I wouldn't say "and many others." He's the only guy quoted in the article on that, which you can find in the Orlando Sentinel (and probably the South Fl. Sun-Sentinel, too) today.

What they are trying to get at is the position of the subtropical jet -- and by correlation, El Nino/La Nina events. Disturbances in the subtropical jet can bring a lot of rainfall to wherever they pass over; during an El Nino year, the subtropical jet is generally further south than normal & often over the Florida peninsula, resulting in above average rainfall in S. Florida. Thus, low rainfall --> La Nina events --> more Atlantic activity --> greater chance of a landfall (and conversely, high rainfall --> El Nino events --> less Atlantic activity -- > less chance of a landfall).

Doesn't always work that way, though. Andrew occured during an El Nino year, 1992. So did the storm in 1965 that they reference. Another year referenced, 1935, was a neutral ENSO year. South Florida, over the past 50-75 years, has only seen a few landfalling major hurricanes, not enough to make the statistics significant. Most of them were in the 1960s, and only Betsy in 1965 was a "direct hit."

Furthermore, rainfall this time of year in S. Florida can be influenced by any number of factors: midlatitude systems, disturbances in the subtropical jet, tropical waves, sea breeze -- and so on. It only takes one system at either end of the month to bring about a lot of rainfall. Thus, the anecdotal evidence they present doesn't have much more merit than saying that extremely dry months brought about a landfall in S. Florida. I will give them that: the other years I found with major hurricanes in S. Florida (1945, 1960, 1964) also had rainfall < 5" in May.

Otherwise, there is no common thread amongst the dry months/years that makes physical sense, particularly in terms of the ENSO cycle (the single biggest modulator of tropical activity), to help logically explain the connection. There have been other dry months that have not seen tropical activity, and many wet months that did. Extending it to Central Florida doesn't help much, either: landfalls as a major storm in Cent. FL are pretty rare, particularly along the east coast.

What can you draw from this? Two things...
1) Landfalls can occur without any precedent. This is the "it only takes one" principle. It has little to nothing to do with climate patterns affecting solely Miami/Dade County.
2) The media will take a few quotes that make sense to most of the public to sensationalize a story, particularly when it relates to the start of a new hurricane season (after one that was pretty memorable in this state).

It's an interesting connection, but I'd put pretty little weight in the story...none if I were outside Miami.