HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #03 - Discussion Itemi
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Abide 401Fmr PS
°W. "
aggea-
April 18, 1973
FILE:
Investigation pursuant to the
direction of the City Commission
at Special Meeting of April 12,
1973
s
s. The paragraphs set
sgal question as to
the investigation done
the Commission, dis-
ding office as temporary
, deals with the report
contains a summary of
r with supporting .documents
.ters in the investigation
on from holding office in
Constitution of the
see below).*
.viction of a felony or
is office can find no
or Maule Industries, Inc.
ref ore , under the law,
emporary acting Mayor
from Attorney General
,lified under the law to
"., He further states in
matters as covered in
to reflect significantly
the office in a factual
§ 4. Disqualifications
No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any
other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote
or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of dis-
ability.
PI
7.7.31r ..... ;
FROM:
CITY
#04:14.4 IV 611
111111100100101 4441020
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
if.0
oil jooir
OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
Honorable Members of the
ty CcjtfimiFsion /
Alan
Cit
the
1f
DATE:
April 18, 1973
FILE.
SUBJECT: Investigation pursuant to the
direction of the City Commission
at Special Meeting of April 12,
nF_Ff.RENCtSI 7 /^73
ENCLOSURES:
This memorandum is divided into two parts. The paragraphs set
forth below on this page deal with the legal question as to
whether any of the matters contained in the investigation done
by the City Attorney, as was directed by the Commission, dis-
qualifies Maurice Ferre from legally holding office as temporary
acting Mayor of the City of Miami.
The second part which is attached hereto, deals with the report
of the investigation. The report itself contains a summary of
the results of the investigation together with supporting documents
giving greater detail concerning the matters in the investigation
report where appropriate.
Part 1: The criteria for disqualification from holding office in
the State of Florida is set forth in the Constitution of the
State of Florida, Article 6, Section 4 (see below).*
The matters of disqualifications are conviction of a felony or
adjudication of mental incompetence. This office can find no
conviction of a felony of Maurice Ferre or Maule Industries, Inc.
or an adjudication of incompetency. Therefore, under the law,
Mr. Ferre is qualified to be appointed temporary acting Mayor
of the City of Miami.
Accompanying this memorandum is a letter from Attorney General
Shevin who states that Mr. Ferre "is qualified under the law to
assume the duties of the office of Mayor". He further states in
discussing the various civil litigation matters as covered in
the investigation report "do not appear to reflect significantly
upon•the individual's qualifications for the office in a factual
sense".
§ 4. Disqualifications
No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any
other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote
or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of dis-
ability.
',I r\
iiiL)t
It
The Honorable Members of the
City Commission
-2- April 18, 1973
Investigative Report of Investigation Directed by
the City Commission
1. Review of Court Files.
A review of the Court files, Civil and Criminal, State and Federal
in Dade County for the past ten (10) years by Assistant City Attorneys
on the Staff of the Department of Law, reflect no criminal charges
brought against either Maurice Ferre or Maule Industries, Inc.
Uiited States District Court files reveal that Maule Industries,
Inc. was either plaintiff or defendant in fourteen (14) civil cases
dealing with a variety of matters, such as admiralty, labor disputes and
contract disputes. Eleven (11) civil cases were consolidated into the
case Southern General Builders v. Maule Industries, Inc. et al, which is
dealt with in detail in Paragraph 2 below. The Dade County Circuit
Court files reveal that Maule Industries, Inc. was the defendant in
approximately sixty six (66) cases over the past ten (10) years in
matters dealing with actions on contracts, mortgage foreclosures, liens,
automobile accident and damage suits and suits for brokerage commissions.
The brokerage suit case, The Keyes Company et al v. Maule Industries, Inc.
is dealt with in detail in Paragraph 6 below.
2. Price Fixing Suits Dealing with the Price of Concrete.
These eleven (11) suits were brought by various plaintiffs including
the State of Florida, Dade County and others against Maule Industries, Inc.
and other concrete companies. With reference to this matter, Attorney
General Shevin of the State of Florida, advised me on Friday, April 13,
1973, by telephone, that the State of Florida was one of the prime movers
in the law suit, that it was a civil matter, that no criminal action was
involved, and that a settlement was negotiated with the defendants, in-
cluding Maule, rather than carrying on long and protracted litigation and
Maule and the other defendants paid a settlement amount which was
satisfactory to the plaintiffs involved. The case was settled for a little
over a million dollars by all the defendants.
3. Pollution Violations.
(a) Violations of Dade County Metropolitan Ordinance Pollution
Control Laws.
Seven (7) charges were filed against Maul Industries, Inc. In
August of 1970 by Metropolitan Dade County. Three charges alleged that
a pollution condition existed which caused noxious fumes in the area
adjacent to the Maule Stressconplant : which is contiguous to the airport.
.i�r�4:iS�k:.wKbinlAYi"'fJ4f4ic "f.hs� �.+. 'st±A'`Y!VE.S^',li.._<e FY•'a-.
s a •e levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
7
'I, ............ A
l
The Honorable Members of the
Citty Commission
-3- April 18, 1973
Three charges alleged that Mau]elndustries, Inc. violated the Metropolitan
Dade County Code by discharging into the waters of the County organic or
inorganic matter which might cause water pollution. These six (6)
charges were nolle prossed, i.e. deliberately withdrawn by the States
Attorney, on the basis that the States Attorney's Office was unprepared
for trial. In the circumstance of a Nolle Prosse, the States Attorney
had two years within which to refile these charges and did not. The
seventh charge was filed against Maule Industries on the basis of a
single emission at the Pensuco Plant and Maule Industries, Inc. was
fine Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.
(b) Water Pollution.
In late 1971 or early 1972, the United States Government filed a
civil case styled United States v. Maule Industries, Inc., charging
Maule Industries with a violation of the 1899 Anti -Pollution Act.
Drivers of Maule Industries were washing out their trucks into Lake
Palmer, which was owned by Maule Industries. A settlement was reached
wherein Maule Industries paid a fine.
4. Income Tax Matters.
Concerning income tax matters, the City Attorney's office was
assisted by a prominent Miami Tax Attorney, Martin F. Greenberg, who
spent many years with the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Greenberg in-
vestigated the tax matters by both contacting the Tax Court in Washington,
D.C. and the attorneys for Maule Industries, Inc. and the Ferre family.
Mr. Greenberg's report is as follows:
(a) There have not been any criminal charges filed against Maurice
Ferre or his immediate family or Maule Industries, Inc., or other
closely held corporate entities in the United States.
(b) Presently there is a case pending in the Tax Court of the United
States in Washington, D.C. which has been tried and is waiting a decision
that will be made by a Judge of the Tax Court. This case pertains to
civil issues on a "tax deficiency". A "tax deficiency" occurs when the
Internal Revenue Service examine a taxpayers income tax returns and files
an assessment of taxes against the taxpayer higher than that which the
taxpayer reported. Thereafter, a taxpayer has ninety (90) days within
which to file a petition in protest to fight this assessment in the Tax
Court in Washington, D.C. A petition in protest to fight the government's
assessment against Maurice Ferre, his immediate family and various
corporate entities was filed in this case. The legal issues in the case
deal with very complicated interpretations of the tax law dealing with re-
organization of corporations and with the law pertaining to filings of
tax returns in Puerto Rico and the United States. It is anticipated
sewer s a be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
to
The Honorable Membeit of the
City Commission
-4-
April 18, 1973
that the decision of the Judge of the Tax Court and the Court's Order
will take quite sometime before it is issued inasmuch as the matters
involved are extremely technical and extremely complicated and the
trial Judge has these under study at the present time.
5. In addition to the matters brought to the Commission's attention
at the meeting of April 12, 1973, a further matter concerning the law
suit of the Keyes Company v. Maule Industries, Inc. was brought to our
attention on April 13, 1973 by Commissioner Gordon and more particularly
to the deposition of Mr. Harry Burns. This office immediately obtained
the Court file and has been reviewing the file ever since. Numerous
articles have appeared in the Miami Herald concerning this matter. This
morning there was delivered to the City Attorney's Office a statement
signed by Maurice Ferre concerning this law suit together with various
documents attached, copies of which statement and documents are attached
hereto and made a part hereof and discussed further below.
6. The Keyes Company v. Maule Industries, Inc.
In 1971 the Keyes Company sued Maule Industries, Inc. for a broker's
commission alleged to have been due from Maule Industries, Inc. for the
sale of forty (40) acres located southwest of the Miami International
Airport at Milam Dairy Road and N.W. 7th Street. The portion of this
law suit pertinent to this investigation is in a deposition of Mr. Harry
Burns who was a salesman for the broker, the Keyes Company, who was to
receive one half of the real estate commission which was alleged to be
due to the Keyes Company. Mr. Burns at the time of the events which took
place at the beginning of 1966 was operating in the dual capacity as both
a salesman for the broker and as an Officer and/or stockholder in the
purchasing corporation, Miami International Marketing Center, Inc. (A
greater detailed report as to this litigation is contained in the Assistant
to the Director of the Department of Law John S. Lloyd's memo dated
April 17, 1973 to your City Attorney and is attached hereto and made a
part hereof.)
