The consultation will decide whether Miami authorizes the lease of approximately 27 acres of public land on Virginia Key, where Rickenbacker Marina and Marine Stadium Marina are located, under an agreement whose economic conditions have their origin in a process that began several years ago.
Melwani maintained that the land currently generates around 3 million dollars annually for the municipal coffers, while the proposal included in the referendum establishes a minimum income of 2.2 million dollars per year, in addition to other income and investment commitments.
The spokesperson especially questioned that the economic conditions of the agreement date back to 2017, at a time when, as he stated, both the real estate market and the value of beachfront land in Miami were very different from today.
The project also contemplates nearly 80 million dollars of private investment for the remodeling of the marinas, a figure that Melwani also considers outdated compared to the economic transformation experienced by the so-called Capital of the Sun during the last decade.
Preserve and Protect Miami also put public access to the coastal strip at the center of its campaign, after arguing that the development could change the current character of marinas, where restaurants, boaters, small businesses and workers linked to maritime services operate.
Melwani also warned of possible environmental impacts derived from the construction of new docks and eventual dredging in areas of Biscayne Bay. These statements are part of the position of the opposition campaign and would require specific studies and permits before any work.
His participation in the controversy also has a personal and business dimension. The Melwani family has been linked to Rickenbacker Marina for decades, something he openly acknowledges, while asserting that the debate transcends his own interests and would affect other operators, boat owners and residents.
In an interview with DIARIO LAS AMÉRICAS, Melwani explained why he believes that voters should reject Referendum 3, defended the possibility of opening a new process based on current values and responded to criticism about his family’s economic interest in the land.
—You say that this would be a bad deal for the City of Miami. If these 27 acres were to go on the market today, how much should the city receive annually and how much money would it be foregoing with this agreement?
There are many people who say it is a bad deal, among them the former mayor and current property appraiser, Tomás Regalado. He has said it is a very bad deal for taxpayers. Today we know that on those same lands, which include two public marinas and around a dozen small businesses, the City is receiving about 3 million dollars in income. What the referendum promises is 2.2 million dollars in annual income. We also know that they are very old terms, because these economic conditions come from 2017. For all these reasons we consider it to be a bad deal.
—The proposal contemplates about 80 million dollars of private investment. Why do you consider that this investment does not compensate for rental conditions that you describe as insufficient?
Because not only is the promised income very low. Those $80 million are also part of an offer that comes from 2017. During these years the City has considered other proposals that offered much more. It’s as if this piece of land has been frozen in time while the rest of Miami moved forward and experienced tremendous growth. Why should this property remain frozen in the conditions it was almost 10 years ago? It’s not fair to the taxpayers. We consider that the campaign for the referendum is misleading in that sense.
—If the “no” wins, what happens the next day? Could Miami open a new tender with 2026 values or is there a risk of continued litigation with Virginia Key LLC?
With the “no”, that litigation ends and the City is protected against that claim. In addition, he can maintain the income he currently receives, which is about 3 million dollars. You can also do a new appraisal based on 2026 values. We already know that, at a minimum, you should receive that $3 million and accept no less.
—Could I receive more?
Yes of course.
—How much more?
I think at least 3 million dollars. I am not an expert in appraisals, although I know about land and real estate. But if the City currently receives 3 million, why should it accept less? Additionally, the City could initiate a new process, request bids under current market conditions, and obtain proposals that reflect today’s prices. For us, those are three benefits of voting “no”: ending this litigation problem, maintaining current revenues, and opening a new competitive process with current market values.
—You talk about a possible loss of public access to the waterfront. What specific provision of the project do you consider that limits this access?
Today there are two public marinas, restaurants and places where people who have boats and also people who simply want to enjoy a meal in front of the sea can go without spending too much money. There are spaces where you can arrive by boat, dock for free, go up and enjoy the view of the city or eat at reasonable prices. Prices in Miami have skyrocketed over the last 10 years and there are still places where a person can enjoy the sea without paying a lot of money. The project that they are promoting through this referendum is, in our opinion, a luxury project. On land it includes luxury shops and restaurants and, on the water, spaces aimed at larger vessels. They want to demolish the existing docks, where working-class and middle-class people currently have their boats. We are losing in Miami beachfront places where regular people can still go, eat and enjoy the area. There are captains who work in tourism, fishing captains and people who have small boat rental companies. There are also marine mechanics shops and businesses that work with electronic systems, engines, upholstery and boat covers. It is practically an ecosystem of small family businesses that exists on those lands and all that could disappear with this new luxury project.
—You also warn about possible dredging. Because?
If you look at the drawings and plans of the project, they propose demolishing all the existing docks in the bay part and building new docks configured for large vessels, including megayachts. To do that the bottom would have to be dredged. There are seagrasses, corals and a very delicate and fragile ecosystem. Biscayne Bay already faces enormous environmental pressure. To install docks for larger yachts, certain areas would have to be deepened, which implies removing the seabed and affecting that ecosystem.
—The text of the ballot expressly says that the remodeling would be carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner. Why do you consider this guarantee insufficient?
Because that expression of “environmentally sensitive” does not appear, according to us, as an obligation in the agreement. If it were a real promise it should be clearly stated in writing in the contract. We consider that using that expression only on the ballot is a way of presenting the project in a more favorable way.
—If the City already lost in court and a judge ordered this proposal to be submitted to the voters, what real capacity would Miami have to get a better agreement if the “no” wins?
The first thing to remember is that the owners of these lands are, ultimately, the taxpayers and residents of Miami. They can demand from their commissioners another project that produces greater value and revenue for the City. New environmental studies could also be conducted to determine how to improve or develop the property with the least possible damage and design a project that meets current standards. Today there is a lot of concern about rising sea levels and storms. There should be a process with public meetings, experts, engineers, commissioners and the municipal administration to jointly design a project that produces revenue, serves taxpayers and protects the environment. But, for us, the first step to reaching that process is to vote “no.”
—What do you respond to those who point out that you also have economic interests in the place because your family has operated there for almost 40 years?
It’s a very good question. I do not hide my interest in this. It’s something personal for me. But Rickenbacker Marina, our business, represents only a portion of these lands. We’re talking about 27 acres and several properties. Next door there is another public marina with approximately 350 boats used by middle class people and ordinary residents. We are only a part of the whole. In these campaigns there is always one side that says negative things about the other. That is what is happening now. But I appreciate that you ask me that question because yes, I don’t hide it: for me it is personal. However, I believe that the issue encompasses much more than our business.
—How important is the support of former mayor Tomás Regalado to the “no” campaign?
I think it is very important, especially among those who have lived in Miami for many years. Regalado was a commissioner for many years, mayor for two terms and is now a county property appraiser. Get to know this place, get to know the city and get to know the value of the land. He considers this a bad deal for taxpayers and has publicly called for a “no” vote. There are also other current and former officials who oppose it, but I believe that Tomás Regalado has enormous credibility in the community and that his participation is very important to convey the message of those of us who believe that this agreement does not represent the best deal for taxpayers.
