Could mayoral veto of Miami-Dade commission's ugly UDB vote survive?

Same 8 commissioners who approved the application could override

The vote last week to move the Urban Development Boundary for the South Dade Logistics and Technology District, a speculative industrial park development on land that should be used for Everglades restoration, could be vetoed by Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who recommended to deny the application. She is being encouraged to veto by multiple fronts.

But the 8-4 decision is veto-proof unless La Alcaldesa can get just one commissioner to change his or her mind.

“I’m deeply disappointed by today’s decision to move the urban development boundary,” Levine Cava said last week in a statement after the vote.

“Despite clear, bipartisan opposition from the residents and Commissioner of District 8, county planning experts, and federal, state, and tribal leaders, the Board of County Commissioners voted in favor of unsustainable, sprawling development at the expense of our precious natural environment and agricultural economy.
“Our residents are experiencing major challenges to their quality of life – an affordability crisis, worsening traffic, flooding, contamination of Biscayne Bay, and the threat of climate change. Too many of these issues are the consequence of past poor planning and misguided development. By voting to move the urban development boundary, we are doubling down on past mistakes – increasing the risk of flooding for residents in South Dade, stifling our vital agricultural economy, and threatening the health of Biscayne Bay and the Everglades.
“Miami-Dade is ready for smart planning that looks into the future, invests in transit corridors, and sets us up for long-term prosperity and sustainable economic growth. Unfortunately, today’s vote does the opposite.”

There are 1,060 signatures (as of Sunday, Nov. 6) on a petition to urge the mayoral veto posted by the Hold the Line Coalition, an organization founded in 2004 to stop urban sprawl in Miami-Dade and advocate for allocating public resources toward land preservation, agriculture, public transit and connectivity, blue-green infrastructure, affordable housing and clean air and water.

Their message to La Alcaldesa:

November 1st, the South Dade Logistics and Technology District, a speculative development on valuable farmland under evaluation for Everglades restoration, secured approval from the Miami-Dade County Commission. This project does not make sense, and Commissioners ignored the science, expert recommendations, and waived county rules to approve it. Some of the major reasons it continues to be the wrong project in the wrong place:
* Fails to meet the county requirement for “demonstrated need” to expand the Urban Development Boundary
* Threatens adjacent neighborhoods with flooding and creates risks to life and property
* Relies on inflated job projections generated with an outdated economic mode
* Changes rules to allow risky building in Coastal High Hazard areas, vulnerable to storm surge
* Consumes scarce agricultural land under consideration for Everglades and Biscayne Bay restoration projects
Some Commissioners were persuaded by the inclusion of additional EEL lands in a land swap. While those lands deserve to be protected, the acreage, locations, market value, and ecosystem services in this swap make it fundamentally unequal.
Add it all up, it’s a bad trade for Miami-Dade.

Madam Mayor, you have the authority to reject this bad deal. Use your Veto power and reject this speculative sprawl.

Sources say that the Hold the Line people and others opposing the application are also lobbying the commissioners to change someone’s mind. The yes votes were Oliver Gilbert, Jean Monestime, Keon Hardemon, Rebeca Sosa, Raquel Regalado, Kionne McGhee, Javier Souto and Jose “Pepe” Diaz. Is there a weak link?

Diaz and McGhee have been big fans from the beginning. Gilbert seemed pretty defensive of the developers throughout the four meetings that this prolonged process has been through. The best bet would be Monestime, who already changed his mind about this application once.

Monestime voted against the project the first time it came up in Many. He said his vote was based on the many, many speakers and staffers who urged against it.

But in September, without those opposition voices — because the pubic hearing was closed and Diaz didn’t want to hear from anyone again — Monestime changed his mind. He sat on the dais ready to vote no again, but was moved by the promise of jobs, he told The Miami Herald. Could he be persuaded to change his mind again if he is shown that those figures don’t hold water?

Regalado was the switch vote that gave developers the green light Tuesday. She sold her yes for 622 acres of Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) that will now be protected, even though the mayor has said that particular land they are talking about is not a good trade.

“The remote location of these lands means they have limited development potential, with the majority already designated for environmental protection or surrounded by land that is already in conservation (and much of the area already in public ownership),” Levine Cava wrote in an Oct. 31 memo. “Further, environmental stewardship is not a substitute for smart growth. Moving the UDB when the application does not demonstrate need has significant consequences on our environment and future resilience, impacts that aren’t mitigated simply by protecting land elsewhere – especially when that land is unlikely to be developed in the first place.”

If you like what you are reading and want more government watchdog reporting from Political Cortadito, please consider making a donation to keep Ladra barking.

Regalado said the mayor is wrong. She was on WPLG-Local 10’s This Week in South Florida Sunday defending her vote. “This application changed a lot,” she said. The 622 acres of EEL land are twice the amount of the 311 acres in the new proposed “logistics district.” The county only has about 20,000 acres and has identified 38,000 more acres of they want, she explained.

She said the land could not be farmed because of salt water intrusion anyway.

But then there are all the other reasons to vote no. The precedent it sets. The flood zone it’s in. The Everglades restoration. The fact that there has been land identified within the UDB for the same warehouse uses. Developers have no named tenants. No lease details.

And the developers lied on their application. That should tell you something. hey said they had all the land owners in agreement of the original 800 acres presented. But Leonard Abess, who owns 160 acres inside the first footprint and wanted no part of it went before the commission in May and told them so. He called the developers fraudsters and “speculators,” which many people believe.

District Commissioner Danielle Cohen Higgins, who made an impassioned plea against the application, said the properties involved had increased from a value of about $20 million to more than $86 million with one vote.

The developers also said the development will bring thousands of jobs, a number that the county and others have said is wildly exaggerated. They also kept putting a final vote off when they read the room and knew they didn’t have the super majority needed to move the UDB.

Is there cause for a lawsuit by the Hold the Line Coalition? It seems the county went out of its way to give this particular developer additional time and information to make their deal.

It’s too bad that Chairman Diaz jammed this through — after months of delays for the developers’ benefit — before he left the dais. Because the override vote would be on Nov. 15, the last meeting for five of the commissioners — four of whom voted in favor of moving the UDB.

Their replacements might not override the veto.

Daniella Levine Cava, environmental issues, UDB

Could mayoral veto of Miami-Dade commission’s ugly UDB vote survive? added by Ladra on November 6, 2022
View all posts by Ladra →