In Costco site debate, four pivotal county concerns at stake

Four classic government dilemmas converged as county commissioners debated the sale of South Dade land they had dedicated two decades ago to vital water and sewer use to developers of a big-box Costco store.

Clashing were concerns of have-not areas versus areas that do well economically, the need of government to be a good steward of its properties versus private desires to develop those lands, government’s deliberate pace versus the aim of business to move fast, and the principle of fair prices versus economic development at any price.

The preliminary outcome was a 12-1 vote ordering Mayor Daniella Levine Cava to pinpoint any barriers to selling 17-plus vacant acres the county bought beside an expressway for water and sewer uses that will be needed when economic development comes to the area for a Costco development now.

She’s ordered to resolve issues, negotiate and set terms of a sale in 30 days, and have the deal up for a vote in 60 days. As you read this, half the negotiating time has already elapsed. That’s extraordinary speed and an extraordinary order in any government.

Why such speed, which bypassed a normal committee review, and why that order? That’s what some commissioners asked Kionne McGhee, the area’s commissioner who is pushing the sale.

Raquel Regalado, who opposed the order to the mayor, pointed out that the county bought the land in 2003 because of its high elevation, a key to a facility that must function through floods. She noted the seldom-stated fact that the county faces a long-standing consent decree by the federal government to develop adequate water and sewer infrastructure quickly.

“We cannot just give up these properties that we bought a long time ago,” said Commissioner Eileen Higgins. “Quite frankly, it’s one of the few things that we did right. We planned for growth in the south and the west. We are not great planners.”

Ms. Regalado also noted that a year ago the commission instituted a rule that someone who wanted to buy such county property had to find equally good land to replace it. The commission order placed the burden not on the developer but on the county. Water & Sewer Director Roy Colee said the county is now hunting for alternate land for its future facility.

Against that need for county infrastructure stood the desire of business to move fast.

“This offer is not going to be here longer,” Commissioner McGhee said. “They have other options that are not found within this county, and options like these are not found every single day. If it’s not here, it’s going to be somewhere else.”

Then there’s concern for the local area – as Mr. McGhee said, how to uplift areas of the county generally set aside for primarily county assets. “Where there are many county assets, you are unable to tax these county assets. That means there are less tax dollars going within those communities to benefit the very people that actually live there.” He added, “we’re talking way in excess of millions of dollars” in annual sales and “over 493 jobs,” an infusion to the South Dade tax base “that we haven’t seen in over 32 years.”

Though commissioners debated what developers must pay for the land, dollar figures were never mentioned.

Commissioner Regalado talked of demanding fair market value, saying getting less than that “strikes to the core of what we should not be doing.” The land for three years at least has been assessed at an unchanged $7.55 million. The mayor was told an appraisal already in the works must be done within the two weeks remaining under the commission’s order.

But commissioners backing the deal say the county need not ask full value. Keon Hardemon noted that the land is within a formal community redevelopment area and a Costco would bring community redevelopment, so not getting fair market value shouldn’t be a deal-breaker.

“Economic development specifically in Black areas of this county has not happened like it should have,” said Chairman Oliver Gilbert III as he brought the issue to a vote. The Beacon Council, the county’s economic development organization, and the commission itself, he said, didn’t focus on it. “We have to move faster.”

Now it’s on the mayor’s back to cut a deal fast under formal order, regardless of whether she thinks it’s a good idea or a good deal. That very tall order is unlikely to produce deep thought or tough bargaining. It will be a sweetheart deal.

But there are no winners or losers yet. The very difficult trick will be to make sure that any deal produces only winners. With four vital issues at stake, that balancing act is worth trying.