Miami Mayor's Edgewater Casino Veto Upheld
"The drafters of the City of Miami Charter, and the citizens who voted to approve it, granted the mayor a right to veto any 'land use decision,'" Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman said. "This expansive, all-inclusive authority was not handed out willy-nilly and without forethought."
A casino with a jai alai fronton and a card room won’t be coming to Miami’s Edgewater neighborhood, at least for now.
Miami Mayor Francis Suarez’s veto of the proposal has been upheld, but the casino developer isn’t thwarted.
West Flagler Associates Ltd., led by Magic City Casino’s Havenick family, was on its way to open gambling as the City Commission last February approved a West Flagler-city settlement allowing the use.
Suarez days later vetoed the vote, but City Attorney Victoria Méndez countered that he couldn’t overrule a commission decision on a settlement.
Vehement casino opponents Norman Braman, an auto mogul, and Jorge Pérez, a real estate baron, came to Suarez’s aid and last April sued the city and West Flagler. The two big-name Miamians just won.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman in an order issued late Tuesday concluded Suarez was within his rights to veto and went on at length to say the city charter grants the mayor this power.
Hanzman said the charter gives the mayor broad power to override any legislative and quasi-judicial commission vote, as well as any land use decision—and the casino settlement is precisely a land use decision.
Not ‘Willy-Nilly’
Hanzman threw out West Flagler’s and the city’s argument that the veto technically was of the commission’s settlement approval and that the mayor has no right to override a vote on the legal document.
The judge countered it doesn’t matter whether the mayor vetoes a commission vote memorialized in a routine resolution or, as in this case, a settlement. What matters is the “nature” of the commission vote the mayor overrides, and in this case this “nature” is a casino land use.
The charter was approved by Miamians, who didn’t give the mayor veto power lightly and without thought given the importance real estate development bears on them.
“The drafters of the City of Miami Charter, and the citizens who voted to approve it, granted the mayor a right to veto any ‘land use decision.’ This expansive, all-inclusive authority was not handed out willy-nilly and without forethought,” Hanzman wrote. “The decision to give the mayor this broad veto power was carefully considered and enacted into law because … ‘land use decisions’ can dramatically impact the health and well-being of a community.”
A Braman-Pérez attorney welcomed the outcome.
“Obviously, we are pleased with the result and certainly agree with Judge Hanzman that a decision to open up a jai alai facility in Edgewater is a land use decision,” said Grace Mead, a shareholder at Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson.
Mead and Stearns Weaver litigator Eugene Stearns represent Braman and Pérez, who sued through affiliated limited liability companies, as well as the remaining plaintiffs. They are the Brickell Homeowners Association Inc., its president Ernesto Cuesta, Morningside Civic Association and former Judge Ronald Friedman.
Méndez, the city attorney, said Hanzman’s “efforts in trying to clarify the complex issues in this case” are appreciated.
“We are reviewing the court’s order to determine how best to proceed in light of the ruling,” she added.
As for West Flagler’s attorney, Joseph DeMaria, the push for the casino isn’t over.
“We respect his ruling and now we are going to proceed, and we have two ways,” said DeMaria, partner at Fox Rothschild in Miami.
West Flagler is willing to go through the commission process one more time to get the settlement approved. If the mayor vetoes it, commissioners can override his veto with a four-fifths vote, he said.
If this fails, then it will pursue trial in its federal case against the city. Back in 2019, West Flagler sued the city in federal court after the commission denied the casino building permit.
At the time, West Flagler had received a state permit but the ensuing public outcry pushed commissioners to impose more stringent casino regulations, including a four-fifths commission vote for approval.
The denial of West Flagler’s application prompted its federal suit against the city, and that litigation yielded the settlement at dispute now.
Now that the mayor’s veto was upheld and the settlement voided, West Flagler could go back to its federal case for trial, DeMaria said.
“We are going to win that lawsuit and the city taxpayers are going to pay a lot of tax dollars for attorney fees,” he said.
DeMaria pointed out that if West Flagler fails to get what it wants in this process and ends up winning the federal trial, then things could be a lot worse—and not just because taxpayers would be left on the hook for attorney fees.
The settlement limited the project to a jai alai fronton and a card room but prohibited slot machines. If West Flagler wins the federal case, then it will add slot machines, and they are the use that truly brings in the foot traffic, DeMaria said.
“Mr. Braman really needs to sit back and think about what he is doing,” he said.
‘No Concern to the Court’
Hanzman’s order clarified it’s not up to him to opine on the merits of the settlement, the commission’s decision to settle and Suarez’s decision to veto. The court’s only concern is whether the veto was legal.
“The city may (or may not) end up in a far worse position as a result of the mayor’s decision. But that also is of no concern to the court,” Hanzman wrote.
Hanzman had, for the most part, struck the city-West Flagler claims that the plaintiffs have no standing, only allowing the claims against Cuesta and Brickell HOA and for one count of their suit.
On the other hand, the judge struck Braman-Pérez’s claims the city erred when its zoning administrators issued two letters in 2012 and 2018 to West Flagler allowing gambling in Miami districts designated for entertainment.
Hanzman, at the time, said the letters “raise no ‘justiciable question’ ripe for adjudication.”
Hanzman in August said the case comes down to the issue he took up in his Tuesday ruling: whether the settlement is legitimate, meaning whether the mayor’s veto is legitimate. And on that, he found the city charter is clear.
“The charter says what it means and means what it says. The mayor has the power to veto any ‘land use decision,’ and the court concludes that the commission’s decision to enter into this settlement agreement was a ‘land use decision,’” Hanzman wrote. “Mayor Suarez, therefore, acted within his lawful authority in vetoing this land use decision in ‘settlement agreement’ form.”
Read more:
Auto Mogul Norman Braman Again Sues to Stop Miami Casino But Without Mayor as Plaintiff
Miami Mayor, Auto Mogul Suing City Over Gaming Project—But Expect an Update
Read the order:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]