Mr. Maurice Ferre, President of Maule Industries, Inc., seller of
the property, was at the time of'these events in January and February of
1966 a member of the Downtown Development Authority.
Of particular import to this investigation is a portion of Mr.
Burns' testimony in his deposition (a copy of which portion is attached
hereto and made a part hereof) which is summarized in Mr. Lloyd's report
as follows:
"Mr. Burns testified on his deposition that Maurice Ferre re-
quested that Mr. Martin and he not divulge to the newspapers
that Mr. Ferre had breached his ficuciary relationship with the
City as a member of the Downtown Development Board and had
induced Mr. Martin and Mr. Burns to locate the Merchandise Mart
.,
;.ss7�'f¢..tsU.$:hN. 3i4i v.8wa,Hu.i+%ihJiNd'w56:XE:�.:�ta'.'.R.�t+aD`x^*AYG;:a:,tw•uW:-,:*:�r..�. � v+�. ...a.:-.. .
ewer s a be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
EX
7
a,
The Honorable Members of the
City Commission
-5- April 18, 1973
in the County on the property owned by Maule Industries.
Mr. Burns further testified that he told Mr. Ferre that they
thought it was a good location and they would not tell the news-
papers that this had occurred.
Mr.Burns later rephrased his statement regarding his conversation
with Mr. Ferre in the above respect to the effect that Mr. Ferre
expressed to him that it would be politically bad that it be
known that as a member of the Authority he had offered property
owned by him at a location other than what was being attempted
to be developed in the downtown area, and that Mr. Ferre asked
them personally not to say that he came to them and not to put
forth any publicity about the sale."
The time at which this conversation was alleged to have taken place
was sometime more than two weeks prior to the date of the closing which
approximately was on February 15, 1966.
The attached affidavit of Mr. Herbert Martin (supplied by Mr. Ferre)
states that Mr. Ferre never made the statements alluded to in Mr. Burns'
deposition. A release by the office of Hank Meyers at the time of the
signing of the agreement for the sale of the forty (40) acres was
issued within approximately a month after the statements of Mr. Ferre
were alleged to have taken place. A sworn statement by Mr. Ferre sets
forth details of the same question being discussed with members of the
press at the Miami Herald at the time of the contract signing in
February of 1966.
A memorandum to your City Attorney from Lucrsus Williams, Executive
Director of the Downtown Development Authority,/attached hereto and made
a part hereof dated April 16, 1973, at my request Mr. Williams reviewed
the matter of the fashion mart as reflected in the Downtown Development
Authority files. The memorandum shows that the matter was first
discussed on July 19, 1965 and that a favorable feasibility report from
Doxiadis and Associates was presented to the public at the end of
December, 1965.
In January of 1966 Mayor High announced that three developers were
interested in developing a fashion mart and requested of the City the
City owned Watson Island and the Old Port Site for the mart, both of
which were ruled out (see memo). Mayor High further stated that six and
a quarter million dollars was offered for the Ball property at DuPont
Plaza but the owner refused to sell.
According to the press articles in February of 1966, at the time of
the announcement by Maurice Ferre of the sale of the forty (40) acres
to the Burns' Fashion Mart Group for approximately $1,200,000. Mayor
s
e levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
r
+ALA
7
The Honorable Members of the
City Commission
-6- April 18, 1973
High, the Chairman of the Authority at the time, stated that the group
represented by the Keyes Company purchasing the Maule property was not
significant. High said "the Development Authority had rejected the
same groupd proposal instead of the other way around".
In February of 1966, the press reflected Harry Burns as saying "The
group rejected Miami and Miami Beach primarily because of traffic
and parking problems which would be the result of traffic generated by
the development".
City Manager Reese supplied this office with a copy of the feasibility
study of Doxiadis Associates, Inc. for establishment of a Fashion
Apparel Mart. Attached hereto are Pages 66, 72 and 73 which show that
the conclusion of the study to be that "because the proposed facility
and its extensive parking area will require a large site, present
calculations suggest that feasibility is not likely if a developer has
to acquire the needed land at conventional downtown market prices".
7. Statement of George DePontis.
The attached statement, under oath, by George DePontis (supplied
by Mr. Ferre) on its face has potential serious consequences. The factual
allegations about Mr. Morty Freedman contained in the statement could
possibly be a violation of State Statute 836.05 - Threats; Extortion.
(See below*). In the Miami Herald of Wednesday, April 18, 1973, on
Page 3B, in denying the allegations of the statement, Mr. Freedman was
quoted as follows:
"I said to him if I were Ferre I
would sure bow out rather than hurt
my name."
.Ir
h••l'.tlll, .I'rl: ''i r} t;. 1. (1'• ..` i•.ft t,: :!: .... �r oi.
It?;t11t 1!r;:i1� thrc,ti,'Gi :e :1 r C•) t1.3-
grace, or t'\ E':\(ltl. •'. .'C t' :I: �'(';li _ ...r
Or to ..i'.U'itc: any Co:•fo:l.. `y or 11Cr, o:
cilaitit_ t0 another, i;li'l ifltc•i:i th-..-`•):.' to en -
tort money or :L' ro-clinlary
or int.ent to corn2A
ti11. ,aenrti, or (Itl. .r p,rsor,
o: !resin from l: ,!:` :" .!Ct
}11:i11��i'!1'��' tl•.L`�tj. •t 1:1 §. :,l
e ev e upon all the lots and parcels of land which
4 J ......
/YYppvYA� {{{jjj!
Ri.,u
1
i
ROBERT L. SHEVIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
A C `: i %! r- i)
STATE OF FLORIDA. ";$ , ` { 3
DEPARTMENT OF X.ECidci`�I`FFIRS
OFFICE of THE ATTORNEY;-ffENF.i3A2.
THE CAPITOL •
TALLAHASS1 E, FLORIDA 02304
April 17, 1973
073-124
Honorable Alan H. Rothstein
City Attorney
Department of Law
65 S.W. First Street
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: MUNICIPAL OFFICERS --qualifications for office of
city commissioner of City of Miami. §112.01, F.S.;
§4, Art. VI, Fla. Const.
Dear Mr. Rothstein:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on behalf
of the City Commission of the City of Miami as to whether the
Commission is prihibited by law from appointing as acting or
interim Mayor of the City a particular individual, in the fol-
lowing circumstances:
The individual in question is the president and a director of
a large corporation in Dade County. The corporation was
charged with conspiring with others to fix the price of con-
crete in a civil, not criminal, suit; however, the case was
settled for an agreed -upon amount and is no longer pending.
The corporation was also charged with seven violations of the
Dade County Metropolitan Pollution Control Ordinance in 1970.
Six of the charges were not prossed, and the corporation paid
a $500 fine on the seventh charge, which was based on a single
emission at the corporation's Pensuco Plant. A single viola-
tion of the federal Anti -Pollution Act by the corporation also
drew a fine. Insofar as the individual's personal activities
are concerned, it appears that a civil action on a tax defi-
ciency is pending against him in the federal Tax Court in
Washington, D.C., and that there is some question concerning
a conflict -of -interest situation arising out of the sale of
property owned by the corporation to the Downtown Improvement
Authority, of which the individual was a member at the time.
,Exµrs�T /
e lots and parcels of land which
tt
i)
171.3.17
Honorable Alan H. Rothstein 073-124
Page Two
The circumstances recounted above do not appear to reflect
significantly upon the individual's qualifications for the
office in a factual sense; and it is abundantly clear that
they do not constitute a legal disqualification for holding
the office. I am advised that the Charter Act of the City
of Miami contains nothing that would disqualify the indi-
vidual from serving as a municipal officer on account of
these matters and things; and the only absolute disqualifi-
cation for holding public office in this state under the
constitution or general law, so far as I can find, is con-
tained in Section 4 of Article VI, Fla. Const., as follows:
"No person convicted of a felony, ,or
adjudicated in this or any other state
to be mentally incompetent, shall be
qualified to vote or hold office until
restoration of civil rights or removal
of disability." (e.s.)
(Cf. Section 7 of Article IV, Fia. Const., authorizing the
Governor to suspend a state or county official for the stated
misconduct in office, and to suspend a municipal official who
has been indicted for crime.)
The former provision in this respect was contained in Section
112.01, Florida Statutes (repealed in 1971); and it has been
uniformly held by my predecessors in office that a mere charge
of a felonious crime, prior to conviction, does not bar an
individual from running for and holding public office. Thus,
in AGO 069-119, it was ruled that a municipal chief of police
under indictment for conspiracy to commit bribery was not pro-
hibited by Section 112.01, supra, or Section 4 of Article VI,
supra, from running for public office. Accord: AGO 060-45.
