The Deal Miami Voters Are Being Asked to Approve Is Now in Court

A lawsuit filed July 1 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court asks a judge to pull the Virginia Key marina referendum off the November 3 ballot — and the allegations in it go to the heart of why Miami voters should be skeptical of what they’re being asked to approve. The 39-page complaint was brought by Rickenbacker Marina Inc. and Biscayne Marine Partners, the marina’s longtime operators. It asks the court to remove the measure from the ballot, void the proposed lease with Virginia Key LLC, and bar the City from executing it. The central allegation: the deal changed after the bidding ended. Virginia Key LLC won the City’s 2017 competitive solicitation. Under Florida procurement law, a government generally can’t materially rewrite a contract after picking a winner — competing bidders never got a chance to bid on the new terms. The complaint alleges the lease commissioners approved last month departs materially from both the draft lease used in the procurement and from Virginia Key LLC’s own winning proposal, weakening or dropping commitments on ownership, assignment rights, financial obligations, environmental terms, and project improvements. The suit argues the final agreement hands the developer far more flexibility than other bidders were led to expect. The ballot language is squarely challenged. The complaint alleges the summary voters will read is misleading: it advertises roughly $80 million in private investment and redevelopment done “in an environmentally sensitive manner,” when — according to the plaintiffs — neither of those commitments actually appears in the negotiated lease. The suit further alleges the ballot understates the lease’s scope and duration and leaves out other material terms. And the fair-market-value question is unresolved. The City Charter requires waterfront property be leased at fair market value. The lawsuit alleges appraisers weren’t given the complete negotiated lease, leaned on hypothetical assumptions, and finished too late for meaningful public review before the commission voted. Marina president Aabad Melwani put the market point bluntly to the Spotlight: <cite index="12-1">“Values have skyrocketed.”</cite> Why commissioners voted for it anyway. The vote was unanimous — but several commissioners said openly they were doing it under legal duress, not because they thought the deal was good. Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela called it a bad deal for the city and said he would have voted no but for the City Attorney’s warning that the commission could face contempt or personal liability for refusing. That’s the context every Miami voter should carry into the voting booth: this measure is on the ballot because of a 2023 court order and years of litigation, not because anyone at City Hall thinks the terms are right for Miami in 2026. What this means for your vote. The court may or may not stop the referendum. Either way, the underlying problem doesn’t change: Miami is being asked to lock up 27 acres of public waterfront for decades on terms negotiated a decade ago, with a ballot summary that the property’s own operators say misdescribes the deal. A NO vote doesn’t kill the marinas. It sends the City back to the table to negotiate at today’s values, in the open. Read the full report by David Villano at Coconut Grove Spotlight: