Loading...
Remarks by Micky Biss . I'. ~J u.L~ ~~J L{'X)~ V/l'L. ~i~S t7A 1L7F REMARKS AND COMMENTS BY MICKY BISS rc: 'i 8 BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION JL )" F AND THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R-S-G JULY 28, 2004 ~.~ b I. P- -~ E I i-t My name is Micky Biss. Individually, and through my corporate entity, USA Express, Inc., I own property in the City of Miami Beach located at 120, 126 and 130 Ocean Drive and my corporate entity and I are affected parties to this evening's proceedings. I understand that for certain aspects of these proceedings you are sitting as the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency and therefore, where applicable, my remarks are being made to both this agency, as well as to the City Commission. I have not been before you for many years. I come here tonight because what is before you now is one of the most important matters the Miami Beach Commission has ever dealt with. The plaintiffs and applicants intend this to be the culmination or final act of a development plan which has been carefully orchestrated and choreographed for over twelve years. When Thomas Kramer first came to our fine City and started buying up properties some twelve years ago, I was one of the largest land owners in the area known as South Point - the area in Miami Beach south of Fifth Street. I became acquainted with Mr. Kramer, we broke bread together and we shared ideas and visions for a new South Beach and, more particularly, the redevelopment of South Point. As many of you may recall, one of his earliest plans was to turn South Point into a beautiful low-rise community with hills and valleys and green space; resembling as he then said, the Italian City of Portofino - hence the name of his entity which is now before you. The City leaders seemed intrigued. They even participated in Portofino's June 1993 charette at which time architects and planners from around the globe gathered in Joe's for several days to exchange ideas and concepts for this Redevelopment Area of Miami Beach. Unfortunately, soon after, all those beautiful and seductive ideas were no longer being discussed. Instead, in 1994 we got Portofino Towers and a lot of lawsuits filed against our fine City by some of the very best attorneys in Florida. One of the most interesting maneuvers was that Portofino bought, from an out-of-state entity, a judgment which this entity had against the City of Miami Beach and then Portofino threatened the City with this judgment and really tried to stick it to us. About that time, a young man, an attorney in town with a lot of intelligence and charisma and most importantly, a lot of principles, woke up the citizens of this City through the grassroots organization he spearheaded known as Save Miami Beach. We all know the rest of the David and Goliath story of how this small organization with a few dollars defeated Portofino's two Page 2 million dollar campaign and how this charter amendment was ultimately passed by the citizens of this City to protect our waterfront property. The little bit of undeveloped waterfront property we still had was now going to be saved forever from developers doing the very type of thing Portofino wanted to do in 1997. Later, the charter was further amended to also protect our non-waterfront inland property. It is ironic that today the gentleman who spearheaded this charter amendment movement is our mayor, the honorable David Dermer and it is a travesty that a few months ago in anticipation of pulling off the Settlement Agreement that is before you tonight, the City modified the language of the very charter amendments which were to supposed to protect the City and its citizens from Portofino. Supposedly, these modifications now exempt Portofino, along with their related companies and entities from the original charter amendments and thereby from the will of the citizens of this City. This sounds like something that Chavez would attempt to pull off in Venezuela. Since it seems that he controls the Supreme Court of Venezuela, he would probably be successful. Fortunately, here in Miami Beach, USA, this will not fly. In addition to the manipulative intent of the modifications, I believe that the language on its face does not allow for the actions that you are considering tonight to be exempt from the charter amendments. Some of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement must go to the voters of this City for approval by the electorate before you can act. I have already spent much of the time allotted to me tonight in an attempt to put the twelve years preceding this Settlement Agreement into perspective and try to have you see that this Settlement Agreement being quickly approved tonight, along with all of the land use changes and other actions the City will be compelled to take and approve does not pass the "reasonable doubt" test - reasonable doubt as to whether all this is in the best interest of the City and reasonable doubt as to whether, in view of the multiple charter amendments which should prohibit the commission from these types of actions, all this should really be approved by you at this late hour on a Wednesday night in the middle of the summer just before you adjourn for summer recess. Think about it. What do you have to lose by allowing the citizens to vote on this decision? Even if you do not agree with me that the recent charter amendments do not exempt what is being contemplated here tonight from the requirements of the charter, what do you have to lose to err on the side of caution and put this to a public vote? I urge you to give the voters enough credit to be able to figure out what is really best for the City. As Mr. Dermer and his Save Miami Beach organization learned in 1997, the voters were smart enough to figure it out and knew the right thing to do. Give them credit now, seven years later, for being able to figure it out and do the right thing again. Page 3 I want to believe that you will heed this advise and not rush to judgment tonight and bind the City to an agreement regarding our precious waterfront and other land that we will all have to live with in perpetuity and those that come after us will also all have to live with. But, just in case my urgings fall on deaf ears tonight, I need, as quickly as possible, in the time still allotted to me to make some other mentions to, as we say, preserve the record. In addition to that which I have already stated, much of the process before you tonight is flawed and 1 or in violation of: the City Charter, the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City, State Statutes, State Regulations and even restrictions imposed on you by the Federal Government. This evening's proceedings have been, I believe intentionally, a very rushed process. The Public Hearings were set for tonight by this commission well after the City staff had already sent out notices of these Public Hearings anticipating that you would rubber stamp what others had already decided to do. Regarding these Public Hearings, I want to raise my formal objections to merging or otherwise consolidating any of the Public Hearings noticed and scheduled for this evening. Each of these hearings should be held separately. While I recognize that there may be some related issues, each of these matters are affected by different law, regulations or charter provisions. There should not be a merger of evidence. I