As the individual in question has not been charged with any
crime, whatsoever, much less charged and convicted of a felony,
there can be no doubt that he is qualified, under the law, to
assume the duties of the office of Mayor.
Your question is answered accordingly.
SUMMARY
Under Section 4 of Article VI, Fia. Const.,
the conviction of a felony will disqualify
a person from holding public office; however,
sewer T" shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
_,.
1rDEX
.;1'3
R0,0101
KititikaS............................. .... .
Honorable Alan H. Rothstein 073-124
Page Three
RLS/RBH/sf
a mere charge of conduct subjecting a per-
son to civil liability or penalties or con-
stituting a crime is not a disqualification.
ROBERT L. SHEVIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
"?`< 3.� <':. of ^,�+'r,.-�+ ✓. ;:.;'.€' ,., ._..
:�=." - -... ..:: �"G7�+''•�:kei'.;:�i2S�8ciftAMt.ivt•.".�':e�v;.:wwwa..ravo.wna:,-
v e• upon all the lots and parcels of land which
aza
F {{'-
1. .. ., ..M..c
11
ti
},
RESRLi%lt.RU ... .. .....
4-17-73
Through Mrs. Rose Gordon, a matter has been
brought up in the Miami Herald in reference to the Miami
International Merchandise Mart, casting a cloud on whether,
10 years ago, as a member of the Downtown Development Authority,
I, acting as President of faule, had a conflict of interest
in selling them the property. I am submitting 3 (three)
documents in reference to this transaction:
1. A statement signed by Ilerbert Martin, the
promoter and developer of the Merchandise
Mart, completely refuting the statement of
Harry Burns in this rrornirrg's Herald. I
would like to point out that Mr. Burns made
in excess of $100, 000 on this transact.i.o:i and
has been, through Keyes Company, suing naule
for an additional $50, 000, which I :aulc claims
is unwarranted. Mr. Burns' statement in a
recent deposition in this case is untrue and
only intended to influence the case in his
favor.
2. A Release made by the office of Hank i:eycr
Associates at the time of the closing of the
sale of the property to the Miami International
Merchandise Mart, Inc., showing that the matter
was fully disclosed publicly at the time.
3. A sworn statement by myself recalling the
interview I had at the !Miami_ herald at the
f)
h
sewer shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
'i + ►) EX
1,
mot/ ...
Rkh1R�KS..............................
. .. . .
time of this release, where Mr. Steve
Rogers, Larry Jinks, Irwin Potts and
George Beebe of the Miami Herald were present.
At that interview, the full proceedings of
the transaction and the possible conflict of
interest was thoroughly aired and discussed
before these members of the Press, contrary
to Mr. Burns' allegation that I canted to
hide the matter. If these prominent members
of the Miami herald will recall, it was completely
open and fully discussed, so it should not, as
indicated in the headline this morning, be con-
sidered in any way, "a secret deal".
Lastly, I am enclosing a sworn Statement by
Mr. George DePontis.
Mrs. Rose Gordon, in her attempt to force
me to withdraw my candidacy for the post of
Interim Mayor of Miami, is using the most
foul tactics to achieve her goal --to have no
one to oppose her when she runs for I.iayor in
the fall.
My record is open and clear. I have done
nothing for which I am ashamed of, either in my
public or private life. I will not withdraw my
name from consideration for the post of Interim
Mayor.
-2-
.':. i r`itati kAi:44,QtOtt?.Mii.�i '« t.a..43.3.3444.416410,e,;tikti n.•w.r.14.,, .. �a.w•:ae.: ,ra,Ku-.:,.
ev ed upon all the lots and parcels of land which
;, J
li P.O;C :'�� ,�.:•' !YJ.
I did not seek the appo.ntment of Interim
Mayor. If called, I will he honored to serve
my city without any interest of personal gain
for myself, my family, or the corporations with
which I am associated. I have in the past, served
in the same manner that I intend to serve in the
future.
April, 1J, 1973
mnuracr A. FERRL .
-3-
•
ago' V6V441:AM l °fq�` 4'.', `sd`'`4iCa: ne'tid'tiFu *,!r•: «+�_+FRS:crrr+r«a',..;..:;-�i:w+«.mr,.narwe.:sar "
----11,-----cruwurl be evied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
INDEX
11
t11 ,� �M.• )
1 PCJJltJ q'''' '\'�
\ KLAU,{la...........................
_ •• •• ..♦
'it • i 1" L:1; ;� i:1 ti "1'i': tij I , • t
1''" , t!I,l 3 i] v
(,31
T'•:ltic(.:I':-• ;'t .� i`rVplJr . '1 I' t:•Ilirltt T'.t +l't l?Hl'l' Fl.l;llt'(I all agreement with
A1<ltll(', JUL1'i(•h tc pnrL.hase o.'L'..s near }\1ia.n-ii International Airport., the
Compa!lyts president; Maurice L1. Ft I'T.', illliiOLt1.1CC(1 tuday•
Ferric said lit.' do ' i 'pe•rs will nt:t1 a $2.50, 000 duwn payment on the
properly \:?tt.il! i:: l',. at.•cl soat1!\\'.•:,t: of the airport at 1.1ilarn Dairy Road and
• 711i Street.
'I he. property 1 • part ul c. ti6v-•a.'1.' Li:1.(.t \\Ili(.;: Las U\ ok_ci by Maul('
for about 20 years,
• Ferrte said iw did not. approach t1,e developers, has not met them, and
i. t: tl r,,u
CUndltl:tt.tJ all �Jl l-ll.11ltlaii �' ilLf�Gt:,•�.0 �.: ...... _ �.glt the Keyes Company, \\'})IC.7 nas
been pr.nnot.'., i t_: .i : 1 t u1" : J•tcept for the past yrarg.
"As a (.f 1!i.• j): ..'11tn\vn .Authority and of a fanlil}r with a large
r •
itty. stni. nt in do\vt.t0':: n rc;:1 t': t2t(', I had hoped to s•'.• the Fashion Mart
located in uu\vttLt)',rtl iv1 i trim 1 \, as as . uI IJri` Ld as cve.t'yone else \'.lien L1'iL. u_'•*
vt:1opers rule:d out dov,: ntu:': r; 1\:i.Uni and it1)proacl!ud Li F 1bout: this property," lie
said„
"This is a rood 1Jusinesf; transaction for Maule and I had an obligation
to the colnl:Jat)yts r •:. Pei St.ot.1c11..1c„•r:h to Slibl :it it to the 13o,trd of .Directors for
their a1Jpr(wa1,,r(•Narciless of tliv l)ui sonal. feelings," Fcrr(c added.
I\iaul (: Indust).
o..\'ns 1:irt',c .;mounts of South Florida real
estate, is a major property .'..nc.1 iu D. cl. (County. ;'.'icrnbcrs of the F.'rrt:
o'(.Y
4:A41.?, UM ?'� -a.v.ttR,4i.- . ,v
e evied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
i( r I ,.7 t N D L! \
Alb � , J
t?E iLU+'•
l t,U•
RLMAK " "
(1.'1;•o 1)a.ve 1;iim! t•,,t.,(,.1diti in Ride County, including a
:.;u.bstar,ti:12 ,;!
The propertl, at Nillam Dairy I:oad i part of zi l•trge tract. originally
used as a quarry by rviaulere:r3.•Z': said the land is surplus to the company's
present needs, but has great potential for industrial development..
, ; -f • • 1 • •-•
"It is one of the fewbtractf• in Dade County with direct access to air,
rail Ltud exprc r•wa y traw:portation", he pointed out.
wate.r,
ew
t,
iliiiiL be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
••-••"-c
INDEX
11
•
t•C •••
.11 ,. •
............................
p
4
c
• CF )
C(U:Yll' OF P.V:c )
Personally ppared before me, the undersigned authority,-
1.,.hP U. MVIT1N, who beinu by me first duly sworn, deposes and
1. I the tomer President of Miami Merchandise Mart inc.,
owl i Inter,!;1tional Mercharp.lise Inc; I am now and have been
a lte,:Aent of nlee county, Florida, for thr Fist six (6) years.
2. I havo real the entire Miami Herald newspaper article
contai"eS, i3 of 'lhe herald, for Tuesday,
17, 1'272, written by Mr. MD:e B.:xter styled: "Buyer Told Of
Pe -re appearin:T on pages lr 271 of that article.
I 1 « read the :lep...Jsition of Mr. Harry DI.,rns tal:en
on Crinuary 2, 1i73 in Case No. 71-C377 in the case of Meyes V.
Mule and others, and particularly pages 2.5 and 29, as well an
172 and 173 of that (iep:)L:ition.
