goldsmith Family Foundation




beachsound
Brandsmart, USA
Florida Power & Light Company




A-dish Catering
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Beber Silverstein & Partners
Brown-Forman Beverages
Worldwide
Codina Real Estate
Management, Inc.
Continental Airlines


3 Points Paint & Body Shop
Al Insulation &
Conservation, Inc.
Aircraft Electric Motors, Inc.
Alexander All Suite Luxury
Hotel
Alexander's Catering, Inc.
Allied Specialty
All Year Cooling Heating, Inc.
All-In-One Mail Shop
Allegro Resorts
Astigarraga, Davis et al
Barry Lawrence Ruderman
Antique Maps, Inc.
Biltmore Hotel
Bierman Shohat Loewy &
Klein PA.
Borders, Inc.
Bravo Musicians
Burell & Associates
CBIZ McClain & Company
Carney-Neuhaus, Inc.
Casa Monica
Catering By David Lynn
Catering Shop, Inc.
Cerveza La Tropical
Chalet Suzanne Inn &
Restaurant
Chelsea Hotel


J.N. McArthur
Foundation
John S. & James L. Knight
Foundation
Leigh Foundation, Inc.
Nichols Foundation


Corporate Benefactor

Gibraltar Bank
The Miami Herald
National Distributing, Co.


Corporate Patron

Curbside Florist and Gifts, Inc.
Espirito Santo Plaza
Gordon Biersch
Greg Hark Photographics
Insignia/ESG, Inc.
Keen Battle Mead & Company
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
Level


Corporate Member

Chesterfield Hotel
Christy's Restaurant
Coconut Grove Bank
Culligan Water
Daniel Electrical
Contractors, Inc.
Dynacolor Graphics, Inc.
Emergency AC Services, Inc.
Falke Florida, Inc.
Fence Masters
Fisher Island Club
Frames USA/Art Gallery
Gabor Insurance Services, Inc.
Gene's Catering Service
George Glazer Gallery
Golden Press
Greater Miami Convention &
Visitors Bureau
H.D.S. Lighting, Inc.
Hialeah Park and Race Course
Hopkins-Carter Company
Improv Comedy Club & Cafe
Indian Creek Hotel
J. M. Tull Metals
Company, Inc.
Jonathan's a Movable Feast
La Tradicion Cubana
The Jupiter Beach Resort
Kelly Tractor Company


Nina & Ivan Selin Family
Foundation
Peacock Foundation, Inc.
The Ruth & August Geiger
Charity Foundation


StarMedia, Network, Inc.
WKIS-FM 99.9 Country


Mobile Chiropractic, Inc.
Morrison, Brown Argiz &
Company
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd.
Sandals & Beaches Resorts
Southern Wine & Spirits
Steel, Hector & Davis
Velda Farms, LLC


Kulls Gym and Fitness
The Lowell Dunn Company
M & M Backhoe
Magic 102.7
Merriweather Resort
Miccosukee Resort and
Convention Center
Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP
Nichols Foundation, Inc.
Party Caterers, Inc.
The Perfect Party Place
Pool Rite
Radio Unica
Ringhaver Equipment
Company, Inc.
Rosewood Caterers, Inc.
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Salomon, Kanner, Damian &
Rodriguez, P.A.
Salomon Smith Barney
Sandy's Tree Delivery
Sears Roebuck and Company
William & Jean Soman
Family
South Seas Resort
Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc.
Strategic Energy Efficiency
Associates, Inc.







List of Members 89


Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc.
The Lubitz Financial Group
The Old Print Shop, Inc.
The Stock Marker
Trial Graphix, Inc.
Vick Farms


Advanced Roofing, Inc.
Akashi Japanese Restaurant
Andrew Alpert
Amici's Gourmet Market
Arthur Murray Dance Studio
Arvo Annast Renovations &
Painting
Baleen Restaurant
Beacon Tradeport Associates
Belleview Biltmore Resort &
Spa
Benihana, Inc.
Best Roofing, Inc.
Best Western Oceanfront Resort
Blue Door
Broadway Palm Theatre
Cafe Med of Miami
Carroll's Jewelers
Celebration Hotel
Chart House Restaurant
Cheeky Monkey
City of Coral Gables
Complete Fitness
Dr. Jorge Coro, M.D.
Mr. Xavier Cortada, Artist
Courtyard by Marriott
Oceanside
Don Shula's Hotel &
Golf Club
Dragonfly Expeditions
The Eden Roc Resort & Spa
El Diablo Golf &
Country Club
Electrology Center
Enterprise Rent-a-Car
Everglades Hotel
Exit Shops
Florida Marlins Baseball Club
Fourtune House
Condominium Hotel


WDNA
WLRN
Weber/ RBB
Welcome to Miami &
The Beaches Magazine
Westin Key Largo Resort


Corporate Contributor

Geiger Brothers
Golden Chic Catering
Gourmetreats.com
Green Turtle Basket
Company
Grillfish of Coral Gables
H. & H. Jewels, Inc.
H. O. M. Construction
Hampton Inn & Suites
Havana Harry's Restaurant
Herlong Mansion Bed &
Breakfast
Howard Johnson Inn
International
Hunter Crane, Inc.
Jackie Gleason Theater of the
Performing Arts
Johnson & Wales University
Jurney & Associates
Kennedy Space Center
Visitor Complex
Key West Florist
Leather World
Leon's Wine &
Liquor Center
Li Inn Sleeps Bed & Breakfast
Lowe Art Museum
Mango Inn Bed & Breakfast
Mango's Tropical Cafe
Miami City Ballet
Miami Fusion
Nemo Restaurant
New World Symphony
Ocean Resorts
Old Cutler Oyster Company
On the Banks of the Everglades
The Paint Box
Perricone's Marketplace &
Cafe
Perry's Ocean-Edge Resort


Fellow Humanitarian

Mr. & Mrs. Peter L. Bermont
Mr. & Mrs. William A. Graham
Mr. & Mrs. William D. Soman
Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. Traurig


Wild Oats South Beach
Wired Business
Withers/Suddath Van Lines


PF Changs Bistro
Prezzo
Radisson Mart
Reliable Contractors
Renovations & Painting, Inc.
Sailfish Marina & Resort
Seasons Restaurant
SFX Entertainment
Shorty's Bar-B-Q
Sir Galloway Dry Cleaners
Dr. Arthur Sitrin
St. Francis Inn
Sunset Corner Liquors
The Art & Culture Center
of Hollywood
Temprol Airconditioning, Inc.
The Breakers, Palm Beach
The Cellar Club
The Cardiology Center
The Hanging Basket
The Ivey House
The Whitelaw Hotel &
Lounge
Tints 'N' More
Touch of Glamour Hair &
Nail Design
Trattoria Sole
Triple A Cleaning
Systems, Inc.
Voler!
Walt Disney World Company
Westchester Dental Office
Wilco Electrical
Contracting, Inc.
Wild Oats-
The Community Market
Wright Superior
Wyndham Westshore
Yoga Institute of Miami







90 TEQUESTA


Mr. & Mrs. Allen G.
Caldwell
Mr. & Mrs. Alvah H.
Chapman, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Edward S.
Corlett, III
Mrs. Edna Cox
Miss Lamar Louise Curry
Mr. Walter R. Ferguson &
Ms. Beryl Lee
Dr. & Mrs. Joseph H.
Fitzgerald




Mr. & Mrs. William G. Earle
Mr. & Mrs. Jerrold F
Goodman
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Huston, Jr.




Mr. & Mrs. Michael W.
Battle
Mr. & Mrs. Robert B. Barde
Mr. Steve Hayworth
Mr. & Mrs. William Ho
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Karris
Mr Benjamin Bohlmann &
Ms. Ellen Kanner
Mr. & Mrs. J. Andrew Brian
Mr. & Mrs. Dennis M.
Campbell
Ms. Beryl L. Cesarano
Ms. Cathy Coates
Dr. & Mrs. Albert J. Ehlert
Mr. Steve Hayworth




Mr. & Mrs. Alvin Atlass
Mr. & Mrs. Richard B.
Bermont
Mr. & Mrs. Stuart Block
Mr. Michael Carricarte
Mr. George H. De Carion
Ms. Beth Dunworth &
Mr. Chris Dunworrh
Dr. & Mrs. Lawrence M.
Fishman


Fellow Benefactor

Mr. & Mrs. Bertram
Goldsmith
Mr. & Mrs. Arnold L.
Greenfield
Mr. & Mrs. R. Layton Mank
Mr. Finlay L. Matheson
Mrs. Betty McCrimmon
Mrs. Nancy McLamore
Mr. & Mrs. David Mesnekoff
Dr. & Mrs. John C. Nordt, III
Dr. & Mrs. Robert M.
Oliver, Jr.