believe you must hold separate and distinct hearings. Within one day of the time these Public Hearings were set, on July 7th, I made numerous Public Records Requests to be able to see certain relevant public records and files in connection with all of the extremely involved and complicated matters that are before you tonight. It seems my request came as a surprise to City staff. While the process under City and State law provides for all of what I asked for to be readily available, it was not. To this date, I still have not received a substantial part of the relevant public records I requested; even though I have considerably modified my request so as to not burden the City. The delays in my receiving the requested public documents and the constant last- minute modifications to the documents has contributed to my difficulty in trying to analyze the nature and effect of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the related approvals and ordinances before you this evening, and interpret and analyze the ordinances, the actions of the Planning Board and how all of this affects my property. Only yesterday afternoon was I finally able to receive a copy of the deed the city received from the Federal Government for the coveted piece of property known as the Federal Triangle and only yesterday was I able to confirm what I suspected. There are covenants and restrictions in that deed given to the City by the Federal Government, which specifically prohibit the actions that Page 4 you are contemplating to take tonight. Clearly, the deed from the Federal Government does not allow this property to be a pawn in the settlement of a lawsuit, nor does it allow for any of it to be part of a commercial undertaking or enterprise. As for the delays in receiving the final documents, even the actual Settlement Agreement which is the primary document before you and which drives everything else here tonight, was not ready for public viewing after notices of these hearings went out and after you set the Public Hearings. The best the City was able to provide me with days after my Public Records Request was a document entitled "Draft - 6/28/04 - Settlement Agreement." It was not until just a few days ago that I was able to finally get a copy of the Settlement Agreement which no longer said draft and which was now dated July 21st 2004. But even this document does not contain all of the various exhibits referenced in the agreement. Even the actual ordinances before you tonight were not in final form well after notice of these hearings was sent to the affected property owners and you scheduled these Public Hearings. As late as Monday July 19th, I personally was in the Planning Office and received directly from the Planning Director copies of the ordinances which he claimed were the final versions of the five ordinances. But, it seems they were not - or at least nobody really knew what the final versions were. A couple of days later I received different versions of the ordinances from the City Attorney's Office and at that point realized that the notices that went out did not conform to the so-called final ordinances which the Planning Director gave me on July 19th and which I believe may be before you tonight - but, I really don't know because just like the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office, I am at this point totally confused as to which version of these ordinances are before you tonight. A few days ago I received a notice postmarked July 19th for yet another Public Hearing this evening regarding the conveyance of two parcels of City owned land and the vacation of a street - the alleyway between Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive -indicating that you're considering tonight, among other things, giving a public street away and closing off access to the rest of the public. Certainly, it seems to me that the notice is deficient and I believe incorrectly identifies the Department of Community Affairs as a party to the Settlement Agreement, which is inconsistent with other notices and with the identified parties to the Settlement Agreement. Here too, I do not believe that all of the regulations have been followed correctly. Then, we have the 1992 Shapiro Ordinance regarding giving away City owned land. You might recall that I was quite involved regarding the Shapiro Ordinance in 1994. I believe you Page 5 have also not fulfilled the requirements of this ordinance regarding the actions you are contemplating this evening. I also have questions and concerns as to whether or not the prerequisites for your contemplating any of the ordinances and other matters you are considering this evening have been properly done and accomplished. If the Planning Director himself was not certain which proposed ordinance was final as recently as last Monday, I question what the Planning Board reviewed and voted on and whether there were deficiencies regarding those proceedings. And, of course, the Design Review Board was supposed to opine on some of this, but I question whether those requirements could have been properly fulfilled in view of all the uncertainties and changes that have been taking place up to, it seems, the very last moment. I also have additional questions and concerns. Why was the public not clearly notified that the Settlement Agreement involved Bert J. Harris claims and thereby allowing the affected property owners to receive legal advice regarding their rights in this matter? Can the proposed ordinances and Settlement Agreement really be changed or modified after the 30-day notice to the affected property owners? Can the City really have Contract Zoning? I think what is being proposed here this evening constitutes Contract Zoning. Is it legal and proper to provide for conditional revocation of the zoning, land use and other ordinances if future other approvals are not granted? I also have concerns and questions regarding the consistency of the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes with the remaining sections of the Comprehensive Plan. And, I still have many other questions and concerns for which I have not been able to receive legal counsel on due to the abundance of what is before you and the public this evening, the shortness of time the City has given me to examine the public records and the unavailability of some of the records to date. Are all of the procedures required by State Statute such as, without limitation, 166.041; Chapter 163 and the City Charter and City Code, for example, without limitation, Section 118 - 164 being correctly followed and complied with in connection with the proceedings before you this evening? And, did the content of the Notices published and mailed comply with all Page 6 the requirements? For example, I see no reference to the intended compliance agreement procedure being sought for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment. I thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak before you this evening and present my reasons why you should not this evening rush to approve the Settlement Agreement, as well as all the other ordinances and resolutions, being asked for by the plaintiffs and applicants. If there is an opportunity for settlement of disputes which have gone on for over a decade, I urge you to do it carefully, in compliance with all City, State and Federal regulations and with the public's best interest being of utmost importance.