4. The stteloents contained in the deposition of nr. Harry
i;eJn; 0( 1,1-lich are !.et foith in T',e Herald iArticle
.0 I
hpril 17, 3972 attrilAltable to Pr. Burns, concerning
a Th_:7-t-1 of fi,:u.7i..4ry duty" are absolutely false, were never
.y Mr. 1:_rry }urns or MY. Ferr6 in -:-Jy presence. In fact,
• -i ever he2-2 by Mr. harry Frirns in my piesence
wi4:h Perr ;:tter,pt to keep secret a p.ceposed
halt. W:IS Cr. Fe::,6 ever coneerned with any publicity given
to prea.:ed 1:)L-Lion of Cle MorchanC.it,c Mart.
5. The entire statewents Fet forth in The Miami Nordld
17, conz:ernin:: ,,tittemebtb I.dde Li
M:. 1;urns o::].'or Mr. Maurice rcrre in my presence cencernin,j
the 3o -tien oi Merc1..inii2, sale are co.;pletely ..n1 entirely
igateriMaNagiVakSaiiiiiVi&eilaida4.44"'PA'A 41,,,,14114;.
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
"I.•'_ ti
DEX
"
It
I
i. -.)'
P.I.S01.011...-. .10• 3.71:47. ..s.. '
"7
\ P.LORtS: ............................
1,............—.....—
•
(?.
I pc.r-:)n.Illy Lnow Lat. Mr. Mauri:e l'err6 in fact
• after the sale W.1 0 hesitant c.bout closin the transaction
because of the inf.7rease in value of the lana.
SWOW0 to and
17th C,:y
----
(-,>)
\\; t(,,7).Q.L6.1
)
t",v.5.;. y um ic
h:2 beau
cf April, l'.2.73
7,2
• c\
t:L of Vlo1i1a
"•••••vy
My Com!lission Expires:
•
•
• •
J1'..,rbIL U. Martin
Largc
, ' -0J,S.;.,;Lai•-••?.• ,i.•4'• •
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
ujc • . D Ex
1-,
I I
\IIES'Jltnt'.•, ',v.:4. 3...,
IlKatAtiva: .......................... 1,6
i•••.•-...'""''''''.............o--•
4
April. 17, 1973
I, George De Pontis, am today making the following statement, under
oath, freely and voluntarily because of my concern over what I believe
to be an attempt at political blackmail.
On Saturday, April 34, 1973, my mother, Mrs. Yolanda De Pontis, re-
ceived a phone call at her home for me from one Iir. Morty Freedman.
Mr. Freedman advised my mother that it was urgent that I get in touch
with him as soon as possible and asked her to attempt to locate me and
relay his request. The call to my mother came in at approximately
12:30 P.M.
Shortly thereafter, I returned the call and Mr. Freedman said that it
was urgent that I meet with him at his office and, at the same time,
asked me if I wished to go to the circus that afternoon with him. I
agreed to meet with Mr. Freedman at his office at the Harbour Hill
Club Apartments, located on South I3ayshore Drive.
I arrived at Mr. Freedman's office between 1:15 and 1:30 P.M. Mr.
Freedman took me into his office and handed me a badly >:croxed copy
of what he said was a deposition of an individual in a lawsuit in-
volving Maurice Ferry. The name of the person who was giving the
deposition had been cut out of the copy and Mr. Freedman declined to
tell me whose deposition it was.
After reading the deposition and giving it back to Mr. Freedman, he
then suggested that I somehow get in touch with Maurice Fern€ and
inform hi.rn of the existence of the deposition and that it was also
in the ban(Th of the City MA-orney, Mr. Flan Rothstein who would, in
Weiriiirt0 ,•ftICKION;SF• y't.:afiiiGf AMAximatillorioNliiasoz.-wimvsey:.,r••.ws••.-r
00- sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
I r- r•.
INDEX
2
•
r .-"7')
E;cS'..A.L t `I�7
4 KIMAKKS:............................
.. i .......
'ago Two
April 17, 1973
likelihood, make it•public at the City Commission meeting on April
'19th as part of his report on Mr. Ferri, which Commissioner Rose
Gordon had requested.
Mr. Freedman indicated to me that he felt public release of this
information would be very damauiny to Mr. Ferr6 and suggested that
public release could he avoided it three things happened:
1. Mr. Ferr6 should announce he was withdrawing his candidacy for
interim mayor of Miami.
2. That Mr. Ferrt, publicly endorse for interim mayor his good friend
Sidney Aronowitz, who had been nominated for the post by Commissioner
Gordon.
3. That Mr. Ferri would agree not to take or attempt any political
•
or other reprisals against Mrs. Gordon because of this suggested action.
I informed Mr. Freedman that I did not like, and in fact, would not be
placed in the position of an errand boy for him or anyone else, but I
would consider his suggestions. If declined to go to the circus with
him and after some further general conversation about politics, I left
his office.
Later that same day, I received a phone call from Mr. Steve Ross, who
asked me what was new or going on in politics. After some consideration,
I relayed to Mr. Ross the entire conversation that I had with Mr.
Freedman and suggested that if he wished to relay the information to
Mr. Ferrt, he might do so. Subsequently, I learned that the information
was relayed to Mr. Ferr6 by Mr. Ross on Monday, April 16th.
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
r• r , ,,,. .. ; {s�L�\
•
l �j •�.J i .i
I KU ARS' ................... ...
Page Three April 17, 1973
In this morning's edition of The Miami Herald I read a story
concerning Mr. Ferr6 and a deposition given in a lawsuit by a
Mr. Fred Burns. The quotes in the newspaper from the deposition
made it clear to me that this was the same deposition which Mr.
Freedman had shown to me and which had Mr. Burns' name deleted.
I,t is obvious to me that if Mr. Fer.rb had adopted Mr. Fr.eemaris
suggestions and withdrawn from the race for interim mayor, then
the City Attorney would not have made a report of the matter and
presumably would not have made it public. I do not know how the
information was given to The Miami Herald.
I believe that ,r. Freedman, as an agent for Commissioner Rose
•
•
Gordon, attempted to use this information as"a vehicle to blackmail
and/or scare Mr. Ferr6 out of contention for the post of interim
mayor of Miami.
t
Sworn and subscribed to
before me on this 17th
day of I+pril, 1973.
\ (..C.)....10,J\ 0%, \ 0 Ot_
1 ......„
c+tary Pubizc, `S to -e of l' 7 orida
t;o1F.kY POPE-. STC“r o` ricfi'"t, r ti`f,F
MY L(11!,".1:,:;1;`'i . LXI ;iii itii;i. V. 2'.%ia
b«rldal !.; l.c.`c:ri.an b2nker5 Ir.t,ur,rr. t O.
oorge Dei.ontis
...:....,.. ^:i..k.<!tia"±"Fati�t44✓2e':iaY A-:i;>eS4t'➢;??b4iA�kH.Cie'S..,�.,die._:ri'"I`a?NCrJ.i:wwz �+.: .x...G.:y.;
,. sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
• INDEX
11
7
1 fttMi.KKS:
April 17, 1973
STATEMENT BY MAURICE A. PEP.P.E
ON MERCHANDISE M4ART SALE
At the signing of Lhe option to sell the Miami Merchandise
Mart property on Milam Dairy Road, adjacent to the East-West Ex-
pressway, near IMP airport, flank Meyer Associates prepared a Release,
dated February 15, 1966. At that time I received a telephone call
from someone at the Miami Herald - I think it was Steve Rogers. I
went to the Miarni herald and I met with three or four members of
the Herald staff. Steve Rogers and Larry Jinks were definitely at
the meeting. I also think Irwin Potts was present and I defi.ni.tei.y
remember George Beebe coming in for a few minutes towards the end
of the meeting.
• • I was specifically asked at the time,. by the Herald people
as to whether I had a conflict of interest while serving on both
the Downtown Development Authority and as President of Maule, since
Maulc would be selling the property to the Miami Merchandise Mart.
Idy answer was that there was not a major area in Dade County where
one of our corporations did not own substantial property, and that
as a matter of fact, we owned more dollar value properties in down-
town Miami, rather than in the airport area.
The answer to the Merchandise Mart's building near the airport
was very simple; Herb Martin and the other promoters of the Miami
Merchandise Mart, had absolutely no money with which to do this
project. Mayor Bob High, Miami Beach land owners and several other
property owners that they had approached, had turned down Herb Martin
and his associates. There was no way in which the Merchandise Mart
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
t`DEX
2-
�1
It
•�: .+ i
1G•••• `I
KL�",pclKS:... ...
• •
Page 2.
r
could have constructed a mart in downtown Miami. Even 9 years
ago, downtown property values in the area where the Mart would
have been interested in locating, were $10-15 per square foot and
more. The property they purchased from Maule was less than $1 per
square foot. That was
tre value of the land at the time. For sev-
eral months they tried to get governmental agencies to give them
some land. That was .impossible.
