Flagler Village project under fire
Public land would be developed into entertainment venue
A fence surrounds a grassy city block in trendy Flagler Village, keeping the world out.
That block — 3.5 acres of prime land in Fort Lauderdale’s fast-growing urban core — belongs to the city’s taxpayers.
But if a controversial plan wins approval, city leaders would turn the land over to a developer’s control for anywhere from 50 to 150 years to build an entertainment venue that aims to draw crowds from far and wide.
The land, which some say could sell for $30 million or more in today’s sizzling market, is one of the last remaining undeveloped parcels in a downtown where critics say green space is quickly vanishing amid an ongoing development frenzy.
At least one city leader adamantly opposes the project.
“It’s city-owned land,” said Vice Mayor Heather Moraitis. “Prime property downtown. Should the city give that away? This is public land. It really needs to have a public purpose.”
Plans unveiled earlier this year called for a $100 million three-story concert venue and food hall that would be built and operated by entrepreneur Jeff John, CEO of Damn Good Hospitality Group and owner of several ventures that include music club Revolution Live.
But John and his team have come back with a new plan that has critics up in arms.
The project, expected to cost well over $100 million, calls for
two buildings — one threestory cultural center on the south end and a sevenstory marketplace/food hall on the north; a two-level underground parking garage with 358 spaces; and an outdoor garden restaurant.
In the middle of the two buildings would sit a 2.2-acre park to be built by the developer at a cost of up to $10 million, with one caveat: If the park isn’t built within three years of obtaining building permits, the city would be required to finish construction.
‘City left holding the bag’
Commissioners were expected to vote on the deal Tuesday.
Commissioner Steve Glassman, whose district includes Flagler Village, says he requested the vote be delayed until Sept. 9 partly due to the neighborhood outcry.
Mayor Dean Trantalis says he too wants to take a step back.
“If the thing is a flop the city is left holding the bag,” Trantalis said. “We don’t want that risk. What happens if Revolution Live were to go out of business? We would end up with a facility we would now have to run. We’d have an event space, a food hall, a concert stage. The city is not interested in putting itself in that position.”
Stephanie Toothaker, attorney for the developer, says the current plan is not set in stone.
“These are ideas and renderings,” she said. “These are not site plans. They can change.”
Toothaker says the developer and his team revised the plan to accommodate the neighborhood’s request that a large banyan tree be spared along with several others.
They build it; city owns it
Toothaker described the deal as a management agreement. Instead of acting as landlord collecting rent payments, the city would be cast in the role of business partner entitled to share in the profits.
“We build the project,” Toothaker said. “When we’re done the city owns it and we have a right to manage it.”
Glassman said there’s at least one good reason to support the plan: Fort Lauderdale would get a $10 million park on the developer’s dime.
“I don’t think the city is in a position to maintain all 3.5 acres as a public park,” Glassman said. “It will be expensive to maintain a park. God forbid it become another homeless camp. I know the community park alone will be worth $10 million and the development would be worth over $100 million. That’s nothing to sneeze at.”
Based on the current draft of the agreement, the city could be paid $50 million in the first 50 years, Glassman said.
But critics have a long list of concerns with the agreement in its current form. Among them:
The developer would operate the property for 50 years, with an option for four 25-year extensions — in essence gaining control of the site for up to 150 years.
The site can be turned over to another developer or managing entity at any time, subject to the city’s written consent.
The developer would not have to pay property taxes to the city or any other taxing entity, including the county and School District, saving at least $2.5 million a year.
The developer would not pay an escalating rent to lease the land from the city. Instead, the city would own the buildings and collect 50 cents on every food and beverage bill and 50 cents on every event ticket sold. The city would collect $1 for every event ticket starting in the 11th year.
The city would be required to take over construction of the park if the developer could not complete the job three years after breaking ground.
The city would be allowed to “co-promote” only 12 events per year but would be required to split ticket profits 50-50 with the developer.
No “open container” laws or similar alcohol restrictions can be enforced on the property.
Outdoor music would end at 11 p.m. The park would remain open from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily.
The parcel sits just north of City Hall and downtown’s Brightline station, on the west side of Andrews Avenue between Northwest Second and Fourth streets.
The developer, intrigued by the possibility of developing a site in the heart of downtown, presented the city with an unsolicited proposal a year ago.
The land was once home to City Hall and later a One Stop Shop permitting office. The building was torn down in 2019 after sitting empty for more than a decade.
Neighbors want the entire parcel turned into a park, as called for in the city’s master plan. They’ve held four “Flower Power” protests in the past several weeks, circling the block with posters urging commissioners to vote against the plan.
A promise broken
“The city’s master plan says this is going to be a park — and that is a promise broken,” said Robin Haines Merrill, a community activist and artist who works in Flagler Village.
The pricey neighborhood is bordered by Sunrise Boulevard on the north, Broward Boulevard on the south, Federal Highway on the east and the railroad tracks on the west.
Peter Feldman Park, the neighborhood’s only park, sits half a mile from the One Stop Shop property. At 1.3 acres, it’s about one-third the size of the land that’s been fenced off for two years now.
“All we have is a postage stamp of a park,” Merrill said, referring to Peter Feldman Park. “People need a place to walk their dog and to chill out.”
Leann Barber, president of Flagler Village Civic Association, says what the developer is calling a community park is really an outdoor amphitheater viewing area for an outdoor stage.
“They say the community can use it from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.,” Barber said. “But they also say they can close it anytime for any reason.”
Barber wants to see the entire agreement tossed.
“Glassman says, ‘Tell us what to fix,’ ” Barber said. “Well, they need to fix every single paragraph. We’re just looking out for the city. If they sign the agreement as written, they’re giving land worth over $40 million to a private developer to do whatever he wants to for 150 years.”
A ‘rotten’ deal?
Developer Steve Halmos says he wasn’t the least bit impressed with the proposal either.
“I think it’s a rotten deal,” he said. “They’re basically giving the property to the developer. If it were up to me, I’d say make a park out of it. That’s what the neighborhood is crying for. It’s one of the most densely populated areas of the city now. If the city wants to do it, they should at least make sure they get a decent deal.”
The mayor says he’d rather see the developer pay rent rather than share profits that may or may not come.
“The city is not going to get itself handcuffed to a relationship that does not take into account changing circumstances in an evolving urban area,” Trantalis said. “We’d charge fair market value and then have a cost of living increase every year.”
Trantalis also doesn’t like the idea of ceding control to the site beyond 50 years.
Toothaker says the developer requested the right to operate the property beyond 50 years, but the city has the option of saying no. All the terms are up for negotiation.
Toothaker acknowledged that if the developer makes no money, the city won’t either — but insisted it’s worth the risk.
“If they do nothing, they make no money,” she said. “The city does not have to out lay $1. If they want to build a 3-acre park, the city has to pay that and maintain it as an ongoing cost.”
Commissioners will make the final call on what becomes of the land.
Moraitis said she has already made it clear she has no intention of backing the plan.
“When you give away a $30 million piece of property it had better complement the neighborhood and the people who live around it,” she said. ”And the final project should reflect what the people want. Not what a developer wants.”