Fellow Patron

Mr. & Mrs. Jay I. Kislak
Mr. Samuel D. La Roue, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Jay W Lotspeich
Ms. Linda S. Lubitz, CFP


Bob & Lyn Parks
Dr. & Mrs. T. Hunter
Pryor, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Robert J.
Shelley, III
Mr. & Mrs. Gerald E. Toms
Mr. & Mrs. J. Calvin Winter
Ms. Jody M. Wolfe
Mr. & Mrs. David Younts
Dr. & Mrs. Howard L.
Zwibel


Mr. James C. Merrill, III
Mr. & Mrs. George R.
Shelley
Mr. & Mrs. David W Swetland


Fellow Member


Mr. & Mrs. Robert C.
Hector, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Brent L. Helms
Mr. & Ms. Charles Intriago
Mr. & Mrs. Lewis M. Kanner
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Karris
Mr. RI Kirk Landon
Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Mark
Mr. Bruce C. Matheson
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Neidhart
Mr. & Mrs. Randy F.
Nimnicht
Mr. Manuel Nogueira &
Ms. Cuqui Beguiristain
Dr. & Mrs. Edmund I. Parnes


Ms. Lorraine Punancy-
Stewart
Dr. & Mrs. Michael
Rosenberg
Mr. Kenneth Sellati
Ms. Phyllis A. Shapiro
Mr. & Mrs. Alan W.
Steinberg
Mr. & Mrs. Edward A.
Swakon
Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Wood
Mr. & Mrs. James A.
Wright, III
Mrs. Cicely L. Zeppa


Benefactor


Ms. Pamela Garrison
Mr. & Mrs. Louis J. Hector
Mr. & Mrs. Howard
Kleinberg
Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Lefebvre
Mr. & Mrs. Raul P Masvidal
Mr. Luis Maza
Dr. Raymond McGuire
Mr. John H. McMinn
Ms. Sandra Milledge


Mr. Fred C. Newman
Ms. Betty Osborn
Mr. Stephen H. Reisman
Ruth & Richard Shack
Dr. & Mrs. William M.
Straight
Dr. & Mrs. Michael B. Troner
Mr. & Mrs. Otis 0.
Wragg, III







List of Members 91


Ms. Margery R. Abel
Mr. Leonard L. Abess, Sr.
Ms. Helen W. Adelman
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph A. Aguilera
Mr & Mrs. J. Harvey Alligood
Mr. Larry Apple &
Ms. Esther Perez
Ms. Lizzie Arnaud
Mr. & Mrs. Leslie J. August
Mr. & Mrs. Ivan E. Ball
Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Bander
Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey A. Barnes
Mr. & Mrs. John Bartosek
Dr. & Mrs. Robert T. Bass
Mr. & Mrs. Charles H.
Baumberger
Mr. & Mrs. Steve Benson
Dr. Judith Berson &
Mr. Steven Levinson
Dr. & Mrs. Harvey Blank
Dr. & Mrs. Luis J. Borifoll
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Buchbinder
Mr. Gordon Burke
Dr. & Mrs. Robert J. Carbonell
Dr. & Mrs. Wayne H. Case
Mr. & Mrs. Don Caster
Mr. & Mrs. Pedro Castillo
Charlotte Harbor Area
Historical Society
Ms. Doris H. Cochran
Mr. Richard E Cole
Mr. & Mrs. William H.
Collins
Mr. & Mrs. Barton Corredera
Mrs. Patricia Crow
Mr. Roger B. Davis
Mr. Gary Dellapa
Mr. & Mrs. Hunting F
Deutsch
Mr. & Mrs. John Devine
Mr. & Mrs. J. Leonard
Diamond
Dr. & Mrs. Leonidas W.
Dowlen, Jr.
Mr. Richard Duffy &
Ms. Isabel Lopez
Ms. Debra Durant-Schoendorf
The Hon. Joe O. Eaton &
Mrs. Patricia M. Eaton
Mrs. James C. Ellenburg
Mr. & Mrs. Charles
Entenmann
Ms. Elizabeth Ernst
Dr. Maria Dolores Espino
Mr. Anselmo Febles
Dr. & Mrs. Robert Feltman
Mrs. Audrey Finkelstein


Sponsor

Dr. & Mrs. J.M. Fitzgibbon
Mr. Bruce Foersler
Mr. Richard E. Ford
Mr. William Freeman
Mr. & Mrs. Philip Freidin
Mr. & Mrs. Robert E.
Gallagher, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Tomas F Gamba
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph H.
Ganguzza
Mr. & Mrs. Donald E Gardner
Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Goldberg
Ms. Sue Searcy Goldman
Mr. & Mrs. Martin B.
Goodman
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Gossett
Mrs. Carol-Jane Gottfried
Ms. Helen R. Grier
Mr. & Mrs. Phil Guerra
Mr. & Mrs. Robert D. Guthrie
Mr. & Mrs. Edward P
Guttenmacher
Mrs. Martha R. Haas
Mr. & Mrs. Charles
Hammond
Ms. Klara Hauri
Mr. & Mrs. Robert C.
Hector, Sr.
Ms. Anne E. Helliwell
Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Hemmings
Ms. Eileen W. Herald
Mr. Arthur H. Hertz
Mr. & Mrs. James C.
Hobbs, II
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hudson, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Huggett
Mr. & Mrs. Ray N. Hunt
Dr. and Mrs. Francisco
Izaguirre
Mrs. Marilyn Jacobs
Mr. & Mrs. Francis T. Kain
Mrs. Betsy H. Kaplan
Ms. Susanne Kayyali
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth E
Kniskern
Mr. & Mrs. Earl R. Knowles
Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Korach
Mr. & Mrs. Irving Kreisberg
Mr. & Mrs. Franklin D.
Kreutzer
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph E.
Lambrechr
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Lamphear
Dr. & Mrs. Roswell E. Lee, Jr.
Ms. Gabriella E. Loetterle
Ms. Judy Loft
Mr. & Mrs. Cesar Lopez


Dr. & Mrs. Anthony P
Maingot
Mr. Arnold C. Matteson
Mrs. Arva Moore Parks
McCabe
Mr. W Sloan McCrea
Mr. & Mrs. Robert
McDougal, IV
Mr, & Mrs. Jack McQuale
Mr. Oscar Mederos
Mrs. Sandy Mesh
Mr. & Mrs. Arsenio Milian
Mrs. Claire W. Mooers
Mr. Gerald W. Moore
Mr. Stephen J. Moorman
Mr. & Mrs. George L. Morat
Dr. Mervin H. Needell &
Dr. Elaine E Needell
Mr. Theodore R. Nelson
Mr. Bryan Norcross
Mr. & Mrs. Ken Nudelman
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Pallor
Ms. Barbara J. Parker
Mr. & Mrs. Walter Peacock
Mr. & Mrs. Galo Perez
Mr. & Mrs. Roderick N.
Petrey
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Plotkin
Ms. Eva-Lynn M. Powell
Mr, & Mrs. George Prochaska
Mr. J. David Puga
Mr. & Mrs. Raul L. Rodriguez
Dr. & Mrs. Theodore
Sarafoglu
Ms. Renee Schafer
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Scheck
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Schloss
Ms. Martha M. Scott
Ms. Phyllis L. Segor
Mr. Frank Shumway
Mr. & Mrs. Murray Sisselman
Mr. & Mrs. Donald
Slesnick, II
Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Sola
Mr. & Mrs. Neal R. Sonnett
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Soper
Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Spak
Mr. & Mrs. James E Spillis
Ms. Edeane W. Stirrup
Mrs. William G. Story
Mr. & Mrs. Raul R. Suarez
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Tapia
Ms. Jean M. Thorpe
Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Threadgill
Mrs. Roberta H. Turner
Dr. & Mrs. Alfred H.
Underwood







92 TEQUESTA


Mr. Pedro L. Velar
Mr. & Mrs. Carl D. Ward
Mrs. May L. Warren
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Weller
Mr. & Mrs. David Weston
Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. Whalin


Mr. Lewis Whitworth
Mrs. Gaines R. Wilson
Mrs. Peyton L. Wilson
Mr. Paul C. Wimbish
Mr. Mitchell Wolfson, Jr.
Ms. Edna Wolkowsky


Donor


Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Albury
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Allen
Mr. & Ms. Harvey Bilt
Ms, Patricia Birch Blanco
Ms. Kathryn Bohlmann
Mr. & Mrs. Daniel T. Brady
Mr. & Mrs. Jack N. Brown
Dr. & Mrs. Chiliano E. Casal
Mr. & Mrs. Charles L.
Clements, III
Ms. Lillian Conesa
Mrs. Denise Corbitt
Mr Joe Dillard
Dr. & Mrs. Maurice Downs
Ms. Gayle Doyle
Mr. Miguel A. Germain
Mr. & Mrs. William
Goodson, Jr.