Furthermore, I stated that in the Doxiadis report of December,
1965, entitled, "Feasibility Study for the Establishment of. a Fashion
Apparel Mart in Miami", in Page 72, Section 187, the report stated:
"The previous chapter showed that it is not likely that the
trade. mart will .be capable of .supporting conventional down-
town land prices and still be fi riancially viable in other
respects." This was the main reason why the Merchandise hart
did not come to downtown Miami.
k
I further explained to the Miami Herald that I had not init-
iated the conversation with Herb Martin, but rather that herb Martin
and Harry Burns had showed up at my office at 5220 Biscayne Boulevard
to discuss the purchase of the property by some corporation. Prior
to that meeting, I had never heard of, met, or even knew either of
these two gentlemen.
The transaction with Maule was only done after Herb Martin
had specifically and emphatically stated that there was no way in
which his corporation could build the Merchandise Mart in downtown
Miami, or any place whore land values were so high. As a matter of
fact, his corporation was unable to clo..e on the original contract
signed in.Fcbruary, 19G6 and it took them over two years to attempt
,. �cuar.`c:rL.sza�.xztt:>;�:��••� < a;�y:?s�:i''iFd`3asr .t�s�d+�dm;x:�w�v.:.,.:s: s,�r�.,:am.,.�..:m,...» .,.....�
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
WiDEX
Z
►,
r r,'% 3
lie 'I
RrsaLu' 1o:.7
it RiNURKS:...........................
Page 3.
to close the transaction and then they defaulted. Mr. Martin had
sold his rights to Kenneth Behring and I3ehring Corporation, who
subsequently sold the property to a third group, headed by Ilugh
Culverhouse, a prominent attorney. My point is that even at best,
the Miami Merchandise Mart, at a relatively inexpensive piece of
property, was financially unsuccessful.
Subsequent to my discussion with the Miami herald in December
of 1965, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss it with the
Miami News, and on a subsequent date, contacted Bill Baggs, the then
Editor of the Miami News.
In other words, the sale of Maule land of Miami Merchandise
Mart was fully aired publicly and.did not constitute a conflict of
interest.
WITNESSES:
'/ MAURICE A. FERRE
April 17, 1973
SWORN and subscribed to before me on Tuesday the 17th day
of April, 1973.
•
;M�`*:M:,.fr..-+la�.,ays•. t' ,...t..l ...: bl§�%,ti'.',..,. J. . :"_r:�ih..i�r�.:. ':R.�.._ .t ,.. ..._ .+. ...... .... .
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
.s !E
DEX
.•.10
..1 : J
t�3...
•
RLh M..............................
.. .. ..
L•---
_v
CITY OF ! IIAMI. FLORIDA
ifTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Alan H. Rothstein
City Attorney
John S. Lloyd' ,
'?ssistaFt Dire orb
D AT d:
i .7cRENC:3:
rcctosuaas:
April 17, 1973
Keyes Company vs. Maule
Industries, Inc.
1•
In 1971, the Keyes Company sued Maule Industries, Inc.
for a broker's commission. The Complaint alleged that Maule
had agreed to pay a brokerage commission to Keyes in the amount
of 1O% of the purchase price for certain properties described
in the Complaint which were owned by Maule Industries.
The litigation arose out of the sale of certain
property owned by Maule Industries to Behring Properties, Inc.
for development of the Merchandise Mart.
Originally, the buyer was supposed to have been a
corporation known as the Miami international Marketing Center,
Inc.
The Keyes Company contended that the arrangements for
the use of the Mauls property as a Merchandise Mart had been
developed by them, that Behring had been brought in to assist
in the financing, and that Keyes was entitled to a sales com-
mission. I'Iaule contended the Miami International Marketing
Center, Inc. had defaulted on its agreement to buy the property.
Factually, the following appears to have occurred.
There were negotiations between a Herbert Martin and a Harry
Burns and Maurice Ferro, President of Maule Industries, for the
property involved.in the Complaint. Harry Burns :gas operating
in a dual capacity as a salesman for Cho broker, The Keyes Company,
and as an officer or stockholder in the corporation, Miami Inter-
national Marketing Center, Inc. The negotiations began a short
time before the contract was entered into between Miami Inter-
national Marketing Center, Inc., The Keyes Company and Maule
Industries on February 15, 1966.
As a salesman for the broker, The Keyes Company, Harry
Burns was to receive one-half of the real estate commission which
was to be paid to the Keyes Company.
r, /I .12)/
3�'i�ait'},"kF:d� �r;';eisc:x: ,.. r..%,,. ,.. •:v_.:.-",::7 t.t ;"�1s�.-.: i�i; m..w::ra:. _uY.rr��.>
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
Ii^ (`I ii1`A
•
11
tS' 1"� ;•.J�
Alan H. Rothstein
City Attorney
-2- April 17, 1973
is
Julius M. Vroon, President of The Keyes Company, in aft
affidavit stated that Behring Properties, Inc. had been brought
into the Merchandise Mart Croup to assist with financing and
to consummate the purchase.
The deposition of Maurice Ferre, President of Maule
Industries, was taken on behalf of the plaintiff, Keyes Company,
on December 20, 1972. '
Mr. Ferro was asked by counsel for the plaintiff,
Keyes Company, when and by whom was he first approached regarding
the purchase of the Maule land for the Merchandise Mart. Mr. Ferre
could not remember the exact date or who it really was that
approached him, but imagined that it was either Mr. Burns or
Mr. Martin or both. To the best of Mr. Ferre's recollection,
Harry Burns was representing Keyes and Herb Martin had some
experience in Atlanta in a Mart, were planning to buy the property
from Maule and borrow some money from some large insurance company.
Regarding property for a Merchandise Mart, Harry Burns
testified on his deposition as follows:
1. IIe had spent time with the Downtown Development
Authority attempting to get backing for the Merchandise Mart in
many ways, having met a Herbert Martin who was supposedly the
founder of the Atlanta Merchandise Mart sometime in 1965.
2. IIe met Mr. Maurice Ferre several times due to his
position in the Downtown Development Authority.
3. He met with Mr. Ferre several times and they
talked about various locations in the City of Miami.
4. The Corporation had been interested in the Ball
property in the DuPont Plaza area, had been dealing with the
City on the possibility of using Watson Island, had been dealing
with the Downtown Development Authority on the possibility of
using the old court when that was lease was up, and hacl been
talking about buying the block on which the Everglades Hotel
was located, as well as looking at various Downtown locations.
i
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
t
11
.. rr1
1/2
Ulan H. Rothstein
City Attorney
-3-
April 17, 1073
i
Mr. Burns testified on his deposition that Maurice Ferro
requested that Tir. Martin and he not divulge to the newspapers
that I4r. Ferre hacl breached his fiduciary relationship with the
City as a member of the Downtown Development. Board and had
induced Mr. Martin and Mr. Burns to locate the Merchandise Mart
in the County on the property owned by Maule Industries.
Mr. Burns further testified that he told Mr. Forre that they
thought it was a good Iodation and they would not tell the news-
papers that this had occurred.
Mr. Burns later rephrased his statement regarding his
conversation with Mr. Ferre in the above respect to the effect
that Mr. Ferre expressed to him that it would be politically bad
that it be known that as a member of the Authority he had offered
property owned by him at a location other than what was being
attempted to be developed in the downtown area, and that Mr. Ferre
asked them personally not to say that he cage to them and not to
put forth any publicity about the sale.
JSL:rr
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
INDEX
42.0111
1/
EtiOlUl;l',< ni7
.
'7')
t
:+4040 .,.iF3a.-k:rio.larsi4e.`LCR�.s a,. )..,,�al.�::.r:.' .....,•...d. .7.� • , '�_.'.:+.x.i..i.a+YwW'�'►iJ �s
- - -
i
:1-37;77
-
INDUSTRIES,
T ,: c
•
Gird Para! 71ainti f,
CQ ?O ATION, et
100 _;or h Bisc- re ;?-3:_1ava_n
Suit 700
u i= .Lor; a
„ . _ Ja-i u3 �
2:20 n.-i. - 7 z). :.
")?POSITION 07 HARRY 3;;?_:3
T z k 3 :z ..J 2o z t ; . . ?_Len
_ '.ic for 17.1 ? ' of-.._:.1_2. _ •-ct.
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
•
r • t
r
-,J
• , •
- •
•
' .
• •••••••••••• %.,•••••• ••-• .406iti..144.116:4,41,.."4""•
1
5
F.;
7
9
if.)
11
12
14
1fI
15
17
1:1
1(1
`2.0
21
7.,!:1'.13
o'
co-.20=J1
oL
of La117, 7,,Arn3
on baal: th.e J-.2f-.2ndunt
•
m tae Zirm
r2fi0S2, :;orin.er TI:aver,
on 1;eaa1f Third ?arty
D.Z3nda.at Eehring Corporation.
C. A. =AD, E5f)., of the firm
of 1?r2ddy, audd., utner &;:ardy,
on Ueaalf of tilc Th;rd Party
7)erzoadi
t;) 73u2in.
ay
Diroct C70,i5 :-.1ed. 7-12c.
