HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal Letter White and CaseWHITE CASE
White & Case LLP
Wachovia Flnancial Center, Suite 4900
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131-2352
Tel + 1 305 371 2700
Fax + 1 305 358 5744/5766
www.white case.com
Direct Dial + (305) 995-5255 nmcaliley@whitecase.com
March 24, 2006
ORIGINAL BY MAIL
Jorge Fernandez, Esq.
City Attorney
City Of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Suite 945
Miami, FL 33133
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM c2ac ON io-as-a.
Re: Crosswinds Project, Overtown Blocks 45, 46, 55 and 56,
1976 General Obligation Housing Bonds
Dear Mr. Fernandez:
I am writing in response to a letter to you dated March 13, 2006 that was sent by Charles
F. Elsesser on behalf of the Power U Center for Social Change, Inc. ("Power U"). In that letter,
Mr. Elsesser makes a series of statements concerning City housing funding decisions in the
1970s and 1980s which we believe to be inaccurate. The purpose of this letter is to set the record
straight.
Thirty years ago the City of Miami Commission authorized the issuance of $25 million in
housing bonds. The 1976 ordinance authorizing those bonds provided that the bond funds were
to be used "to acquire, construct, and rehabilitate" housing "for families and persons, including
the elderly, or low or moderate income" in "the City of Miami." Ordinance No. 8514, Section
2. Nothing in this ordinance required that the bond funds be limited to use in Overtown, that the
bond funds only be used for rental housing, or that the City's options would be restricted related
to the Overtown block numbers referenced above. To our knowledge, the bond funds in fact
were used to acquire, construct, and rehabilitate housing in various projects throughout the City
of Miami, including the Melrose Nursery project in Allapattah and projects in the Civic Center
area. We (and our clients Sawyer's Walk Ltd., and Crosswinds, Inc.) are unaware of any
violations of Ordinance No. 8514 by the City.
In the 1980s, the City Commission authorized the use of some of the housing bond funds
for use in the "Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area," and directed
ALMATY ANKARA BANGKOK BEIJING BERLIN BRATISLAVA BRUSSELS BUDAPEST DRESDEN DOSSELDORF FRANKFURT HAMBURG HELSINKI
HO CHI MINH CITY HONG KONG ISTANBUL JOHANNESBURG LONDON LOS ANGELES MEXICO CITY MIAMI MILAN MOSCOW MUMBAI NEW YORK PALO ALTO
PARIS PRAGUE RIYADH ROME SAN FRANCISCO SAO PAULO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE STOCKHOLM TOKYO WARSAW WASHINGTON, DC
MIAMI 612619 (2K)
Jorge Fernandez, Esq.
March 24, 2006
WHIFF CASE
the City Manager to "initiate the process leading to the acquisition of land suitable for the
development of a minimum of 800 units of rental housing for low and moderate income
families." Resolution No. 83-973. Contrary to the suggestion in Mr. Elsesser's letter, nothing in
the resolution or supporting memorandum limited the use of that money to four City blocks
which are the subject of Mr. Elsesser's current lawsuit. Rather, the resolution refers to the
Southeast Overtown / Park West "area," which includes at least nine City blocks (blocks 24, 25,
36, 37, 44, 45, 46, 55, and 56). In the late 1980s the City did develop approximately 800 such
units of housing on blocks 24 and 37 in the form of the Arena Towers and Biscayne View
projects. Any obligations of this resolution were met years ago.
It is accurate that in 1986 the City Commission authorized the use of some of the housing
bond funds in relation to the "Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Phase I" project.
Ordinance No. 10106. Once again, contrary to the suggestion in Mr. Elsesser's letter, that project
was not limited to the four blocks that are the subject of Power U's current lawsuit (Overtown
blocks 45, 46, 55, and 56). Instead, the "Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Phase
I" project included the nine City blocks identified above. More importantly, the fact that the City
Commission authorized expenditure of those funds does not mean that all of those funds actually
were put into the four City blocks in question. To our knowledge, only a small fraction of those
funds actually were used in relation to these four blocks. As is widely known, the City's
accounting practices at the time meant that funds were not always allocated and/or used
consistent with the City Commission's directions. Fortunately for all City residents, those
problems were corrected in the 1990s as a result of the Governor's oversight board and new
mayoral administrations. However, history indicates that one cannot rely solely on twenty-year
old ordinances and resolutions to determine which funds were used on any specific project.
The suggestion by Mr. Elsesser that the City is violating the language or intent of its
resolutions in the 1970s and 1980s by following -through on the Sawyer's Walk/Crosswinds
Project is simply wrong. It has been City policy for decades to encourage homeownership in the
City, especially in Overtown. The Sawyer's Walk/Crosswinds Project would do that. Power U's
proposals for more rental housing would not. Rather than having the four City blocks lay vacant
for another decade while an entirely new planning effort is started — the obvious outcome if
Power U's suggestions are followed -- we urge the City to stay the course and move forward with
this project.
Sincerely,
TNM:feb
2
MIAMI 642819 (2K)
•
Submitted Into the public
record in connectio wit
item �0n 10 o c.
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk