OCTOBER 23, 2013



Copy the link below, and it will be a permanent link to this page that you can post on Facebook, or anywhere else.

From: Mead McCabe <meadmcc@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Subject: Re: Video and more FACTS re waterfront; Miami Herald article re waterfront

To: Sue McConnell <mcconnell28@msn.com>


Since you are just providing information to people, then perhaps you won't mind forwarding the information below that I received from Charles Corda. 

As you pointed out, people will vote on this on election day, but the debate is happening now and people should be fully informed on both sides of the issue:

1.) Tainted Selection process-

Only Two Bidders

One drops out- 

Final Bidder by default not selection of best plan or best deal for City

TWO lawsuits pending by Steve Kneapler re tainted "selection" process

NO Community Input into Development of Proposed Plan

NO Public Meetings for this specific plan ever held. 

2.) Proposed Plan Does NOT conform with Land Use designations

Does not conform to Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan- 

2020 Land Use Plan Designation "Public Parks and Recreation"

Does not conform to 2007 Parks and Waterfront Plan-Land Use Designation "Parks and Recreation"

Does not conform to Miami 21 Zoning Code without Special Exceptions (  granted by City Commission

Land Use Designation- "CS-Civic Space / Park "

Does not conform to Sasaki Plan ( " a shift in Paradigm" - As per letter from Mark Dawson of Sasaki)

NO Impact Studies Ever done

NO Traffic Studies Ever done

NO Retail Use Studies/ "Market  Analysis" ever Done for this current Plan

- except in Sasaki Report 2008  which this plans exceeds recommendations by 400%)

3.) Lease

80 Year Lease @ $4.59 per SF per year ( 7 acres at $1.4 million as per ballot)

( 50 years +(2) 15 year renewals at Developer's Option 

Lease rate of $4.59/sf/year is absurdly low..well below market rates- (Verified with Local Real Estate Agents)

PRIME Property fronting the bay and a future park , 

Lease Deal includes two existing hangers at 20,000 sf each..

Two existing restaurants, boat racks for 350 boats , 

guaranteed on-site access to 497 parking spaces in an enclosed multi-story garage 

40,000m -60,000 SF of Retail space at $10/SF lease rate to developer 

and of course the right build what ever they want..

This is a major giveaway of a public asset!

Lease open ended

NO Square Footages noted in Lease

NO Limitations on Use 

Lease Essentially Gives Developer right to build what ever they want

"Charity" Issue.. Developer to Give $30,000 per year to Unknown, unspeciified Charity of their Choice

$2,400,000. over the life of the Lease

4.) Ballot Wording

Vague,non-specific and misleading.

No Mention of over 120,000 sf of retail/ restaurant and commercial use

No Mention of Possible "Gambling" use ( Decision reserved for City Commission)

No Mention of Banquet Hall Facilities

No Mention of failure to comply with governing MasterPlans and Ordinances.

Submerged Lands Issue- Lands NOT conveyed to City as of today but included on Ballot.

5.) Elected Officials: 

Promoting Plan at Public Expense and Misleading Voters

even though they are aware the project is heavily 

opposed in Coconut Grove

Sarnoff- "Conforms to the Sasaki Plan" - 

It Doesn't come close..?

Mislead the Public on the size of the Garage throughout since the project became public.

Art Noriega- 5 Different Garage "plans" in 3 months..?

Voters have no idea what Noriega will build

Enrique Torre- "the Retail will be successful".

No market studies or economic analysis to back up statement

Not One local realtor agrees

Center Coconut Grove rental rates depressed

High vacancy rate throughout the Grove.

Wrote the Following a while back when I got started in this....


1.) The Public Lands in question possess rare and unique scenic

characteristics of great value to ALL the residents of the City of

Miami. This intensive development proposed for this site 

is clearly inappropriate in this neighborhood and this specific waterfront


2.) Given the unique nature and scenic value of this Public Land

combined with the pressing need for more open park space within

the City of Miami, Retail, Commercial and Industrial use as proposed in the

RFP and  the pending development plan, clearly does not constitute

it's "Highest and Best" use.

3.)  Alternative  uses  of  the land have not been properly

considered in the preparation of the RFP for it's development .

4.) Given the intent to demolish the adjacent Existing Convention

Center, this Public land is ideally situated to become a part of

that  much need proposed park space.