134 172 178
H i..!IENDV1(-7.
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
INDEX
Risow
KimikAs: ....................... . ....
ION I I
". •
04\
?a
1
2
3
.r
S
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
15
16
17
10
19
'2J
21
n)
2.1
i:. i•iaurice Cal! d :?.e, Jeraonal y and
l•s'.•: ra wile o Co!R? O.U. and tal.• to n1:a aer_.I Is.' i had :t
?:_"_'►�� O_ 1 i v .i ;, ntad to show me that was o'.tine:1 by
Industries.
n
Do you remember when this .d:33 In
.ion to that contract?
Obviously, sometime prior to i t .
don't recall exactl :how :much prior to it.
7
Well, was it almost contemporaneous with
the execution of the contract within two :weeks?
remember.
�. No. Sometime previous to that. 1 don't
0. ';hat land did he show you?
.____ __... .. ........ .. .. ... ... v... .•�. •+u may. �. uv ti v'>.. �..
0. Who '.ias present at the time that you
rent to sae him?
1 -orb iiart_n, Maurice Fe: re, and myself.
Where did the meeting take place?
ia. In flauric: F erre's of ice. 1 think it
was on 54th and 3iscayne.
.'hat did you discuss at
his primary concern was that
)-)cf,- use he found ov.z about the :!art through his Downtown
D.:'l'•:.'lUl'Jm ent job, ha was vary much concerned thit tha
H. ALLEN F3ENOWITZ
ccIirftF_D iMORTNIND pEPORTPR!
539 5EY3OLD 3UILDING
r sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
1 ;.
r, •
t. i•
inux
c -i )
f ; tJJ J
' RCSOLUl ' ItU
\......
i1\
- - - r. ..�+�iMr+
�1:..:+,.tri.i+c--�.�.�ir..id�isi+.u►•+�. .«..:.r�eirz:�-r.s- - r»:.��bws+�-r::i
„
1
2
i
b
8
9
10
11
12
jS
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
97
23
:ie.cret :would leak out, whateyer i? p-n7,osed, ta%ing
ou O._ h into hi:; .lee o ..tl prone; yl
it the county, and ..-3 was 'fiery insi:i: en+. that iiei:b and
both not tell the '.japers or anybody chat he had
breached his fiduciary relationship with the city as
a member of the Downtown Development Hoard and i:iduced
us to locate it i.n the county.
He was very much concerned, and we Cold
hira we thought it was a good location and it was pos-
sible and we wouldn't tell the- newspapers this thing
that he had done.
n What location in downtown Miami was the
rn,-pora,.ion
t a. jot. itai.� tl'--c^ibeY� i
�.. We were dealing on the Ball piece down
=n the Dupont Plaza area, dealing with the city on the
possibility of using Watson Island.
Ue. were dealing with the. Downtown
Development Authority on the possibility of using the
old court when that lease was up.
Ala were tuning about b.iii: C
ths Everglades Hotel was o:1
we_: lo..)%inq :t: various d 7'.vn:7 Jn
locations.
Q.
i'iere you involved daily in co.:;m'1nicatio:l J
H. AL EN BENOW17Z
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
/t f�r,1"' 7
C` i 1-tt
ri a EX
rr
z
1 . _.._ .......
REAM�►��
9
■'
111111
:1111
a •.
r.
5
7
9
10
11
12
1J
15
17
21
-zr.-trenoo tc
•
a- (; tI '7: t
ET. •7.• .
Did -.:o1,(!o Company have cert:..in
c : t . c _
nr. '‘"(
:Jut
at was that 'c.c.,
H.
'
1011110111aMain~wasamemottegasameroirolow.W te Arkatmeersampint
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
"E trDEX
17 r. 121.1. f
• —.- - - - -
1
, I:: 'i:, dt• -.,/ II•41 ../
1 RES:30.1111)N 141 ....
\.....
KLORa; ......................... ..•
IIIIII.,,..................• ...... • ••••• .....• •—,, .,, a . ,
e N
11 -
/
. .'"7 .....:•.7,;.; L.H.:: r... Z...?
• .1
5
6
8
9
11)
12
1'3
15
16
"2,1?
21:
• •
[-. Cr - 11
— •
2crr...1 71c:,
1.;,..ds to -..cu?
7-7 CI ei t s
it
4-1-c f:a r;rb7 4
cC.c.,su
7
12. i-.. „
. .
C
r 'L.:: 1:. _. 1. 7 7
r. C
7
•
..a.,,....*,,,,,,VON/lracr,*04510111111M1ROMPAND•01........ • • •
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
/w
iirrr,!'"1- INDEX
_ I
•
1. •
fl
, r 4.1:73
•••••0\
•
• 1 •
gisoLulio:i (No. 5.. 00446
"Aga" ............................
't
I
4
1•
7
J
1, Lr r 4 ..
U
1 1
15
!t)
1- _, i r
. 1 - c ._ ... 1
L:_ _
,�MINM
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
i - i
..= c t•: n
o..:c:c try ...:.:C.'r:r-c\" oi•',
ET\.. ...L?•_r• �.. 1. ._� :-. ._t..
•
1' r -•
,...•.+.«.....+.ww *..w:l9su wv+swUlN":Lm..f6G4.31•I AMM111341
«<�r , �_.t i riDEX
11
--7'
i RE SJIUIi:.a i.J7MMM•••
REMARKS: ••
•
i
................r6.64...:..ai......r.... i .... • .• .•_..
2.7
`.{ . :: DDAD :
:!:Z. DOUGHZ2TY:
Q.
LA2I JU3: ! cannot o; r :1y tIlinc,
•
You mentioned, :Ir. Lit: i23, conversations
:ha' t . Ferre had with "us." You used the pronoun,
i•Iart_n was here at the time it
a3 said. When I said "us," th3`. is who I :lean;_..
:?. HAUDAD: Uere you them?
Tn% WITNESS: "Us" was myself, Herbert
. ar i , and _':aurica Ferre in his office.
tion?
(By n . Dougherty) In his oi_ice at
Industries when it used to be at another loca-
► , ?
• .`r:; ,»T� S • +.� 'tea
•
:•'2S. It was uo on the Lo ul�vard,
5 _t , something that.
You said that .'3uric"'
- the words earlier this -1_ t"•2=n73 ad7ait+.ed a
:Jr::_ich of fiduciary duties ih sold '—.
!r:;perty of the nart to your grou o on prop -arty that
H. AL.LEN F3;N0W1TZ
SHO.ti:4.1N3 HEPOri:!:13
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and M..ra_...,....�«........_..�...... parcels of land which
�r • h!'iu
20.
•
j. J ,- 1 3
.1 NC,.
T./{R:.4.1 I
iRLMAR"S:...... ..................,,.
•
�i.
�. ti Lw.�•,,. Y ..r,a... ..•.,.�-sue. ...1..r...... e. .
:-'•: ... ti.kW,. vti"... L•.:N•3�y!+•M.•..•i, �. 1, M.,..ry...*.. 4.•••••.. •"••• •,. . • ...... •.•••... •....,.
• ,
. � 1
. .:.... :7•.'/^ ad?
1. ..ihatave; i :;ay -i . ; don' .. _-._.:._,_r :-�.
.... " _ c ) .. ,.i s that said. Do mP to ._ - o :-1
. ... 1 1 ba to do so.
:1s I _ame- ber, ha e._olained that
ha was :1 member of -ha Downtown D3'ielooitent Authority,
7 ! would look vary Dad for him to solicit us to locata
1-1
15
L7
1)
ha :!art in a di ferent area, namely, his oarsonai
pr oa _ter in and area where he wanted —he had not been
,-b1e to sell any out
and by our going there it
°Paned up the whola area for him in which he made
..1li3"3.
t. 1, you at that time that that
ay have involved :st7`.'.te criminal Penalty to him?
HP didn't mention the word "criminal."
0'1 wp ra in agroeme t with ._.. . Vroon,
'.?... =h the_ use of tis v;o ds "3bsoi .1=e1y not,
publicity be given to t1 2 s .
13 that a question?
,�"-, it' is. s . You ' - ' �� with i:.. a .. '.a s i -
l
._ moo.: a:.,a f by .r ♦ Ti r oon 1}... i t �. a b s o.� u ...a 1 no -11) 1 :2 ..v --
.r t T;;a5 iio _ i.. . i .' bon ' `i position.
::r" p-.t:sll?Zila it :•133 .._ '%rOC7=:' :3 position, _.':_1 '.+c7.:.i
not.
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
pp tt ,1 L.
re
l I�
13
to
17
19
21
23
s r.•ais YY+4.....i.w., r,/t/'M�j.I,�.F►•wY•.1-.d �.�..
