Palm Beach Post USA TODAY NETWORK

Will Live Local survive legal challenges?

All eyes are on two South Florida lawsuits, one in Hollywood (Broward County) and another in Bal Harbour (Miami-Dade County). Both towns have been sued by developers that argue that they are now entitled to build their mega-developments despite what local zoning codes say.

The lawsuits represent initial challenges to the new law. The outcomes could determine how municipalities and counties balance local zoning codes against Live Local, designed to make it easier to build affordable and workforce housing. Live Local projects can be approved administratively, with no public input from elected officials or local residents.

The Bal Harbour case is the more contentious of the two.

For the past 50 years, the Whitman family has operated the Bal Harbour Shops on a parcel in the village’s only commercial district. Its efforts to expand the high-end shopping plaza have been rejected several times, including in a 2021 referendum, when 90% of voters rebuffed a proposal that would have allowed the mall to exceed current height limits.

The family’s latest effort, invoking the Live Local Act, calls for a development of four 25-story towers that would house 528 residential units; 40% of them would be restricted for affordable and workforce housing. Also planned is a 70-room upscale hotel.

At issue, though, is the size of the proposed expansion, as the towers would be five times taller than existing

height limits. Lawyers for the Whitmans argue the project’s height and density are consistent with the highest height and the greatest density of projects within a mile of the Bal Harbour Shops, which means it can be built under the Live Local law.

So how close is the project to another high-rise development? It is across the street from the St. Regis Bal Harbour Resort, a beachfront condo-hotel built in 2011. It would be a few inches shorter in height than the St. Regis, according to land-use lawyer John Shubin, who represents the Whitmans.

The lawsuit argues that the village is simply trying to prevent low- and moderate- income residents from moving in. It cites a staff memo that says the construction of workforce housing should be viewed as anathema to its “quality of life,” and a risk to:

• Their “standing as a unique and elegant community.”
• Their “role as a luxury destination.”
• “The safety and security of our residents and neighborhood.”

Village Manager Jorge Gonzalez, in a post on the village website, angrily accused the Whitman family of believing that the new law allows them to build whatever they want without respect for local ordinances. In the post, he said the Whitmans have vilified Bal Harbour by alleging that it is an inherently anti-Semitic and racist community, and that this antisemitism and racism has led to an unspoken policy of opposing affordable housing at all costs. He called on the Whitmans in his post to refrain from further accusations and provocations.

The median income for two-person households in Bal Harbour is $270,000, more than double the countywide figure, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau figures. Of the 3,093 residents, 33, or 1%, are Black and 81% are White.

Shubin said the Gonzalez post on the village website “exposes some very delicate sensitivities that are being felt in the village. One can draw their own conclusions as to why they are so sensitive to these issues, especially when they they have done everything in their power to thwart this project.”

Hollywood project also being closely watched

A developer has sued the city of Hollywood, accusing it of blocking a proposed 17-story, $80 million beachside project that would include workforce housing.

Beachfront buildings are limited in height to six stories. Condra Property Group argues it is entitled, under the new law, to build a 17-story, $80 million development with 282 units, 114 of them affordable, because other buildings of comparable height are within the mile required by Live Local. The project would include more than 35,000 square feet of commercial space, a two-story beach club, a sixstory parking garage and a rooftop pool.

The city’s position is that the local zoning code does not permit a project of that size.

Keith Poliakoff of the Government Law Group, who represents Condra, noted the height of the Margaritaville Hollywood Beach Resort is eight inches taller than his client’s project. And, more importantly, it is located within a mile of it.

Unlike the Bal Harbour case, Poliakoff said there is no allegation that Hollywood is trying to keep affordable housing residents out of the city. Hollywood, he acknowledged, has historically supported affordable housing initiatives.

“This is a height issue,” he said. “Based on the law, my client is entitled to build to the same height as Margaritaville.”

Both sides are expected to prepare legal motions calling for a judge to rule in their favor without the need for a trial.

Author: Mike Diamond