Council Oversight Failures Result in Parking Disaster: Part 2 

The following opinion piece is a Letter to the Editor submitted by Miami Springs resident Jim Llewellyn:

Miami Springs officials betrayed the residents by their subservience to a politically connected property owner and the downtown developers.  

Part 1 covered the city’s parking shortage study as it applies to the Town Center development. This report will cover political connections and 10 South Royal Poinciana, previously known as Barry’s Cleaners. It’s downtown but not part of the Gateway District. The Gateway District was formed to benefit and increase the profits of the theater owner/seller and developers of the Town Center. Former City Manager William Alonso freely admitted that in a June 4th, 2018, memorandum stating; “As you will read in the letter, Mrs. Santana generally expresses frustration at her repeated failed attempts to sell the theater property, citing the reservations of numerous brokers and interested parties about buying the property given the onerous property regulations in the Downtown area. This letter caused staff to take the Gateway from the back burner and make it a pending concern.”  

In June 2022 I emailed Mr. Alonso questions regarding the Barry’s Cleaners renovation and parking. This was his response; “The renovation includes adding 6 new spaces in the rear of their property and 9 public parking spaces on Hook Square Alley. Previously this property had zero onsite parking spaces.” That’s false. For decades Barry’s Cleaners had an overhang that provided parking for about 6 cars. Was his statement ignorance or an outright lie? So, they removed 6 spaces and added 6 making it a wash. He was also disingenuous about them “adding” 9 public spaces on the alley. They converted some public parallel parking into angle parking, creating a new problem as it now obstructs the proper width of the alley road. (See comprehensive report by Nestor Suarez) Here’s yet another dubious statement from Alonso; “Our City Code specifies that all existing buildings in the CBD are grandfathered in for any use currently allowed in this district without the need to provide any additional off-street parking…” OK. But how was this “grandfathered” building allowed to expand by roughly a third and build out close to 2,000 SF of new retail space without providing increased onsite parking? The end result is projected parking shortages ranging from 7 to 46 spaces depending on time and day. 

Here is the staggering combined projected parking shortages of the Town Center and redeveloped Barry’s Cleaners. Weekdays; morning (3), afternoon (103), evening (164).  Weekends; morning (31), afternoon (136), evening (246).  Consider the congestion and potential damage to our local businesses, and overall quality of life with such huge parking deficits.                                                        

The facts have been well documented. Our city management gave many favorable concessions to the developers of the Town Center. Like the failure to impose a million-dollar parking fee like city policy dictates. They betrayed the residents by creating the parking disaster and radically transforming our quaint low-density downtown with bloated overdevelopment and congestion. Why? Well, a common denominator points to political connections and favoritism. The late Carlos Santana was a prominent local businessman who owned the Barrys Cleaners building, theater, and adjacent properties. His city connections included being awarded the contract to operate the Country Club for over 10 years. It was his widow that wrote the letter that Mr. Alonso referenced above. 

The propaganda used by the development cheerleaders to facilitate the sellout of the residents was the repeated cry about the “eyesore” theater. But they created a false dichotomy or dilemma. It wasn’t an either/or choice of eyesore or gross overdevelopment. The city should have applied the applicable code to rectify or even demolish the “eyesore” theater. The old Holleman’s building and the shopping arcade were viable and had a quaint Miami Springs vibe. It could have been sold as is. If a buyer wanted to redevelop it by following the regulations that wouldn’t cause the pre-existing parking shortage to explode, so be it. But our city officials should have made it very clear that their fiduciary responsibility was to the residents and that it wasn’t the city’s responsibility to change policy and drastically sweeten the pot to help increase the profits of property owners and their developer buyers.