•
•‘w.!Y•l....et ••..••'•rJ.Jtp •..••• •.r•. ►la+••••..... L •••.a..• .w.• .... •,. r.. - • s.. N_ ..^..-.i..• • .•
' 'a3 i y_ . `position? `;ou .vie
:'?:den.. with him lot to publicize 1::?
With +•71 o n?
'Y o u :lade an with Ai-. `! .' r r e
roo
_1- . a 3't:•3d. iot o publicize '.`_
-AaDO: That is 'i? testimony.
WT'1NASS: 1 asked the 'Keyes C:o.licany
"The buyer does hot want publicity on this transaction
Q.
(3v ztr. Dougherty) First, you agreed
w; th Mr. re, -re that you would ask the Neyes Company not
::o -publicize it?
is That is right.
►. Who did -•cu aoeak to at the _.'ores Co:ioar
;hoc? 2ically, as::ing them -not to pub! iciaa it?
I don't r call. hate v. r the normal
channels would b2.
\
Q. Tha'' would 'either be i'iessrs. Vr•oon or
?appas, right?
ii. No. It could have been the head o f the
public x:a'_ations
(2. Who would that have :?
l don' know. E don't rccal L .
Was that an unusual event for you?
N
'! ,
CTt ='.:lil^.ls n-aopl:.' didn't :? aa U
•
•
sewer) shay_�..• tea.. _.,,^,w ....a� ..r...;� , ..r.,...�...,...� .
�' l be levied upon all the lots and
parcels of land which
1+
INDEX
2 RCSUIUli'.��\ ill7.
LKuvNriS:............................
"I'Yi&s4t`1
•
• ••••..-•, r .t•..••.-.i:1MfM.+w-..w.3 Jot -,Y..M.1•.La.Ae• •..+-w,.rN.a w-......
1
._c),.iL C e_. vZ h ..•-fir a_n deals _J_
'Did nu explain co ', .ri .r
i:7on Or
7Zooa i or the dead of ,.he �-.1 ,tea:]?=.:?ent he _ ,aso n
..1_.C• r. - `-'__'r as vou Have stated, had r,i :f.af to yo!17
No, because_ ile asked us to ,:Lleo 1 o
Well, Keyes CJ:aoanv was ,our employer,
cor 4 ?c a.?
21.
It had nothing to do with that.
Why didn't ha want you to reveal to the
.. �'.s Comoanv what n . Cede did not want you ta?
•
I was trying to, but he asked me not to
the
basis
of a promise with a Uros-
p'cti e seller, you did not reveal it to you_- er pl oy_?
That is correct.
a Did You aver take. any = teos to
:'%..:r:.i l i :.tur1:!g this period of time i_. there was aay
:=..._na1 liability for what n . Ferr e had told ,,''o u?
I felt that I knew enough about daily
Tii: Co was nothing criminal roan :in of .3d.
have been mista::.en, b'.it that '.+ s
Did y o u d i s t.. a s s ?. ,,. '.'r i ...Z You ..) ri ?
[ t that time?
e. sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
hi. ALENLBE:NOW
CZATIFtrD =, JgT'-IANO R_rCHTaS
msanw•.au..a.+..,..o.,.u....:,.w:...-.,..F...:<...z..,......,.,...................w+,........w+e,wm"
• ii�• i 1,{"
•
-,1 WDEX
i,_..4tt_r►
,.%.!/giM iwwi' X'3.`S I C
• ` • • ' r. ••
jai
0
RE:S'JC!' i ii ', 1,'v7
a cs .rr ..... ...i:r.....,. & ... .^ _... .....w .... -.. _.. .. .. ....-. ...
J.J:y►.r.'..r....._�+:..wa.+o.i.:'Y:•. +.a r. rY[.: r:.i.i-.i.—u�t
Nt^ wf'i..' 1. . Ln.c'....,y. J.........a...ww
if )
don't _ellle.:133_.
▪ you a isS LviC:? Jui dtto.::72J'7
• don' remember.
hO was your at t•o n'v in L. e year 1`)6 5
i_i ?re your attOrn3y3?
1 think Mr. Sager :was.
Ahvon else?
that I recall. I have very little
::ed .or attorneys if 1 collect money from this 1aw.3uii.
HADD .D: 1 nova to s: i.::e .
:1?. NO:41NE : Same motion.
r_'ry not to oluntae .
(1 (Dv _`1r . Dougherty) Did you ever have
:.v conversations concerning brokerage commission with
''_ . Papoaa concerning this document, Culverhouse 1
A, that has bae:1
Was there a subsequent release of in-
f•.)_:- ion by the Neves Co o_nv of t sale between--
,_'.l a t .
any other information ;.' ;?'= ::=':Z
ii 1Dy the -, 'es Cor oany or. Lhs;.1c!?
o 10::!?
H. ALL.=N 13= NO .VIT7_
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
14
.
1I
: 3•
L.71 ' t er.w`.7.'%.
ynu rece'L'rnspecial a ac pju:i
') (; niicat_na) ?
N o .
7(. What was the. JU ±U3 Vroon special scour
You will have to ask t11•= X:'.:j/:?s
::bout their bookkeeping. ! don't hav? he Si1gCit' st
'fl ._r:i?a or concern about who 13 w.i th the L_ sales
-. that standpoint.
n
Did your compensation.ev2r change th i _'I
^.or;ad of Lime that You t,'ir-_'r a n es i L:-'it - of
.rchandise Mart whila you were p si'fi nc or c id .it
game?
T ^ ' r ,` 1 � `'�
� l,l `!'.1 1. L.: .,\f✓ter 1
'. ho sat the amount t of your compensation?
I 1jr-3O L_J
z n c �c . 1 :) .t • . 1 2 r • J .w _. l ...
c,. .r,-i e l: Z Z t1 i 1t s .
s`ha 1` be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
N.. )1
ti RLSULt11:Cr, t=u
1 RLNtARMiS..... - •• •• .• .. •.....
•
. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
•
.
601 DUPONT PLAZA CENTER / MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 / TEL. (305! 377.5085
TO: Alan H. Rothstein, City Attorney DATE: April 16, 1973
FROM: Lucius•C. Williams, Executive Director
DOW, MN DEV PMEiJ" ,AUT'-:OR ITY
tilt. il., a f a' I.
SUBJECT: Fashion Mart
The first mention of the Fashion Mart discussions, reflected in
the minutes of the Downtown Development Authority, was on
July 19, 1965. This item showed the passage of Resolution No. 14
recommending a contract between the City of Miami and Doxiadis
Associates, to provide services to carry out a feasibility survey
for a fashion mart, which was approved.
Thereafter the City of Miami entered into a contract pursuant to
the Resolution and on December 27, 1965, the feasibility report
was presented to the Downtown Development Authority and to the
public.
Other written communications are not shown in the files of the
Authority, however, various articles appeared in the newspapers
commencing with the passage of Resolution No. 14, and these
newspaper articles, ..showing the chronology of events are available
in the records of the Authority.
In September of 1965, according to the newspaper articles, Niami
Beach announced that it was attempting to provide a site for a
fashion mart utilizing the air rights of the Lincoln Road Parking
Facility.
The feasibility report referred to above, was favorable and
Mayor High and the Downtown Development Authority members hoped
to interest developers in the downtown site. Mayor Eigh stated
three developers were interested but he did not divulge their
names or pinpoint any site in downtown that might be suitable,
according to newspaper articles.
As reported in the press, in January of 1966, Mayor Fiigh announced
three developers were interested in developing a mart and requested
a study of the City -owned Watson Island and the old port site for
the mart. Mayor Eigh said the developers were willing to pay for
the land but that it would concern further difficulties to put
together the ten acres needed because land is so expensive. Le
further stated that six and one quarter million dollars was offered
for the Dupont Plaza property but the owner refused to sell. City
officials and Sidney Goldberg, the president of Florida Fashion
Mart met, with Goldberg showing a plan requiring thirty acres and
Eal141bIT
....urommes.%"4111.i'ALIAC
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
r
•
fiLhlAitnS:............................
•
Alan h. Rothstein_.
2.
April _ 16, 1973
City Manager Reese said the old port site was out because of lack
of vacant land. City Attorney Barrett had the matter under study
at the time as to whether Miami had legal authority to lease city -
owned land to develop when the land in question on Watson Island
had been conveyed to Miami by the State and the deed had restric-
tions limiting use to public purposes.
According to press clippings, an announcement was made on
February 16, 1966 that an agreement had been reached on the sale
of forty acres near the Miami International Airport as a basic
site for the International Fashion Mart. The seller was Naule
Industries, Inc. The Niami News reported that Harry Burns of
Keyes Company represented both }aule Industries, Inc. and the
purchasers headed by Herbert Martin who directed the Atlanta
Fashion Mart on negotiations in acquiring the property.
In a newspaper article dated February 5, 1966, Mayor high stated
that the group represented by Keyes Company purchasing the Maule
property was not significant. High said: "The Development Authority
had rejected the same group's proposal instead of the other way
around." Mayor High was the chairman of the Authority at the time.