Mr. Peter J. Bagrationoff
Ms. Allison Banks &
Mr. Ryan Neve
Mr. & Mrs. Patrick T. Battle
Ms. Kathy Beder &
Mr. William Haskins
Dr. Ricardo Blonder & Ms.
Natascha Ocero-Santiago
Mr. & Mrs. John Bolton
Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Campbell
Mr. Michael Capore &
Ms. Hdmy Kaddour
Mr. & Mrs. Rene Caro
Mr. & Mrs. Louis Chiavacci
Matthew & Kimberlee Cole
Mr. John Colvard &
Mrs. Sabrina Shafer Colvard
Mr. & Mrs. Pedro de los Muros
Ms. Diane Deighton
Ms. Stephanie Demos &
Mr. Christopher Brown
Dr. & Mrs. William H.
Eaglstein
Mr. & Mrs. Philip R.
Engelmann
Mr. Alan H. Fein &
Ms. Susan Westfall


Mrs. Martha Grafron
Mr. Juan Jimenez
Mr. & Mrs. James R.
Jorgenson
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph A. Juncosa
Mr. & Mrs. C.M. Keppie
Mr. Christopher R. Mank
Mr. Chuck McCartney
Mr. & Mrs. Christopher
Mooers
Mr. & Mrs. David M. Morris
Mr. & Mrs. Samuel Oroshnik
Mr. & Mrs. David Owen
The Hon. Ray Pearson &
Mrs. Georgia Pearson
Mr. & Mrs. John Perez
Mr. & Mrs. A. James
Reagan, Jr.


Tropee Family

Mr. & Mrs. David Ferris
Dr. & Mrs. Luis H. Fonseca
Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Franco
Mr. Herbert Garces
Mrs. Gretchen Garren &
Mr. Troy Avera
Mr. Michael Gazda &
Mrs. Sandra Murado Gazda
Commander & Mrs. Paul J.
Gilson, USNR
Mr. Charles Goldstein
Mr. & Mrs. Jose Gonzalez
Mr. Harold H. Gordon
Ms. Jill Granat
Mr. & Mrs. Barry N. Greenberg
Mr. Raul Guerra
Mr. & Mrs. Jack D. Hahn
Mr. & Mrs. Kent D. Hamill
Ms. Lucinda A. Hofmann &
Mr. William T. McCauley
Mr. William Holly &
Mrs. Allison Holly
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Hughs
Mr. & Mrs. Clarke J. Jones, Jr.
Ms. Mary Ann Jordan &
Mr. Chas Price
Dr. Robert L. Kelley


Mrs. Warren C. Wood, Sr.
Dr. Ronald K. Wright &
Ms. Judith A. Hunt
Mr. & Mrs. Stuart S. Wyllie
Mr. & Mrs. Stefan H.
Zachar, III




The Hon. Judge Eleanor
Schockett
Mr. & Mrs. Warren S. Schwartz
Ms. Abbie H. Shouse
Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Silverman
Mr. & Mrs. Saul H. Silverman
Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Singer
Mrs. Ethel H. Sotrile
Dr. & Mrs. Thomas B.
Strozier, M.D.
Mr. & Mrs. James B.
Tilghman, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas J.
Touchton
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Walters
Ms. Jo Wilder
Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence J.
Zigmont




Mr. Al A. Key
Mr. & Mrs. David Kirsten
Dr. & Mrs. Samuel
Kohlenberg
Ms. Terry Kolinsky
Ms. Keith W. Landon &
Mr. Robert Landon
Ms. Ann Lee
Ms. Vilma Llerena
Ms. Patty Lubian
Dr. & Mrs. Michael Mahaffey
Mr. & Mrs. Brian J.
Mahoney, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Martin
Ms. Janeau C. McKee-Vega &
Mr. Javier Vega
Mr. Alberto Menendez &
Ms. Maria Santovenia
Mr. Ralph Miles &
Mrs. Helen O'Quinn Miles
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas R.
Mooney
Mr. & Mrs. Santiago D.
Morales
Mr. Michael Morris &
Ms. Melissa Latus
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Munroe







List of Members 93


Dr. Thomas Natiello &
Ms. Hilary Natiello
Ms. Aleka Novitski &
Mr. Jim Livingston
Mr. Douglas O'Keefe &
Ms. Alison Gunn O'Keefe
Mr. & Mrs. Augusto Odio
Mr. & Mrs. Nelo Patton
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas E. Pfeiffer
Mr. & Mrs. James M. Pfleger
Ms. Michelle Pivar &
Mr. Jack Barr
Ms. Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
& Mr. Andres Duany
Mr. & Mrs. David Pyke
Mr. & Mrs. Peter Raffalski
Mr. & Mrs. Randolph Reich




Ms. Rebecca Abella
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph P. Adams
Ms. Beverly Agee &
Mr. Donald Cook
Mr. & Mrs. Armando
Aiguesvives
Mr. & Mrs. Frank Alayon
Mr. David T Alexander
Ms. Martha Allen
Mr. & Mrs. Herbert E.
Allenson
Mr. Al Alschuler
Mr. & Mrs. Dan Alter
Mr. Enrique Amador &
Ms. Fany Aleman
Mr. Craig Anderson &
Mrs. Victoria Brewer-Anders
Mr. & Mrs. Duane Anderson
Mr. & Mrs. Greg Anderson
Mr. Sheldon Anderson
Ms. Rosa M. Andreu
Mr. & Mrs. Louis Andrews
Mr. & Mrs. Tim Andrews
Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Andros
Ms. Rosita Angeli &
Mr. Jim McCary
Mr. & Mrs. Juan Antunez
Mr. & Mrs. Ted Arch
Mr. & Mrs. Russell Armour
Mr. & Mrs. Mike Arnold
Ms. Bonnie Askowitz
Mr. & Mrs. B.G. Atchison
Mrs. C. Clyde Atkins
Mr. & Mrs. John Bachay
Mr. Ron Bagwell
Ms. Elsa E Bailey
Mr. & Mrs. David R. Baker
Mr. & Mrs. John W Baker


Mr. & Mrs. John C. Robinson
Ms. Paige A. Roden
Ms. Ivette Marie Rodriguez &
Dr. Graham Chandler
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Roman
Dr. & Mrs. Eugenio M. Rothe
Mr. Michael Rothschild
Mr. Robert Ruano &
Ms. Laura Tapia-Ruano
Mr. & Mrs. Rene Sanchez
Dr. Stephen Sapp &
Dr. Mary Sapp
Mr. Pat Schuh & Ms. Karina
Ramirez
Mr. & Mrs. Will Sekoff
Mr. & Mrs. Keith Sharkey
Mrs. Genie Shayne


Family

Mr. & Mrs. Leonard A. Baker
Mr. & Mrs. Scott Baker
Ms. Carolann W. Baldyga
Mr. & Mrs. Rod C. Ball
Mr. & Mrs. Charles W. Bare
Mr. & Mrs. James W. Barfield
Mr. & Mrs. Harold P. Barkas
Mr. & Mrs. Paul J. Barko
Ms. Beverly Barnett Allen
Dr. & Mrs. James W. Barrow
Mr. & Mrs. John H. Barry
Mr. Charles Barton
Mrs. Dottre Barton
The Rev. Betty Batey
Mr. & Mrs. Timothy A.
Battle
Mr. & Mrs. Joe Bauer
Mr. & Mrs. Gary L.
Baumgartner
Mr. & Mrs. Allen M. Beck
Mr. Michael Beeman &
Mr. Javier Vergara
Dr. & Mrs. S. Z. Beiser
Mr. & Mrs. Charles E Belmont
Mr. & Mrs. Randall C.
Berg, Jr.
Ms. Ellen Berger
Mr. & Mrs. Robert E. Berkoff
Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Bernstein
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Bernstein
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Bernstein
Ray & Roslyn Berrin
Mrs. Florence Birch
Mr. & Mrs. AnthonyJ. Bischoff
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Bishop
Dr. & Mrs. Alan Bisno
Mr. William Bjorkman &
Ms. Pam Winter


