The missing marker

The original marker · official record

Installed through a documented federal-state-city chain

National Weather Service · September 18, 2007

The National Weather Service Miami office preserves the dedication record and original marker photograph. The ceremony was organized by WFO Miami Meteorologist in Charge Rusty Pfost; speakers included building owner Scott Robins, National Hurricane Center Acting Director Ed Rappaport and Florida emergency-management director Craig Fugate.

View the NWS dedication record ↗

The municipal approval trail is now documented too. On April 3, 2007, Miami's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board considered the Old U.S. Post Office and Courthouse at 100 NE 1st Avenue and approved, 6-0, Resolution 2007-18: a Certificate of Appropriateness for installation of a historical marker at the corner of the property. The City’s current board archive provides the official access point for the municipal record. Open the official board archive ↗.

The Florida Division of Historical Resources currently preserves the official F-593 registry entry and the full approved marker text. Florida Historical Marker record ↗.

Why this corner matters

Weather history happened here

The old Federal Building at 100 NE First Avenue was one of Miami’s principal Weather Bureau observing locations during the 1926 hurricane. National Weather Service station history records that instruments moved there in August 1914. Wind instruments moved to the Seybold Building in July 1927, while temperature and rainfall observations continued at the Federal Building until July 1929. That chronology makes the corner part of the observing record itself, not simply a later commemorative site. NWS historical marker record.

On September 18, 2007, the National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center and State of Florida dedicated a historical marker here. Organized by meteorologist Rusty Pfost, the ceremony marked the storm’s 81st anniversary. The purpose extended beyond remembrance: the site could teach each new generation why a lull in a hurricane is not an all-clear. NWS dedication record.

The disappearance

A missing sign, an uncertain date

The 2011 image establishes that the marker was standing then. Jones’s correspondence documents inquiries by April 2014. In those April 2014 exchanges, building/property representatives described the marker as having been “taken” or “stolen” and said the inquiries came months after it disappeared with its post. Those statements are contemporaneous testimony, not independent proof of the exact removal date, who removed it, or why.

In October 2019, Jones asked Staletovich whether she had learned anything further. She replied that she had heard nothing since writing the story. That exchange records another attempt to find an answer; it was not a new published investigation. The independent Historical Marker Database also reports the marker missing.

The first replacement effort

In 2015, there was a way forward

By June 2015, City preservation officer Megan Cross Schmitt and representatives of Stambul, the building’s owner, were discussing the cost of a replacement. Schmitt relayed a $1,900 fabrication quote. The property representative asked whether that included the post and installation.

On August 5, Schmitt answered both questions: the post was included, and the City could help install the marker if it stood in the public right-of-way. That was a conditional offer of assistance, not evidence that installation occurred.

In January 2016, Stambul’s representative wrote that buying a new marker was part of the Old Post Office redevelopment. Jones asked again as the 90th anniversary approached that July. The May 2026 view shows that a marker was still absent at the original corner.

The centennial effort

The text was ready. Coordination was still needed.

On June 10, 2026, Florida Historical Marker Coordinator Jeremy Heiker confirmed that the text approved in 2006 could be reused if no revision was needed. He offered to arrange fabrication once billing and shipping details were supplied, quoting $3,145 for an order placed before December 31, 2026.

City preservation officer Kenneth Kalmis separately explained that a location on City property or in the right-of-way would require City participation. He identified the City Manager’s Office and Public Works as the relevant coordination route. His general guidance cited a production period of approximately 20–24 weeks after final text approval and submission to the manufacturer; it was not a confirmed delivery schedule for this replacement.

Jones followed up on June 22, sought the Mayor and City Manager’s assistance on June 30, and wrote again on July 16. On July 31, he requested Commission sponsorship of an agenda item addressing responsibility, location, ordering and installation. His August 25 follow-up said he had also submitted a public-records request about the receipt, routing and handling of his communications.

The written record before the call

“We will work with the administration”

The response expressed support and asked for Jones’s preferred contact information. He replied that day and requested a named point of contact and the next step. On September 9, he asked again.

The later telephone update described above advances the story beyond these emails. The written record remains important because it documents how the renewed replacement effort began.