5.) The Plan proposed for this site by Grove Bay Investments Group,

proposes   replacement  of  the  single  story  Charthouse  and

Scotty's Landing with multiple multi-floor structures will

dramatically alter the scenic qualities of these public lands.

6.) Locating 500 or 600 Space, Parking Garage along South Bayshore

Drive is  a  troubling  architectural  intrusion  that  will

forever diminish the scenic quality of one of our most beautiful

thoroughfares.   In  addition  this  garage  may  result  in  a

considerable increase  in  the   traffic   on   the already

overburdened Bayshore Drive.

7) The Plan proposed for this site by Grove Bay Investments Group,

LLC. includes expanding the unsightly Industrial use of "Dry Boat

Storage" on this site. Expanding the "Dry Boat Storage racks"  is

clearly inappropriate given the scenic qualities of this public land

and the  potential environmental hazards inherent in such use.

8) The Plan proposed for this site by Grove Bay Investments Group,

LLC. proposes 40,000 to 60,000 Sf of General retail space and

a 20,000SF "West Marine" or similar commercial

use. The need for such a large retail development has not been

 clearly demonstrated nor has it's feasibility been determined.

 In point of fact NO need for retail development of these public

 lands has been clearly or convincingly demonstrated.

9.) This Public land belongs to ALL the residents of The City of

Miami.This public land should serve the interests of ALL the residents of

The City of Miami and not be exclusively dedicated to the  interest

of the "boating" or "shopping"  public.

10.) The Benefits of expanding the adjacent Public Parks to include

this property will yield measurable results in the quality of life

for ALL the residents of the City of Miami and may ultimately lead to

increased   municipal  revenues  through  tax  appreciation  of

the properties  fortunate enough to be located adjacent to this

expanded Park Space.

FOOTNOTE re Sasaki Plan:

The Coconut Grove and Spoils Island Master Plan prepared for the City of Miami, sometimes referred to as the “Sasaki” Plan explicitly states: "The market analysis was framed by the overarching concerns of both community residents and Center Grove businesses that any replacement or additional commercial uses on the waterfront not compete with retailers or restaurateurs in the Center Grove commercial district." ! The Market Analysis portion of the “Sasaki Plan” goes on to state “The market analysis suggests potential support or roughly 4,200 sq. ft. to 6,700 sq. ft. of food service uses on the Coconut Grove waterfront over the next five years. Notably, this does not necessarily mean net new space” ! The intent of City of Miami and Grove Harbor LLC to demolish both the Charthouse and Scotty’s Landing and develop approximately 100,000 SF of Retail and Restaurant space as opposed to the “4,200- 6,700 Sf” recommended by the “Sasaki” Plan is obviously in direct opposition to the recommendations of the “Sasaki” Plan as adopted by the City.


One thing about campaigns is that often neither side actually knows just what the other side is doing, so as the campaigns come towards the end of a race they start throwing everything at the wall in hopes that they can overwhelm the other side.

This is what seems to be happening in the campaign for the referendum dealing with the Grove Key Redevelopment project.  The opposition finally got a little bit of momentum, and started acting like a campaign and it’s been enough to scare Commissioner Sarnoff and the developers, who in recent days released a video produced by the City’s Communication’s Department; something that to my knowledge the city has never done before, and Sarnoff turned to Sue McConnell, his ever present and loyal consigliere, who as the President of the Center Grove Homeowners Association has often come to his aid and assistance by using the homeowners resources to further Sarnoff’s political goals and message.

Recently McConnell sent out what appeared to many to be little more than a blatant propaganda piece in support of the Grove Key project. It not only pissed off those on the other side, but prompted a guy named Mead McCabe to challenge Sue McConnell’s claims in an email that has been widely circulated.

Here is that email, and the questions it raises.

I don’t believe  that McConnell followed Mc Cabe’s request to circulate this to her mailing list - because that’s not how I got it - and more importantly, it doesn’t appear that she’s responded to the questions, and I doubt that she will.  McConnell has always struck me as being from the Dick Cheney school of strong-arm politics, and responding to questions that raise questions about Commissioner “Ethics” veracity isn’t something that you would expect McConnell to do.

The days are running out, and if you can vote early, do so, and do it often.  Remember, this is Miami, and if the dead can vote, why shouldn’t you be able to vote 2 or 3 times just to balance it out.

It’s Miami, Bitches!