Mr. & Mrs. Dave Sluszka
Mr. & Mrs. Alex Soto
Mr. & Mrs. Brian Spletzer
Ms. Deby Stewart
Mr. & Mrs. Max Strang
Mr. & Mrs. Mario Sueiras
Mr. Brian L. Tannebaum
Mr. & Mrs. Alan Troop
Mr. Michael D. Wallace
Mr. & Mrs. Howard Watson
Mr. Mark Weher
Mr. & Mrs. Juan Werner
Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey
Williamson
Mr. Mario Yanez & Mrs. Sara
Valle-Yanez
Mr. & Mrs. Paul D. Zamek


Mr. & Mrs. Ace J.
Blackburn, Sr.
Ms. Carol Blades &
Mr. John Softness
Ms. June E Blair
Mr. & Mrs. Jose M. Blanco
Ms. Nance E. Blattner
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Bloom
Mr. & Mrs. Ted R. Blue, Jr.
Mr. Richard Bock
Ms. Carmen Bofill &
Ms. Marianna Romero
Mr. Samuel J. Boldrick
Ms. Barbara Bonner
Mr. Jens E Bornholt
Ms. Lynn Borrow &
Ms. Michelle Borrow
Mr. Peter Boswell & Ms. Julie
Yanson
Mr, Thomas Boswell &
Ms. Anne Freemont
Mr, & Mrs. Gordon Bowker
Dr. & Mrs. Russell Boyd, DDS
Ms. Margaret Bradley Davis
& Mr. Joe Richards
Mr, & Mrs. L.W Breeding
Mr. & Mrs. Harry Brion
Ms. Nancy Brook
Mr. Jeffrey P. Brosco
Ms. Susan Browman
Mr. August Brown
Mr. & Mrs. Bradford E. Brown
Mr. Elliot Brown
Dr. Harvey Brown &
Dr. Marjorie Brown
Ms. Kathy Brown
Ms. Marjorie L. Brown
Mr. & Mrs. Sandy Brown







94 TEQUESTA


Ms. Stephanie Brown
Mr. & Mrs. E.R. Brownell
Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Bruce
Mr. & Mrs. John M.
Brumbaugh
Ms. Selah Bryan
Mr. & Mrs. Robert P Bryant
Mrs. Evelyn J. Budde
Mr. & Mrs. Jean E. Buhler
Ms. Sandy Burnett &
Mr. Worth Auxier
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Busutil
Mr. David Butt &
Dr. Prudence Butt
Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence W. Cahill
Mr. & Mrs. Felipe Calderon
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Calt
Mr. & Mrs. Scott Calta
Mr. & Mrs. Billy Cameron
Mr. & Mrs. S. Lowry Camp
Dr. Joe Campbell
Mr. John J. Campbell
Robert Campbell &
Ruth Campbell
Mr. & Mrs. Jesus Carmenate
Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Carroll
Ms. Omara Casas &
Mr. Carlos De Leon
Mr. & Mrs. Robert B. Cast
Mr. Frank Castro &
Ms. Nora Wetzstein
Ms. Laraine Cavallo
Dr. & Mrs. Arthur E. Chapman
Mr. & Mrs. John S. Chowning
Mr. & Mrs. Gerardo Cisneros
Mr. & Mrs. James K. Clark
Ms. Lydia S. Clark
Ms. Sonia Clark
Ms. Jennifer M. Clarke
Mr. Peter Clayton &
Mrs. Ann Clayton
Ms. Carol Clothier &
Ms. Lorraine Hahn
Dr. Armando F Cobelo
Ms. Tessie Coello &
Mr. Pedro Doimeadios
Dr. Lynda Colaizzi &
Mr. Myron Shapiro
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald E Cold
John & Christine Cole
Mr. & Mrs. Philip Cole
Mr. & Mrs. Carl Collier
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Colson
Ms. Diane M. Congdon
Mr. Michael Conlon
Ms. Kim Connett
Mrs. Leona Cooper &
Ms. Clarice Cooper
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Corradino


Mr. Hal Corson & Mrs. Gerri
Campbell Corson
Mrs. Beverly Craig Butler
Ms. Christin Croci
Ms. Nancy Cromar &
Mr. Steve Pynes
Mrs. John E. Culmer
Mr. & Mrs. Charles D.
Cunningham
Mr. Robert Curbelo, Jr.
Mr. Donald W Curl
Ms. Jean Cuson
Mr. & Mrs. Jeff Cutr
Mr. & Mrs. JeffCynamon
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Daniel
Mr. Robert David &
Dr. Lorette David
Mr. & Mrs. Edward H.
Davis, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. John R. Davis
Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Davis
Mr. & Mrs. William L. Davis
Ms. Marguerite Dawson
Mr. & Mrs. Richard A.
De Aguero
Dr. Leonel A. de la Cuesta
Mr. & Mrs. Floy B. Denton
Ms. Donna Dial &
Mr. Art Buckelew
Ms. Debora Diaz
Ms. Carol Diaz-Castro
Ms. Yvonne M. Dietrich
Mr. & Mrs. Frank Donovan
Mr. & Mrs. John B.
DorenKott
Ms. Donna Dowling Gilbert
& Mrs. Lola Dowling
Mr. Douglas A. Dozier
Mr. & Mrs. Don Drew
Ms. Carol E. Drozdowicz
Mrs. Faye Dugas
Ms. Barbara Dundee
Mr. & Mrs. E Sennett
Dutrenhofer
Mrs. John E. Duvall
Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Earle
Mr. Jorge Echenique
Mr. & Mrs. James M. Eckhart
Mr. & Mrs. Remo Egloff
Mrs. Susan Elson Price
Ms. Ana Eriksew
Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Erskine
Mr. & Mrs. Irving R. Eyster
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Falco
Lunnon-Fleeger Family
Mr. & Mrs. Charles E.
Fancher, Jr.
Ms. Marian H. Fassbach
Dr. & Mrs. Alfred Feingold


Mr. James Feltman &
Ms. Allison Day
Ms. Maria E. Fernandez
Ms. Nadine Fernandez
Mr. & Mrs. C.S.B Field
Ms. Lisa Figueredo
Ms. Carol Fink &
Mr. David Smith
Sue & Ray Fisher
Ms. Angeles Fleires
Ms. Claudia Fleming
Mr. Pedro Fonteboa
Mr. & Mrs. Edward T. Foote
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Forester
Mr. & Mrs. Dwight E. Frazier
Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Freeman
Mr. & Mrs. Richard E. Friberg
Mr. Milton A. Fried
Mr. David Frum
Ms. Barbara Gabelman
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Gabor
Mr. & Mrs. Donald C. Gaby
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Gale
Mr. & Mrs. Larry Galloway
Mr. & Mrs. Arnold B.
Galperin
Mr. & Mrs. Gabriel Ganales
Ms. Evelyn Garcia &
Ms. Arlyn Garcia
Ms. Lottie Garcia &
Mr. Richard Hurtig
Dr. & Mrs. Victor M. Garcia
Mrs. Dolores Garcia Gutierrez
& Mr. Isaac Gurier
Mr. & Mrs. Robert W.
Gardner, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Peter B. Garvett
Mr. Harold Gelber &
Ms. Pat Mackin-Gelber
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Gelberg
Mr. John Genovese &
Ms. Lauren Harrison
Dr. & Mrs. Paul S. George
Ms. Joan Gerber &
Ms. Carol Woodel
Dr. & Mrs. Paul U.
Gerber, Jr.
Ms. Cora Gilbert
Mr. & Mrs. John Gillan
Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Gilpin, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Gimenez
Mr. Robert N. Ginsburg
Ms. Julie Givens
Mr. & Mrs. John Gladstone
Mr. & Mrs. Neal Glenn
Mr & Mrs. Franklyn B. Glinn
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Gluck
Mr. & Mrs. Peter N. Glynn
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goeser







