Miami Referendum 3: Advocate Says Proposed Virginia Key Waterfront Deal Is Unfair to Taxpayers

Aabad Melwani argues the proposed 75-year lease could cost the City of Miami millions in revenue while displacing local businesses and limiting public access to Virginia Key’s waterfront.

As Miami voters prepare to decide the future of more than 27 acres of public waterfront on Virginia Key, opponents of Miami Referendum 3 are raising concerns about the financial terms of the proposed redevelopment, its environmental impact and what it could mean for longtime businesses and residents who use the space.

During an interview on Hy-Lo News’ Can We Talk podcast, Aabad Melwani, a member of the Preserve and Protect No 3 campaign and a business owner operating on Virginia Key, urged voters to reject the proposal, arguing that the proposed 75-year lease would give an out-of-state developer control of valuable public property under below-market terms.

Referendum 3 asks City of Miami voters to approve a lease covering approximately 27 acres between the Rusty Pelican restaurant and Miami Marine Stadium. The property includes two public marinas and dozens of local businesses. The proposal does not include Marine Stadium, whose redevelopment was approved in August.

Melwani said the proposed agreement would give an out-of-state, private equity-backed developer control of the waterfront through an initial 45-year lease, with two additional 15-year extension options.

He believes the financial terms do not adequately benefit the city or its taxpayers.

Proposed Lease Could Mean Less Revenue for Miami

One of Melwani’s primary concerns is the difference between what the city currently earns from the property and what the proposed developer would guarantee in rent.

According to Melwani, the City of Miami currently generates approximately $3 million annually from the 27-acre property, while the proposed agreement guarantees $2.2 million in rent.

He said that difference would represent an estimated $800,000 annual loss for the city before accounting for the potential long-term financial implications of the agreement.

“The city’s going to be losing $800,000 a year,” Melwani said.

He argued that approving the referendum would lock the city into a long-term arrangement that does not reflect the property’s current value.

Malwani said rejecting the proposal would allow the city to obtain independent property appraisals, establish the property’s fair market value and seek new development offers.

He also emphasized that opponents are not against improving the waterfront but believe redevelopment should provide a stronger financial return and greater public benefit.

How Did the Proposed Deal Get on the Ballot?

The proposed redevelopment dates back to a bidding process that began in 2016, when multiple proposals were submitted for the Virginia Key property.

According to Melwani, the developer initially received the highest score from a selection committee. However, the proposal later faced scrutiny during the city commission review process.

He said commissioners ultimately rejected the proposal and terminated the procurement process after concerns about the developer and its conduct surfaced.

In 2021, the developer sued the city seeking to enforce the award.

Malwani explained that because the city must receive voter approval to lease or sell public property, the matter eventually ended up on the ballot.

He said the referendum’s placement on the ballot should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the proposal by city leadership.

Melwani also pointed to concerns raised by Miami commissioners and Mayor Eileen Higgins about the age of the proposal and the disclosures included in the ballot language.

He described the deal as outdated, arguing that voters should have the opportunity to consider a proposal based on current market conditions.

Local Businesses Could Be Displaced Under Redevelopment Plan

Beyond the financial concerns, Melwani said the proposed development could significantly change the businesses and recreational opportunities currently available on Virginia Key.

He said the developer’s proposal calls for the phased demolition of existing marinas, docks and businesses to make way for a new waterfront facility.

Businesses that could be affected include marine mechanic shops, service dealerships, fishing charters, sightseeing tours and other locally operated businesses.

Malwani argued that the redevelopment would displace existing operators and middle-class families who currently keep their boats at the public marina.

The proposal also includes plans for dredging portions of the bay to accommodate a larger marina.

According to Melwani, that work could disturb environmentally sensitive areas, including seagrass, soft corals, sponges and wetland habitats.

“I’m not against progress. I’m not against development or improvement to the site,” he said. “However, it should not come at the expense of the taxpayer or our habitat.”

Concerns About Access to Historic Virginia Key Beach

The conversation also touched on the historical significance of Virginia Key, particularly its connection to Miami’s Black community.

Historic Virginia Key Beach was established in 1946 as Miami’s first beach designated for Black residents during segregation.

Melwani acknowledged the cultural importance of the area, noting that generations of African American, Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Latino families have connections to the historic beach.

Although the proposed redevelopment does not directly include the historic beach property, he said the scale of the project could affect access to the surrounding area.

Virginia Key is a barrier island with limited roadway access, and Melwani expressed concerns that increased traffic associated with the development could make it more difficult for visitors to reach the historic beach.

He said protecting the waterfront is connected to the broader effort to preserve Virginia Key’s cultural, environmental and public significance.

Developer’s Track Record and Job Creation Questions

Melwani also raised concerns about the proposed marina operator’s management history.

He referenced findings by the Miami Beach Auditor General involving the company’s management of Miami Beach Marina, including allegations of underreported revenue totaling approximately $4 million and concerns about dock maintenance.

He also cited disputes involving the marina’s former restaurant tenant, Monty’s.

These concerns, Melwani argued, raise questions about whether the company would properly manage another publicly owned waterfront property.

Supporters of Referendum 3 have argued that the redevelopment would modernize aging marina facilities and create jobs for the community.

However, Melwani questioned the long-term employment benefits being promoted.

He estimated that fewer than 200 permanent jobs currently exist across the property and argued that many of the additional jobs associated with the proposed redevelopment would be temporary construction positions.

He said construction workers could be employed for several months during different phases of the project, but those positions would not necessarily translate into permanent employment opportunities for Miami residents.

What Happens if Voters Reject Referendum 3?

If voters reject the proposal, Melwani said the city should maintain its current revenue from the property while pursuing a more competitive redevelopment process.

He recommended obtaining independent appraisals and inviting new proposals that offer greater financial returns, investment and public benefits.

“The city should work diligently to get a better offer for this property,” he said.

Melwani is part of the Preserve and Protect No 3 campaign, which is advocating for a no vote on the referendum. He also acknowledged his personal connection to the issue as a business owner operating within the affected property.

He encouraged residents to research the proposal and understand what is being considered before voting.

City of Miami voters will find Referendum 3 as the final question on their municipal ballot. The measure is identified as Question 291.

For more information about the opposition campaign, residents can visit PreserveAndProtect.miami.

The full conversation with Malwani is available on the Hy-Lo News YouTube channel as part of the Can We Talk podcast.