In the article Harry Burns said: "The group rejected Niami and
Niami Beach primarily because of traffic and parking problems which
would be the result of traffic generated by the development." The
Miami Herald on February 16, 1966, questioned Maurice Ferre
concerning the matter and he stated that: "Ferre was quick to
disclaim that the sale reported a conflict of interest because he
is a member of the Downtown Development Authority." %'As a member
of the Downtown Authority and of a family with a large interest
in downtown real estate", Ferre said, "I had hoped to see the
fashion mart in downtown Miami. I was surprised as everyone else
when the developers ruled out downtown t•.iami and approached us about
this property."
Copies of Minutes of the Authority Board reflecting initiation of
project and presentation of report are on file in the Downtown
Development Authority's office. Also, copies of Direct Payment
Request, to the City of Niami, requesting payment to consultant,
are on file.
Copies of many newspaper clippings are also on file for review,
if required.
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
i�,r\r
iiVL/\
I
•
•
66
t ^i 'i.
T m
1' ?. 1i:l:i C11'ipter .`_',urnrr.3rtz
the f ?rt t?r_'Cjr:::'.l set forth in the
rc,.uarding financial fL•.isttbility.
(...:•::it and !_( for
"•Tious l •':1pic ', ;3:1 riril% 3 conclusions
1 !) _3 . To _ 't!:::'::rl� ' pr elimir.3ry analysis r:: ve 9ls chit, v:ith a competitive
rental s:rt::tur'o designed to atiroct s1'io'.'iroo-n -tenants es well as shows, the
nr:);: i s'::d „ art v, ou1d definitely be feasible from i] fin n.ci31 point of vie':'!,
that 1-!IICl can be made avail -able.. et a satisfactory cos`.
ter :lyzi,.d Li':1 e fedSJnably constrv±tive basis, estimates indicat'a that
thmart v ould produce income after operating expenses ado u�return
at'� to
c: yield on in cstment v:ithin the general range of expectation of developers
1,11i5 type of property. Moreover, opportunities should arise to generate
forms of income beyond those used in these czilcul3tioris. ;. 1 : me
} ?�� , e ap, n2.
offer iCl fu th:'r :) :1?fit of to S11oli .'C :Jc) c ti 31S .
", bycausrj the prnp3s?d facility rind its E'Extc r!:iivc parking
.L.2rg .'. site, Clr '�';..it c':l^l-11:'.._. 3 i su; cj..'st that feasi:✓.1iL1
like ly if a has t-, acquire the Land at c.,:i.. nti - .i
c:... rito'..:1 ...,:ri:ct rice.... his r?i t indicates that a - pp-yrc1 ::--,,art in
C.• "..'i?t;)`.gin i.. i �i 1 p_'."�1J 1}T .;z u1C1 not 1:' f o5it.1e unless on•_t or i.i cC urban 3tion
C. it:3 iC':io irl^ I:actors is pr:'s _ nt:
ci ii! L.l'_' ��:11!t• i.;. ._�.1L on 1.p::.ti311v
h t ihi ;i.ty or clr':"'?leer ag.,---nc', such is p_'.rking c l t,�^:1_ }'►
porti:1 th2 1p:d cost or construct
Str.Ct the,
focHitics
c. ill:-ii th n e\ecicci 1 .od b_, v:ritte . d ;.•gin to CI supnort.iib?e i •1
program
2 ♦ t.7 ..2 s 1Jf 3 l.ro1..11::1 .ir1ui1 ; 11: nt nu
p-irt o: 1•_I- `C ' ,['ICllti
3: 1 i:.�:i ! ^l i i�!;'!i_`" :1I^. _'., in tJ'. 11 :i')'il:: c.'poor:
'�.:
e x i4 a. T „
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and
r
parcels of land which
73?
i
ta
w
.91
.r
ro
'at
n.
art
so
TI
to
72
T .
185. The p•ro p;)sed facility i':ould b'1 L substantial taxpayer, centr i.buting
an ost<_rlated 30 000 �r ye.n ini t • h- it, ah , $ p real estate) taxes to �. City d County,
en the basis oE today's tax rates.
e.
,Subport For the Area's Economy
1.86. Perhaps the most important IC'nI ;-ran j ban fat O the Cashion Apparel
l.tu•:-t .,o!i.Id be its potential for capturing zin entirely n:"w level of who1 salil
g
b'lsinoss for Pvliami and Florida generally. At present, largo volumes of
apparel wholesale trade take place in Atlanta, Dailos, and in other apparel
rtiurl.:et centers because of the excellent mart facilities in those citic s . A
well organized and aggressively managed trade mart would m 1p capture Flor-
ida's appropriate share of these trade volumes. At thc) im ' tizi , the mart
L':C)U1Cl be a distinct, long-range stimulus to important and iaSL-
cjrcy.b'in g apparel manufacturing industry. •
Possible Negative Factors
Inab+li`v to :'DIY Prices
..� 8 f I I "1 o T i t 1 s ' 1 J l/ that
t the e trade mart
Lti7, 1'.._ '�-1i�_J_UL`a C1"!=1;J,.�r Jc1C�'.'JCd that it 1.:, not 1::C1 �:l;ic. ::1_.. ir•_iC.�.:.
+!1 1 C:- )aible of supp:)Cti: ;.t CCUr ntion al do .nt0':.'n land pric1's and still
fintln._,i i11_' viable 1n other ru:;pects. .'JtI;,''the- or not :his en v:ill
be a disaClv,ult:•cft for the city •ill d'..'pee.cl entirely rpc:1 the 1..i a n
.::u C, iiJ
:t_oh is 1-.'-)il g'"',t to beer in rtlii..ng this iu^.silt`! to U.. CJII^J•t. . a^ s 1 l- � �JJ J� ti �.
n!eni n'1 land users, as vfell i:5 . . _>'.:ing __:!ar clef solutions through url ai-:
or d other tippro ch:.s .
Tr.''fir; C;c)neca%ion
17)L:ri:".-a F1=','•}; per!ocis it is conce;.-rasal:: that the trade mdrt \.•r:''ld
t,,.,'_.s•irld �I.:i 1:,'>:,i::; t-:} the site c.Iil1-. Lnlcs3 careful
a: r,..i❑a',.. lc. .�;1 .:l the outLi '..,t, rc.'1.:Lin j t' o .-.'iYt :.i1tC i.� i :'.11✓
J• 1 l:..__ j licii i" i ;;li; :'J:1C): cU.:l i _ 3511" U. (.-c at,:''i in the
,ry
sewer) shall be levied upon all the lots and parcels of land which
RL`Ultlltl n 7
! i RLI ARKS: ......
{
ti_
1
r
CONIC;LUSIO 1%1S
1'r;c; . The potential advant•-yes of a fashion apparel mart in do-.tintisisivn
iv7.iarni far outweigh possible disadvdnte.ges. Furth@r, with pro r planning,
potential disadvantages can ba totally neutralized.
190. In the case of the laid price problem, for example, it possi-
ble in practice to combines they proposed mart with other multi -story uses, :1
such as a hotel or offic:, building en the same tract and tit=.'r J,' overcome
thehigh price of lend. If this m ii-uzie solution is undertaken r ban
� i !1 � ? :1n t:"
rer-'wal settir:i, :ln dppiopriute land price b:Isis ',vo.jl i
at !Land.
191. In the case ot the potential pre�1��. of traffic ,•-„ ,
this proposed facility can be located in the context of an overall land use
plain for the downto.':n area :vilich L:'tll rationalize the traffic and o i'.ar po-
tentially competitive needs of all bona rid:' uses Do.vnto'::n and roduce an
internally compatible overall arran'.:_-le"i1ent Cat lt:;(2,S -- With ai i'1i :it',1Li::'! of in-
tr:rnal friction. In du ca.lsidorntion of the Lief ti.at ,A
/� t l� as truer i1�z ::! :"r '1 ri e:n .eh.,:...-�i e 'il :i
c.�rc:ill:lion system �l/� 1J not. . _, , 1. L 11:1a . _ I!. L l . I.:� i. �
in existence, a s:iicifi:; lr _:;iticn cannot a- this st'_ .{ _ ,
riencral ic_:.:ti:_)n in 1h.a C/BD and as (!*:.ct I'. •ri iij•" the `;( .a�i•"11 i' '_.
.
set forth in Chapter G, Section 7.
------------�.......•.......o,..,.,,,.,,.o...,,oa,,,,,sw..a�.x+w+.�w...�......,.+�...,,,hs.l tit—`'tcenzeriine
all the-
sewer) shall be levied upon lots and parcels of land which
Uj,l.,v i:i—Io
INDEX
1 1. ..._.r: I 1 P
��,..• .1 r•. 4i,7
I L.soLU1IL't 4347 .....
LR
................... . ........