List of Members 95


Ms. Carol Goetz
Mr. & Mrs. Harold Goldberg
Mr. & Ms. Richard
Goldsmith
Mr. & Mrs. Seymour
Goldweber
Mr. & Mrs. Jorge Gonzalez
Mr. Juan O. Gonzalez
Mr. Juan Carlos Gonzalez
Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin F.
Gooden, Jr.
Mr. Ken Goodman
Mr. & Mrs. Reed Gordon
Dr. & Mrs. Richard Gottlieb
Henry & Rachelle Grady
Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Grey
The Rev. & Mrs. Robb Grimm
Mr. & Mrs. K. Randall Groh
Mr. & Mrs. Carl Grozan
Mr. Stan Grubman
Mr. & Mrs. George C.
Grunwell
Ms. Linda G. Guaida
Ms. Mary Guarani
Mr. Ramon Guillen
Ms. Carol Guzman
Mr. Stephen E Hackley
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Haggerty
Ms. Bridget Hagood
Mr. & Mrs. Alan Hall
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hall
Mr. & Mrs. Frank D. Hall
Mr. & Mrs. John Hall
Mr. Earl Hallam
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Halley
Mr. Thomas L. Hambright
Mr. James Hamilton
Ms. Lucy H. Hanafourde &
Mr. Bradley K. Hanafourde
Ms. Susan Hangge &
Mr, David Collings
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Hanna
Mrs. Eoline M. Harrington
Mr. Albert Harum-Alvarez
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph J. Hatton
Mr. & Mrs. Maurice B. Hawa
Mr. & Mrs. James Hayes
Mr. & Mrs. W. Hamilton
Hayes
Mr. Todd Hays
Ms. Chantal Heeb
Mr. & Mrs. Charles R.
Helweick
Mr. Richard Hernandez
Ms. Kathy B. Hersch
Ms. Helena Hershfield &
Mr. Allan Herschfield
Mr. & Mrs. Steven Hess
Mr. & Ms. David Hester


Mr. & Mrs. W Warfild Hester
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Hill
Mr. Dan L. Himes
Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hodus
Dr. & Mrs. William Hoffman
Mr. & Ms. Neal Holmes
Mr. Larry Hopkins &
Mrs. Susan B. Hopkins
Ms. Martina Hopkins
Mr. & Mrs. James A. Horland
Ms. Alice Horn &
Mr. Ray Princiotta
Dr. Laurie R. Householder
Ms. Stephanie Howe
Ms. Sharon Howell
Mr. & Mrs. George Hudson
Mr. Jack Hunter
Ms. Susan Hunter
Mr. William L. Hunter
Dr. & Mrs. James J. Hutson
Mr. & Mrs. Dan Hutton
Mr. & Mrs. James Hutton
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth J. Hynes
Mr. & Mrs. Abe Ing
Ms. Dania Irvin
Dr. & Mrs. George L Irvin, III
Mr. Charles Iselin &
Ms. Helen Decora
Ms. Shirley A. Jackson
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Jacobs
Dr. & Mrs. George Jacobson
Mr. & Mrs. James R. James
Mr. Richmond A. James, Jr.
Ms. Natalee L. Jenks
Mr. James L. Jensen
Mr. & Mrs. John Jensen
Mr. & Mrs. Lester R. Johnson
Mr. & Mrs. Lester R. Johnson
Mr. & Mrs. Lyle Johnson
Dr. & Mrs. Stanley Jonas
Mr. & Mrs. Daniel C. Jones
Dr. & Mrs. J.R. Jude
Mr. & Mrs. Peter Jungbacker
Mr. & Mrs. John E. Junkin, III
Mr. & Mrs. Louis Jurika
Ms. Liz Kaiser
Ms. Zoila Kale
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Kalil
Mr, & Mrs. Steven Kalogerakis
Capt. & Mrs. Kit S. Kapp
Ms. Ann Kashmer &
Mr. Lee Price
Mrs. Barbara P Keller &
Mrs. Deborah Keller Prager
Dr. John Kemeney &
Ms. Bobbye Shearer
Mr. Harold E. Kendall
Dr. & Mrs. Norman M.
Kenyon


Dr. & Mrs. Kenneth Keusch
Mr. Neal S. Keys
Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Kimmons
Mr. & Mrs. Donald King
Mr. & Mrs. Randy King
Mr. & Mrs. Rodney King
Ms. Wendy Kirby
Ms. Deborah Klein &
Mr. Paul Pergakis
Mr. & Mrs. Phil Klimoski
Mr. & Mrs. C. Frasuer Knight
Mr. Homer W. Knowles
Mr. & Mrs. John Kostelak
Mr. John Kretschmer
Dr. & Mrs. Joseph A. Kreutle
Mr. & Mrs. Alberro Krimer
Ms. Mieko Kubota
Mr. Bob Kulpa
Ms. Nancy G. Laffin
Mr. & Mrs. David E. Lair
Mr. & Mrs. John Lake
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Lamb
Mr. Peter Lara &
Mrs. Mimi Artaud-Lara
Mr. Adam Lawrence &
Ms. Bonnie Daniels
Mr. & Mrs. David Lawrence
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Leckband
Mr. Michael Lederberg &
Ms. Linda Barocas
Mr. & Mrs. Robert W. Lee
Mr. & Mrs. Terry R. Lee
Mr. Manuel Leon
Mr. & Mrs. Sidney Levin
Dr. Harold Levine
Dr. & Mrs. Richard Levitt
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Lewis
Mr. Lawrence A. Liggett
Mr. & Ms. Stuart Lilly
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard R.
Limegrover
Mr. & Mrs. Leigh Livesay
Mr. Don R. Livingstone
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Llavona
Ms. Frady Llerena
Mr. & Mrs. Ray Liorente
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Logue
Mr. & Mrs. Erik Long
Mr. & Mrs. Joe Longo
Mr. & Mrs. Carlos J. Lopez
Mr. & Mrs. Rafael T. Lorie
Mr. & Mrs. James Love
Mrs. Nereida Lowery
Mr. Howard Lubel &
Ms. Rose Flynn
Mr. & Mrs. Philip E Ludovici
Dr. & Ms. William Ludwig
Mr. Jack Luft & Ms. Perla
Aguayo







96 TEQUESTA


Ms. Kathryn R. Lynn
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Lynn
Mr. & Mrs. James K.
MacAvoy
Mr. & Mrs. Alexander C.
MacIntyre
Mr. & Mrs. James L. Mack
Ms. Valerie MacLaren &
Mr. Robert English
Mr. & Mrs. Norman L. Madan
Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Mahaffey
Mr. & Mrs. Philip J. Mank, Jr.
Ms. Caridad Marill
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Mark
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Markus
Mr. & Mrs. Gerry Marston
Mr. & Mrs. Frank C. Martin
Major & Mrs. J. William
Martin
Mr. & Mrs. Yanacio
Martinez Winter
Mr. & Mrs. Alberto
Martinez-Ramos
Mr. & Mrs. Finlay B.
Matheson
Ms. Maribel Maxwell
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Maxwell
Mr. Thomas C. Maxwell
Mr. John Maxwell McKenzie
Mr. & Mrs. Max Mayfield
Ms. Valen Mayland
Mr. & Mrs. John A. Mayo
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas F.
McAuliffe, III
Dr. & Mrs. Donald
McCorquodale, Jr.
Mr. & Ms. John McCready, Jr,
Mr. & Mrs. David McDonald
Mr. J. Gordon McDonald
Mr. & Mrs. Michael F
McGlannan
Mr. Brian McGuinness &
Ms. Linda Koenigsberg
Mr. & Mrs. Stuart B. Mclver
Mr. & Mrs. Charles E McKay
Ms. Laura McKinney
Mr. & Mrs. Robert
McNaughton
Dr. & Mrs. Robert A.
McNaughton
Mr. Alejo Menendez &
Ms. Susanne Ragnarsson
Dr. George Metcalf &
Dr. Elizabeth Metcalf
Mr. & Mrs. Jack L. Meyer
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Michelson
Dr. & Mrs. Max Millard
Mr. & Mrs. Aristides J. Millas
Mr. Alex Miller


Mr. & Mrs. Edward Miller
Ms. Eleanor Miller
Mr. & Mrs. George Miller
Mr. & Mrs. H. Dale Miller, Jr.
Mr. Jay Miller
Mr. Robert Miller
Ms. Sue Miller
Mr. & Mrs. William Jay Miller
Mr. & Mrs. Frank J. Millero
Mr. Sanford B. Miot
Mr. & Mrs. Karlsson Mitchell
Ms. Nanci B. Mitchell &
Mr. Simon Taylor
Mr. & Mrs. Larry Mizrach
Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd L. Moeller
Mr, & Mrs. Fawdrey A. Molt
The Hon. & Mrs. Joseph
Monsanto
Mr. & Mrs. Charles H.
Montague
Mr. & Mrs. William Moore
The Hon. Jimmy L. Morales
Mr. Pat Morris
Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Morrison
Mr. Ivan Muguercia &
Ms. Tanza Ross
Mr. & Mrs. Charles E
Munroe, Sr.
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph T. Munroe
Mr. Rene V. Murai, Esq.
Mr. & Mrs. Donald L. Musser
Mr. & Mrs. Scott Nadelman
Mr. & Mrs. Sheldon
Nadelman
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Neidhart
Ms. Barbara Neil Young &
Mr. Robert Huff
Mr. Burnham S. Neill &
Mrs. Mildred C. Neill
Dr. & Mrs. Richard E Newman
Mr. & Mrs. Frank 0. Nichols
Mr. Roberto Nin
Mr, & Mrs. Sam Normandia
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Nuehring
Mr. & Mrs. Sandy Nusbaum
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Ochipa
Mr. & Mrs. Cesar Odio
Ms. Cheryl Oglesby
Mr. & Mrs. Bob Oliver
Mr. & Mrs. Kenny Oliver
Mr. & Mrs. Lynne Olsen
Mr. & Mrs. William Orcutt
Mr Frank Orifici
Ms. Patricia Owen &
Dr. Albert Myers
Mr. Manny Palgon &
Ms. Abbey Chase
Dr. & Mrs. Emanuel M.
Papper


