Dear Resident:There are six Miami Beach Referendum Questions on your November ballot. While there are lots of social media posts and mailers about them, here is a deeper dive into why I think they are worthy of support. Because State law does not permit me to use City resources to advocate for a ballot initiative, I am sending this outside my typical method of communication, on my own dime. First, all six items were approved unanimously by the City Commission, and the first three by the Planning Board and the Budget Advisory Committee as well. The fact that every Commissioner and committee member agreed these are worthy of your support should provide some measure of confidence. Still, here is more background for you to consider:
Referendum Questions 1, 2 and 3 (#234, #236, #238) - The Marina Park Items:
The first three questions relate to a new Marina Park lease. So you know, we already have a marina on city property that is under a long-term lease through 2052. This is a renegotiation of that lease agreement. When we entered into that agreement in the 1980s, the South of Fifth Neighborhood we know today was entirely non-existent and the City, frankly, had little bargaining strength as we were desperate to attract development into a very dilapidated area of the City. That lease arrangement was heavily skewed toward the developer and operators of the Marina and provided little benefit to the City. Times have changed and now that the area is considered prime real estate, we think it is a good idea to renegotiate in order to improve the marina and obtain other concessions for our City. The new deal, which essentially renegotiates the previous deal and adds decades to the new marina lease term, has gone through dozens of meetings and public hearings and is substantially better than the current lease in every way. It allows the Developer to erect a condominium with up to 60 units where the current office and business center sits. The condo, though taller than the current structure, is much skinnier, and lower in height than other buildings in the area. That means it is within the scale of the neighborhood and allows for superior sightlines to the bay.
In exchange, the Developer will build a new park (where there is currently a dated building and large surface parking lot), spend over $60 million upgrading the Baywalk and renovating the marina so it is world class, and pay the City $55 million over the next few years and pay increased rent and property taxes over the length of the lease which is projected to generate $50 million (in present value). It will still have a commercial area where there is one now, only upgraded and smaller. If Monty’s wants to remain, it can. The development will also generate thousands of jobs. In every way, the arrangement is better for the immediate community and City which is why the Commission unanimously supported the project. Also, while the City has terrific in-house staff, we did retain outside experts to analyze the terms of this deal to make sure it made sense for taxpayers.
We also used the renegotiation to reduce some of the City’s risk. For instance, under the old lease if the state decided to not renew the submerged land lease for the Marina, our City would be on the hook for lost profits and other damages over the remaining term of their lease. That is no longer the case on the new lease.
Here is the area impacted by the project: |
|
The actual items on the ballot that need to be approved in order to renegotiate the lease include:
Referendum Question 1 (#234) - this asks you to approve directing the $55 million in sale proceeds to resiliency and sustainability initiatives, workforce and teacher housing, senior services, and building back our City’s financial reserves.
Referendum Question 2 (#236) & Referendum Question 3 (#238) are the approvals needed for the sale of the air rights and the land for the condominium, and the approval of the renegotiated lease of public land.
Ultimately, this is a very strong renegotiation of the marina lease for the community that will result in an upgraded marina, a new park, an immediate infusion of capital and a long term revenue stream to the City, and generate thousands of local jobs – none of these new benefits exist in the current lease.
Referendum Question 4 (#240) - Reconstruction of original floor plates of historic buildings:
This addresses an unintended consequence of our zoning code. Currently an historic building that is at or has exceeded its allowable size is not permitted to simply replace previously removed interior floors and revert back to its original historic use. This item, if approved, would allow a building to restore its original floors without increasing in any way its size, footprint or height. One example is the Bancroft hotel on Collins Avenue and 15th Street, which eliminated some of its floorplates in order to make room for a high-ceilinged nightclub. Now that the nightclub is out of business, the owners of the hotel are not permitted to restore the floors and hotel rooms. So, the building is out of use and vacant, attracting only vagrants and crime. This would allow them, or other similarly situated owners, to restore the original floor plan – a small, art-deco hotel that is precisely what we need in the area. This change makes sense and has the support of various City organizations that care about development.
Referendum Question 5 (#242) - Wolfsonian Expansion:
The Wolfsonian Museum on 10th and Washington is a cultural jewel of our City. But because of downzoning, it cannot expand. This would allow them, and only them, to increase their floor area by creating a Wolfsonian Arts District. It would also allow them to increase their footprint and actually make their building less of a fortress and more of an inviting museum. It would only impact the Wolfsonian but would very much elevate the cultural profile of the entire area which, in my judgement, is a critical goal of our City and our efforts to reimagine the entertainment district as a cultural district. Due to some County Bond proceeds, the Wolfsonian already has $10 million available to contribute to their building fund. If you support this, we will have another world class museum in our City. This should be easy to support. Here is a diagram of the impacted area: |
|
Referendum Question 6 (#244) - Excluding certain amenity spaces from FAR calculation:
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is how our City regulates the overall size of a building. Any increase to FAR requires voter approval. For the longest time, the following areas of a building have been included in the allowable floor area ratio:
• Secured bicycle parking spaces,
• Stairwells / elevators located above main roof decks,
• Electrical transformer vault rooms, and
• Fire control rooms / related life-safety equipment.
This means that space programmed for those purposes is lost as rentable square footage. So, for instance, a developer might have less incentive to build storage for bicycles since he loses leasable space if he does so. Similarly, updates to code requirements for fire control rooms and FPL vaults have increased their required size over the last few decades. This measure, if approved, addresses these issues.
This would likely benefit buildings that want to include bike storage areas, or that might otherwise have to remove residential units when they renovate and have to increase the size of fire control rooms or electrical vaults to meet new code requirements. Since we don’t want to punish developers that follow life safety guidelines or that provide bike storage, this makes sense.
This is not a significant increase in FAR, but a fair one. I urge its support.
So, if you want more info please go to the City’s Voter Guide. Hopefully, you will feel confident voting yes on all six of the Miami Beach questions.
Thanks for your interest and please vote,
Mayor Dan Gelber |
|
|
|
