Don’t let a ‘good deal’ pave over our largest green space
When Miami commissioners vote April 1 on a massive plan to uproot the city’s only golf course, the debate has been framed as whether private developers’ offer to take over public land for 99 years is a good deal.
But that’s the wrong starting point.
The first question should be whether loss of an irreplaceable asset would benefit Miami’s residents and taxpayers, now and in the future. If the answer is no, the city has no need at all to debate terms, because it is a deal we should never contemplate.
Logical as it is to look first at whether to take this major step, commissioners and the would-be developer of office buildings, hotels, stores, entertainment and a soccer stadium on the city’s largest piece of green land have breezed past the key question: should the City of Miami yield the land at any price?
Developer Jorge Mas in his opinion article in the Miami Herald titled “Miami Freedom Park is a good deal for the city’s taxpayers” erroneously claims that the policy decision has already been made, writing:
“Over three years ago, you – the residents of Miami – voted overwhelmingly in favor of Miami Freedom Park. You voted to convert a golf course into a privately-funded world-class entertainment, sports and recreational destination for all to enjoy.”
But the ballot question asked no such thing, as Mr. Mas very well knows.
The question was whether to let the City of Miami bypass seeking competing bids and then allow officials to negotiate an unsolicited deal. It was not a referendum on whether Miamians actually wanted to achieve what talks might produce or a mandate for the city to sign a deal.
The ballot question that got 60% of votes allowed the city to talk, but the city has yet to decide if it wants to dispose of its valuable asset at any price.
There is no good reason to enrich developers at taxpayers’ expense. It will take only two of the five commissioners to understand that to retain the city’s asset.
Why would the turnover be costly to taxpayers?
First, as a letter writer recently noted, Melreese is the City of Miami’s largest green area, a major element of the cycle in our climate that creates natural air conditioning. Its 131 acres of trees and grass are vital parkland that would disappear. Nobody is making more green space.
Second, it’s the only golf course in the City of Miami. We lure vacationers, and even our increasing business visitors seek recreation here. Other than Manhattan, Miami could become the largest US city with no golf course of any sort in its limits.
Third, paving over much of the affordable city-owned course would displace the most democratic group of golfers around, mixed by sex, age, ethnicity and income level. Where could they afford to go?
Fourth, Melreese is adjacent to our major economic engine, Miami International Airport. The announced plan, plus more buildings that developers may add, could reduce how much air traffic and cargo US officials would allow. The county is studying that right now, but answers would come too late if the city OKs a deal next month.
Fifth, haven’t we learned that stadiums don’t uplift their areas or raise incomes? Look at promises for Marlins Park and what actually happened. What has Little Havana gained? Many neighbors of the golf course, in fact, oppose this deal.
Two commissioners voting ‘no’ can reject this offer without haggling about how much money the city would be paid for a priceless asset or terms of use.
We have nothing against a soccer stadium or office complex or hotels or any other part of this plan, which would have more retail than giant Brickell City Centre – nothing against them in the right place, that is.
Swire Properties, for example, spent decades assembling Brickell City Centre’s site by buying on the open market. The result has been beneficial for Miami, and for Swire.
But to circumvent the process for Miami Freedom Park, which would compete with Swire and other projects, by seeking a priceless expanse of public green space from the government with nobody else allowed to bid is a different game, asking the public to provide what developers themselves will not.
Remember, the city has never voted to dispose of this precious asset it can never replace. It must not do so.
Jay
March 17, 2022 at 1:04 pm
Michael,
Clearly you are out of touch.
Melreese is regularly above $75 to golf at. There are MANY courses in the Miami area that are much more affordable to go to. To say “Where could they afford to go?” is mind-numbingly ignorant. Palmetto, Briar Bay, Miami Springs – just to name a few. Limiting Miami to ‘Miami city limits’ is ridiculous.
The only people using this ‘green-space’ right now are well-off golfers. With this proposal, citizens go run miles in the new park, play catch with their kids, play soccer on the fields, have picnics, ride bikes around, and more. You want a more democratic group of individuals? Mas’ proposal does that.
I still do not understand how we are not recognizing all the benefits of this proposal simply because there will also be an area people can eat, drink, and watch soccer included on the deal as well.
I have never used this ‘green space’ to golf. I will be there all the time to run, compete, eat, drink, and watch soccer if passed.
Harrison Teeter
March 18, 2022 at 1:39 pm
So true. Just because Melreese is zoned CS – which is park-use – does not mean Melreese is a park. To promote such a mischaracterization is ridiculous.
Bandit
March 18, 2022 at 11:35 am
I may not agree with the structure of the deal itself. I think it’s too biased towards the developers. But to cry about the golf course being demolished and it being a few of the green spaces left is laughable. If you don’t play golf that space is not for you. Golf courses are incredibly resource intensive and ecologically dubious. The amount of maintenance water and upkeep they require doesn’t make it a green space in the environmental sense. And since it’s a paid access public space it doesn’t classifiy as a green space in my opinion.
Raidel Oviedo
March 19, 2022 at 4:51 am
Hi.
Jay thank you for your comment. This article almost convinced me. I have never used that green space either and I’m sure I will be visiting after the stadium-entertainment complex is built. He should not compared this project with the marlin’s park, this has always been marketed as a complex, not just a soccer field. I would love for some investigation about how true it is that this may impact air traffic for the airport. But, otherwise let it be built!!!
Gerwyn Flax
March 19, 2022 at 3:56 pm
The FAA restricts building heights in Miami to 1040ft. maximum, and downtown is a least 5 miles away from MIA. Plans indicate that this would be built literally across the street from Mia.,just east of Lejune. What happens if an airliner fails to gain altitude or looses altitude? Shouldn’t the FAA weigh in on this plan?
Carmen Ortiz MD
March 22, 2022 at 6:52 am
To build a soccer field so close to the busy traffic hub that is the airport is irresponsible.
The ensnaring traffic that is 37th or 42nd avenue is alreasy tenuous. My children took baseball classes and golfing lessons at Melreese. A green space can not and should not be sold by the city to developers. To my reckoning, an area farther north, i.e. Interama, would be more lucrative for attracting sports fans, being near the edge of Dade and Broward, and having access from Biscayne Boulevard, the turnpike, i95 and the Metrofail.
I vote against more traffic by the airport. I vote against loss of green space. I vote for the future of A green Miami.