Mr. & Mrs. Ozzie Pardillo
Ms. Georgina Pareto &
Mr. Ed Curie
Mr. Paul Parisi
Ms. Janet Parker &
Mr. David Mycko
Robin & Judy Parker
Ms. Elena Pastoriza &
Ms. Mayra Zaldivar
Ms. Marcia Pawley &
Ms. Anita Pawley
Ms. Idania Pazos Garcia &
Mr. Guillermo Garcia
Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence A.
Peacock
Ms. Charlene Peacon
Mr. & Mrs. William A. Pena
Mr. John D. Pennekamp, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Jorge E Perez
Mr. & Mrs. Jean Perrod
Mr. & Mrs. Sam Peters
Mrs. Terry Pettit &
Mr. Tony Pettit
Ms. Viviana Piedra
Ms. Paula Pines
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Plotkin
Ms. Sandee Polin
Mr. & Mrs. William Pomerantz
Ms. Jeanette Poole
Mr. & Mrs. Budd Post
Mr. Jim Post
Mr. & Mrs. Alfred H. Powell
Mr. Juan Manuel Prado
Dr. & Mrs. Eugene E
Provenzo
Mr. Peter T. Pruitt
Mr. & Mrs. Michael
Quackenbush
Mr. & Mrs. Herbert S.
Quarrin
Mr. & Mrs. Sam Rabin
Mr. & Mrs. Constantine
Railey
Mr. & Mrs. Jeff Raines
Dr. & Mrs. Salvador M.
Ramirez
Mr. Guillermo Rammos
Mr. & Mrs. David Ramras
Mr. & Mrs. William G.
Randall
Mr. & Mrs. William W
Randolph
Mr. & Mrs. Stuart M. Rapee
Dr. Alan S. Rapperport
Dr. & Mrs. Charles Rarick
Mr. & Mrs. Bob Ratiner
Mr. & Mrs. Steve Rawlins
Mr. & Mrs. Christopher
Recicar






List of Members 97


Dr. & Mrs. Philip J. Reckford
Mr. Barry Reese
Mr. Gary Reeves
Mr. Paul Reinarman
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Reisinger
Mr. & Mrs. Sidney Reiter
Dr. Kenneth Relyra &
Dr. Tamela Relyea
Ms. Hunter Reno &
Mr. Peter Rabbino
Ms. Janet Reno
Mrs. D.E. Richards
Mr. & Mrs. Norman C.
Ridgely
Ms. Alina Riesgo
Mr. & Mrs. Karsten A. Rist
Mr, & Mrs. Patrick Roach
Mr. & Mrs. Robert E. Roache
Mr, & Mrs. Rafael L.
Robayna
Dr. & Mrs. James A. Robb
Mr. & Mrs. William RI
Robbins, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Neil P. Robertson
The Hon. Steven D. Robinson
Mr. & Mrs. Pedro 1. Roca
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Rodrigues
Mr. & Mrs. Manuel J.
Rodriguez
Mr. & Mrs. Victor Rodriguez
Mr. & Mrs. Keith Root
Mr. & Mrs. Mack Roper
Mr. Mario Roque de Escobar
Mr. & Mrs. Alec Rosen
Mr. Paul Rosen
Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Rosenblatt
Mr. & Mrs. Louis Rosenthal
Mr. & Mrs. Stanley E. Ross
Mr, & Mrs. Jeffrey C. Roth
Mr. Paul Rothman &
Ms. Sharon Dash
The Rev. Jacquelyn Rowe
Mr. & Mrs. Howard
Roxborough
Mr. Michael A. Rubin
Dr. & Mrs. Howard A.
Rubinson
Ms. Joan Ruffe
Mr. & Mrs. Matt Russ
Mr. Andrew Russler &
Ms. Camille Russler
Mr. & Mrs. Jose Saavedra
Mr. & Mrs. Charles P Sacher
Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Saffir
Mr. & Mrs. Bert Sager
Dr. & Mrs. Gerard Sais
Mr. & Mrs. A.A. Sakhnovsky
Mr. Israel Jose Sala &
Mr. Ricardo Sala


Mr. & Mrs. Alexander
Sanchez
Mr. & Mrs. Luis Sanchez
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Sanchez
Mr. Nick Sand
Mrs. Ellen M. Sanford
Mr. & Mrs. Ed Santos
Ms. Becky S. Schaffer
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Scharnagl
Mr. & Mrs. Leo Scherker
Mr. Michael Schott
Mr. & Mrs. Allan Schwartz
Mr. & Mrs. Philip Schwartz
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Sciandra
Mr. & Mrs. James H. Scott
Ms. Kathy A. Scott &
Mr. Bill Swank
Mr. George E. Sedano
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Seiden
Mr. & Mrs. Ivan Selin
Ms. Lois A. Serafini
Ms. Nimia Serrano
Mr. & Mrs. John Shapiro
Ms. Sandy Sharp &
Mr. Stuart Newman
Mr. & Mrs. Martin L.
Shaw, III
Ms. Tamra Sheffman &
Mr. Ron Mayer
Mr. & Mrs. David Sherman
The Hon. Judge &
Mrs. Robert Shevin
Dr. & Mrs. Robert W. Shippee
Ms. LouAnn Short
Ms. Marilyn Shrater
Mr. & Mrs. Whit Sidener
Ms. Kimberly Silfies
Mr. & Mrs. David Siljee
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Silver
Mr. Jose Simonet &
Ms. Rema Comras
Mr. & Mrs. Jon A. Simpson
Mr. & Mrs. Howard W. Sims
Dr. & Mrs. Joseph A. Singer
Ms. Martha Singleton &
Mr. Walter Walkington
Mr. & Mrs. Ted C. Slack
Mr. & Mrs. Michael C.
Sornick
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Smart
Mr. & Mrs. Donald C. Smith
Dr. Donald G. Smith
Ms. Gillian Smith &
Mr. Uwe Doringer
Mr. & Mrs. Lee D. Smith
Mr. & Mrs. McGregor
Smith, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. James M.
Snedigar


Mr, & Mrs. Thomas Snook
Dr. & Mrs. Selig D. Snow
Dr. & Mrs. Gilbert
Snyder, M.D.
Mr. & Mrs. Larry R. Snyder
Mr. & Mrs. Cesar J. Sotelo
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Soto
Mr. & Mrs. Jose Sotolongo
Mr. & Mrs. Carlos Souffront
Mr. Richard Sox
Mr. & Mrs. Carl A. Spatz
Mr. & Mrs. Martin Spector
Mr. James M. Stamps &
Ms. Ami Keslov
Dr. & Mrs. L.M. Stanfill
Mrs. Mary Stanley &
Mr. Donald Stanley
Mr. Axel Stein
Mr. & Mrs. John Steinbauer
Mrs. Wilma Steiner &
Mr. Steiner
Mr, & Mrs. Adolph Steinhauer
Mr, & Mrs. Robert A. Stern
Mr. Christopher Sterser
Ms, Patricia Steverding
Mr. Ed Stieve &
Mr. Otto Paler
Mr. & Mrs. Fred Stockhausen
Dr. & Mrs. GJ. Stocks, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas J. Stokes
Ms. Alison Strachan &
Ms. Kathy Barber
Mr. & Mrs. Saul Strachman
Dr. & Mrs. Theodore Struhl
Mr. & Mrs. Morton D.
Stubins
Mr. Daniel Suman
Mr, & Mrs. Thomas A.
Swartz
Mr. Thomas W. Talmadge
Mrs. Barbara W. Tansey
Mr. Eduardo Tarafa
Mr. & Mrs. Peter Tattersfield
Ms. Jane I. Taylor
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas T. Taylor
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald E. Temkin
Ms. Peggy L. Test Frankel
Mr. & Mrs. Mark R. Thaw
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas V
Thompson
Dr, & Mrs. Richard J. Thurer
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Thurlow, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Robert C. Tipton
Mr. & Mrs. Robert E. Todd
Mr. Joseph Traba, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Tracy
Mr. & Mrs. Sydney S. Traum
Mr. & Mrs. Antonio M.
Tremols







