Deauville PrecedentThe Deauville Precedent
Rewarding Billionaire Bad Actors
Voters Rejected Increased FAR
●In 2022, Miami Beach voters rejected a FAR increase for Stephen Ross’s
proposed Deauville redevelopment –despite Ross’s $1 Million
marketing campaign.
●The current redevelopment proposal is even denser than the Ross plan.
●Lowering height from 380 to 300 feet but keeping the same FAR creates
bulkier buildings and is still 50% over the 200 foot allowable height limit.
Bad Precedent –Spot Zoning Concerns
●Spot zoning for Deauville invites demands from others.
●Mimet Hotel and Sherry Frontenac owners already seeking
similar concessions.
○Their attorneys suggest spot zoning may be illegal.
●2022 warnings from Commissioners and Planning Board:
○“Cascading effect” toward overdevelopment
○Risks turning North Beach into “mini Sunny Isles”
○Unequal treatment of property owners
○Opens floodgates for zoning changes
Crumbling Infrastructure
●North Beach has over $1 billion in unfunded
infrastructure needs.
●Developer only offering $400,000 for infrastructure
upgrades.
●Other so-called "benefits":
○150 parking spaces (City must pay to maintain)
○A swale labeled as a "park"
○Two beach access paths
○$7.5 million to the Byron Carlyle
Lack of Public Benefits
●$7.5M for Byron Carlyle is not enough.
●Developer should give $200M for NoBe infrastructure.
●No real benefit from more hotels with low occupancy rates.
“Triangle
Park”
Developer Profit vs. Public Benefits
●Zoning concessions worth $568,452,600 (Miami Economic
Associates, Inc.report):
○FAR increase: 3.0 to 5.5
○Height increase: 200 to 380 feet
○Additional 416,250 sq.ft. at $3,000-$4,000 per sq.ft.
●Public benefits: ~$21.5 million (3.782% of concessions)
○$8.24 million cash
○150 parking spaces (~$6 million [$40,000 per space])
○$250k pocket park; Beach pathways (~$7 million)
●Five Park = ~$80 Million in public benefits
●Deauville grossly disproportionate; Fails fiduciary duty
Rewarding Bad Behavior
●The Meruelo family let the Deauville deteriorate (demolition
by neglect).
●Racked up $6 million in code violations.
●Put public safety at risk with a fire caused by illegal electrical
work and forced beachwalk closure with falling concrete.
●Sued the City, stalled progress, and only agreed to pay when
approval seemed imminent.
●We should not reward this behavior with zoning giveaways.
●We should not create a roadmap for other building owners
to follow (intentionally allowing properties to deteriorate).
Casino Concerns
●Developer refuses to remove
oversized podium, which could host
a casino.
●Family behind project has casino and
hospitality ties.
●Partial replica of the Deauville is not
preservation—it’s a distraction.
Alex Meruelo
CRA Smoke and Mirrors
●CRA revenues won’t materialize for decades.
●Project would take up to 5 years to build.
●CRA was originally intended to be funded by the dozen
residential projects in Town Center that are already under
construction.
Dangerous Precedent
●Approval could open the door to massive
overdevelopment:
○Developers could use Live Local to exceed existing
height limits.
○Adjacent properties are already requesting the same
zoning changes.
●North Beach = the next Sunny Isles?
Did the Community Have a Say?
●Limited outreach beyond two required hearings
●Questions:
○How were North Beach residents’ priorities incorporated?
○Why were Commissioners negotiating in private?
○How does this deal maximize public value?
○Why are neighboring condo buildings paying $3,250 per hour
to lobby in favor of this project?
●Fiduciary duty: Commission must prioritize public interest
What We Need Instead
●Enforce current zoning—developer can still build
without upzoning.
●Invest in infrastructure, attainable housing, flood
protection.
●Reject overdevelopment, replicas, and zoning favors for
bad actors.
Final Message
●Let’s protect Miami Beach’s future.
●Stand against overdevelopment and broken promises.
●Say NO to the Deauville giveaway.
Unaddressed Infrastructure Impacts
●Project adds 416,250 sq.ft., increasing demand on:
○Roads
○Sewer systems
○Utilities
●Concurrency requirements exist, but:
○Who pays if systems are inadequate?
○No clear mitigation plan
○Burdens existing residents
○Lacks long-term planning
Bad Deal –Enforcement Risks
Can We Trust the Developer?
●Benefits tied to milestones (COA, permits), but:
○What if Developer delays or defaults?
○Significant upfront concessions already granted
●No clear recourse for City
○Exposes City to risk
○Weak safeguards
Overdevelopment & Inconsistency
●Same commissioners once vocally opposed height and
FAR increases.
●They argued against overdevelopment, NOT the lack of a
replica.
●Now they support a more intense development for
minimal public return.
Commissioner Bhatt Brings Up Casinos
Bad Deal –Missed Opportunities
Why Not Renegotiate?
●Alternatives could balance deal:
○Reduce FAR and height
○Increase benefits
●Questions:
○Were these options explored?
○Why accept such low benefits?
●Viable project still possible
●Better terms achievable