98 TEQUESTA


Mr. & Mrs. John G. Troast
Mrs. Ann Soft Truby &
Mr. Daniel Montana
Dr. & Mrs. Leo Twiggs
Mr. & Mrs. Christopher G.
Tyson
Ms. Alicia Ulmo
Mr. Juan C. Urbina
Mr. Ignacio Uriarte
Ms. Mayling Urra
Mr. & Mrs. Franklin Valdes
Mr. & Mrs. William Vallier
Mr. & Mrs. Jerome Vallone
Ms. Glendys Valls &
Ms. Fernandina Ortega
Mr. Tom Van der Boon &
Ms. Joanne Maximilien
Mr. Charles M. van der Laan
Mr. & Mrs. William P.
VanderWyden
Dr. & Mrs. Andres Vasquez
Mr. & Mrs. Tom H. Veenstra
Mr. Ernesto Vega &
Mrs. Melissa Vega


Ms. Maria C. Abello
Ms. Kelsy Abernathy
Ms. Anabelle Abraira
Mr. Edward L. Acle
Mr. Roberrson Adams
Ms. Marlene Alegre
Ms. Charita Allen
Mr. Hugo Alvarez
Ms. Denise Andrews
Mr. Victor Antunez
Ms. Valeria Arias
Ms. Diana J. Arnal
Ms. Maria C. Bacallao
Ms. Michelle Baeza
Ms. Lisa Baird
Mr. Brad Baker
Mr. Stephen M. Bander
Ms. Edith Barnes
Ms. Patricia Barona
Ms. Julie Basulto
Mr. Peter S. Baumberger
Ms. Rebecca Bearden
Ms. Maria J. Beguiristain
Ms. Nereida Berkeley
Ms. Anna Blackman
Ms. Barbie Blanco
Ms. Denise Blaya
Ms. Lillian Blondet
Ms. Tania C. Bobe
Mr. Charles W. Braznell, III
Ms. Jocelyn Brewster


Mr. & Mrs. Heber Vellon
Ms. Nathalie Vinuenza
Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Vladimir
Ms. Ruth Ann Vogel
Mr. & Mrs. Martin Waas
Ms. Angela Wakshinsky
Mr. David Walters
Mr. & Mrs. George E. Watson
Dr. & Mrs. Carlos Weiss
Mr. & Mrs. Ted Weiss
Mr. & Mrs. A. Rodney Wellens
Mrs. Grayce West
Ms. Patsy West
Mr. & Mrs. Michael P. Whalen
Mr. Lucius L. Wilcox, Jr.
Mr. Joe Wilkins
Mr. & Mrs. Eric J. Williams
Mr. Michael Williams
Mr. & Mrs. Norman Willis
Ms. Barbara W. Wilson
Mr. & Mrs. George M.
Wilson
Dr. & Mrs. Oliver P.
Winslow, Jr.


Tropee Individual

Mr. Alejandro Brito
Ms. Diana Brulay
Mr. Cameron Burg
Mr. Rick Burt
Mr. Gus Cabrera
Ms. Marc A. Cabrera
Ms. Cynthia Callegas
Ms. Carolina Calzada
Ms. Carmen Campos
Mr. Nibaldo J. Capote
Mr. Carlos Carbonell
Ms. Jennifer Carricarte
Ms. Mia Cavaco
Ms. Alison Chariton
Ms. Karen Clement
Mr. Scott Cole
Ms. Karon M. Coleman
Mrs. Naydu Commenoz
Mr. Gary A. Costales
Ms. Lourdes Couce
Ms. Amy Cox
Mr. Elvis W. Cruz
Ms. Iliana Cruz
Ms. Chrisanne Dagit
Ms. Courrney Damon
Mr. Frank E. Davis
Mr. Sean Davis
Ms. Heather L. De Coursey
Mr. Erich de la Fuente
Mr. Joseph M. De La Viesca
Ms. Michelle Del Valle


Mr. & Mrs. John C. Witty, Jr.
Dr. & Mrs. Benjamin Wolf
Mr. & Mrs. William
Fred Wolff
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Wolfson
Ms. Patricia Wood
Mr. & Mrs. Don Worth
Mr. & Mrs. Hans Wrage
Mr. George Wright &
Ms. Maya Moore
Dr. & Mrs. Lloyd L. Wruble
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Yaniga
Mr. Robert Yates
Ms. Jean T. Yehle
Mr. & Mrs. David Yonover
Ms. Paula York &
Ms. Sarah York
Mr. & Mrs. Joe Young
Mr. & Mrs. John E Young
Dr. & Mrs. Peter Zies
Dr. Sanford Ziff & Mrs.
Dolores Maria Barwell-Ziff
Mrs. Audrey Zurawel


Ms. Susanne Derby
Mr. Al Diaz
Ms. Ena Diaz
Ms. Lourdes Diaz
Ms. Michelle Diaz
Ms. Karina Diehl
Mr. Joseph Doolan
Ms. Christine Dowlen
Mr. Roger Dunetz
Mr. Thomas Dye
Mr. Marvin Ellis
Mr. Jose Encinosa, Jr.
Ms. Susan Ervin
Ms. Sandra Fairman
Mr. Emerson Fales
Mr. Manuel Fermin
Ms. Yelena Fernandez
Mr. Sixto J. Ferro
Mr. Jeremy H. Finer
Ms. Carol Foster
Ms. Sunny Fraser
Ms. Denie Freyer
Ms. Elise Friedbauer
Ms. Adriana Fundora
Mr. Dan Gallik
Mr. Alexander Galvez
Ms. Denise Galvez
Ms. Tamara E. Garcia
Ms. Lola Garcia de Quevedo
Ms. Marilyn Garrido
Mr. Alexander Gary







List of Members 99


Dr. Les Gerson
Ms. Christina Getty
Ms. L. A. Glickman
Mr. Alfredo J. Gonzalez
Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez
Mr. Israel A. Gonzalez
Ms. Tammy Gonzalez
Mr. William E. Gregory
Mr. Mark S. Grogan
Ms. Sylvia Gurinsky
Ms. Patrice Gucenrag
Mr. Charles Hand
Ms. Laina Hanna
Dr. Jerome Harold
Mr. Douglas A. Harrison
Mr. Walter J. Harvey
Mr. Oscar Hernandez
Mr. Victor Hernandez
Ms. Ana Herrera
Ms. Michelle Herrera
Mr. John H. Hickey, Esq.
Ms. Julia Higgins
Mr. Donald G. Hiller
Ms. Victoria Hoffman
Mr. Horst Hohl
Ms. Carol Holden
Mr. John H. Holly
Ms. Katrine Jensen
Mr. Dennis G. Kainen, Esq.
Mr. Stefan Karlsson
Ms. Lisa Katz
Ms. Susan Kawalerski
Ms. Catherine Kelly
Mr. Wes Kendall
Ms. Carolyn Klepser
Mr. Christopher E. Knight
Ms. Stacey Koch
Ms. Andrea Krensky
Mr. Nick Lambrou
Mr. Paul W. Larsen
Mr. Robert M. Levy
Mr. Craig S. Likness
Ms. Rita LLado
Ms. Tania Llado
Ms. Neca M. Logan
Ms. Grace C. Lopez
Ms. Marika Lynch




Mr. Roberto C. Acosta
Mr. Jim Adams
Ms. Morella Aguilar
Mrs. Eugenia D. Allen
Ms. Lesley Allen
Mr. Emerson Allswroth
Mrs. Gloria S. Alvarez


Ms. Susan Mailaender
Ms. Jennie S. Malloy
Ms. Aida Martinez
Mr. Raul Martinez, Jr.
Miss Hilda C. Masip
Ms. Deborah Matthews
Ms. Sue McConnell
Mr. Joseph M. McDermott
Mr. Peter McElwain
Ms. Jamie Lynn McKinney
Ms. Margaret McPherson
Ms. Gina Melin
Mr. John Meltzer
Ms. Ann Merlin
Ms. Katherine M. Norman
Ms. Kelly Nott
Ms. Sheri E. Nort
Ms. Mari Novo
Ms. Wendy O'Sullivan
Ms. Angelique Ortega
Ms. Anna Pacheco
Ms. Morgan E. Park
Mr. Johnathan Parker
Ms. Julie Paugam
Ms. Janette Pedel
Mr. Paul Penichet
Dr. Jacqueline L. Pereira
Mr. Luis J. Perez
Ms. Sandra Piligian
Mr. Jorge Plasencia
Ms. Beatriz Portela
Mr. Nelson Prada, III
Mr. Francisco Recio
Ms. Susan Reilly
Ms. Mary Reyes
Mr. Rick Reyes
Ms. Mary Grace Richardson
Mr. Matthew J. Ridgely
Ms. Corina Rivas
Mr. Will Robbins
Mr. Eric A. Rodriguez, Esq.
Ms. Silvia M. Rodriguez
Ms. Cristina Romano
Ms. Jessica Romero
Ms. Jennifer M. Rosario
Mr. Gonzalo Ruiz
Mr. Hugh A. Ryan


Individual

Mr. Carl D. Amsterdam
Mrs. John Ancona
Mr. Cromwell A. Anderson
Ms. Diane Anderson
Ms. Julie Anderson
Mr. Monte Antkies
Ms. Hope A. Apollony


Ms. Adalyn Saladrigas
Mr. Gregory Saldana
Ms. Carolina Santalla
Ms. Liz Sarachek
Mr. Alex Sarafoglu
Ms. Lisa Schmick
Ms. Jacqueline Schwartz
Ms. Sandra L. Scidmore
Mr. Mark S. Scott
Mr. Larry Shane
Ms. Kelly Simpson
Mr. Richard Simring, Esq.
The Rev. Mark H. Sims
Ms. Tamara Sisler
Ms. Elizabeth Skjoldal
Mr. Paul Skoric
Mr. Robert G. Slater
Ms. Betsy Smalley
Ms. Allison J. Smith
Ms. Andrea Spurgeon
Ms. Dinah Stein
Mr. Joseph S. Stewart, III
Ms. Lexia Suarez
Ms. Ramsey Sullivan
Ms. Julie G. Tatol, Esq.
Ms. Sharon Thompson
Ms. B. J. Throne
Ms. Jennifer Tisthammer
Mr. Mike Trebilcock
Ms. Marisol Triana
Ms. Hortensia Trias
Mr. Mark A. Trowbridge
Ms. Wendy Tuttle Camp
Dr. Alberro E. Vadillo
Mr. Steve Vanhorn
Ms. Monica Y. Velazquez
Mr. Kurt A. Von Gonten
Mr. John S. Waldo
Mr. Richard B. Watson
Mr Todd Weinkle
Mr. Craig Wheeling
Ms. Krissy Wiborg
Mr. Robert J. Wilder
Ms. Jacqueline Woodward
Mr. O. Oliver Wragg
Ms. Carole Wright
Mr. Juan Carlos Zapata




Ms. Christine Ardalan
Mr. James Armour
Ms. Helen Jane Armstrong
Ms. Christine Atherton
Ms. Patricia A. Atkinson
Ms. J.L. Atwarer
Mrs. Blanche T. August







100 TEQUESTA


Ms. Helen Baden
Ms. Shelly Baer
Mrs. John L. Bagg, Jr.
Ms. Joan L. Bailey
Mr. C. Jackson Baldwin
Ms. Nancy Baldwin
Ms. Phyllis Barash
Ms. Ava R. Barnes
Mr. Paul D. Barns, Jr.
Dr. Michael E. Barron
Ms. Beth Barry
Ms. Anne Bartlett
Ms. Alexandra Bassil
Ms. Maria C. Barista
Ms. Irma Bayona
Ms. Jacqueline Beatty
Ms. Mary G. Beazel
Mr. Robert Beds
Ms. Gita Beharry
Mr. Ed Bell
Mr. Steve S. Benfield
Ms. Barbara K. Bennett
Ms. Cathy Bennett
Ms. Louise E Bennett
Ms. Sarah L. Bennett
Ms. Nancy Bernal
Ms. Cyane H. Berning
Ms. Elsa Biaggi
Ms. Jacquelyn Biggane
Mr. Louis B. Bills
Mr. Warren R. Birtner
Mr. John S. Black
Jeffrey Block, M.D.
Mrs. Margaret S. Blue
Ms. Olga Bodan
Ms. Elisabeth Boggs
Mr. Rush Bowles
Mr. Leonard G. Boymer
Ms. Jane Boynton
Ms. Jean Bradfisch
Mrs. Martha Lou Bradley
Mr. Scott Brady
Mr. Don Brammer
Dr. Ellen B. Brandt
Mr. James Broton
Ms. Jan Brown
Mrs. Mary C. Brown
Ms. Marva Bruner
Mr. Scott L. Bryan
Ms. Mimi Budd
Mr. Phillip A. Buhler
Mrs. T.C. Buhler
Ms. Alice Burch
Mr. Brian A. Burlingame
Dr. Madeleine H. Burnside
Mr. Charles Burr
Ms. Consuelo M. Burranca
Dr. Gregory W Bush
Ms. Ann Bussel


Mr. Donald H. Butler
Mr. Thco Byrd
Mrs. Florence H.
Cadwallader McClure
Mrs. Elsa Calderwood
Ms. Theresa Calderwood
Ms. Mairi Callam
Ms. Melissa Campbell
Ms. Selma Campbell
Ms. Linda H. Canary
Ms. Robin Caple
Ms. Elena V Carpenter
Ms. Victoria Carpenter
Mr. Robert Carr
Mr. William H. Cary
Ms. Sara Case
Ms. Lula Chadderron
Mr. David J. Charles
Dr. Josephine C. Chesley
Mrs. Anita Christ
Mrs. Walter J. Chwalik
Ms. Dana L. Clay
Ms. Malinda Cleary
Ms. Joan Cleveland
Mr. Frank Cobo
Ms. Caroline Coffey
Mr. C. Patrick Collins
Ms. Martha Anne Collins
Ms. Linda Collins Hertz
Miss Mabel Conde
Ms. Catherine J. Conduitte
Mariana Conea-Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Ms. Rebecca Conner
Ms. Cecilia Cooper
Mr. Mario Coryell
Ms. Eileen Costello
Ms. Carol Coverdale
Ms. Norma J. Craig
Mrs. Alma L. Crawford
Ms. Par Crosby
Ms. Phyllis Crystal
Mr. Andrew T Cullison
K. M. Culpepper
Mr. George Cummings, III
Mr. Edward Cunningham
Mrs. Charlotte
Curry Christensen
Mr. Robert Curtis
Ms. Nancy d'Albenas
Ms. Sandra Darrall
Mrs. Martha Dasher Howl
Ms. Ursula M. Davidson
Mr. Jim F Davis
Mr. John W Davis
Ms. Marinell Davis
The Hon. Mattie B. Davis
Mrs. Marilyn Davison
Ms. Sandy Dayhoff
Mr. J. Allison De Foor, II


Ms. Emilia de Quesada
Ms. Lynda de Velasco
Ms. Zena Decky
Ms. Carol Delaney
Ms. Patricia A. DeLisi
Ms. Susan Demorsky
Ms. Sylvia P. Diaz
Ms. Teresa E Diaz
Dr. Stephen Dobrow
Mr. Steve Dodge
Ms. Parricia Ann Dolan
Ms. Maren Domich
Mr. J.E Donnelly
Mrs. Leslie Dorn
Mr. Roger Doucha
Mr. Otto Dowlen
Mrs. H.E. Drew
Ms. Joyce Duryea
Mr. Bernard Edelsrein
Ms. Norma Ederer
Mr. Jim Edward
Mr. John D. Ellis
Ms. Ruth B. Elsasser
Mrs. Richard P. Emerson
Mrs. Harold
Emerson Mahony
Dr. Mary Allen Engle
Ms. Lynn Esco
Mrs. Beatrice Esplin
Mr. Carlos Estevez
Brother Eugene
Ms. Linda L. Evans
Mrs. Mary Ann Faber
Mrs. Dante B. Fascell
The Hon. Judge Peter Fay
Ms. Jane E. Faysash
Mr. J. W. Fell
Ms. Zenaida Fernandez
Mr. Juan Fernandez-Barquin
Ms. Merika Ficheux
Ms. Rosemary Fisher
Mr. Santiago Fittipaldi
Ms. Patrice Fleming
Mr. Leopoldo Florez
Mrs. Mary A. Flournoy
Dr. Rita M. Fojaco
Mr. Phil Follins
Miss Elizabeth Foote
Ms. Jean Fountain
Ms. Joanna Franyie
Ms. Carol Freeman
Ms. Janice Freistat
Miss Renee Z. Fritsch
Ms. Margaret Froehling
Mr. Pedro J. Fuentes-Cid
Ms. Marjorie L. Galatis
Mr. Rafael Gallardo
Ms. Uta Ganser
Ms. Susie Garcia




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs