Archive for category: News

The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board’s recent clutching of pearls over the development at 1301 S. Ocean Drive (“Hollywood’s horrendous high-rise mistake,” editorial, May 27) ignores economic reality, architectural logistics and municipal survival. Far from a “horrendous mistake,” Hollywood’s handling of this project is a master class in adapting to bureaucratic whiplash and securing a future for its residents.

Let’s dispense with the hysteria and look at the facts. When this property was dedicated to the city in 1974, it was given “for whatever the Commission wishes.” Today, the location is completely built out and nearly 100% impervious, consisting of asphalt parking, almost no landscaping, and the converted former sales center for the neighboring Summit Condominium that towers over the site.

After numerous public meetings and exhaustive vetting, the City Commission unanimously agreed to partner with the Related Group. The goal was simple and environmentally beneficial: maximize this underutilized site to build a modest 111-unit condominium and a brand-new community center, while doubling the size of Harry Berry Park and increasing the site’s pervious area by more than 17,000 square feet.

The city acted in good faith in seeking to redevelop the site, relying on the residential designation on the 1977 county land-use map that has been continuously readopted ever since. Broward County explicitly confirmed this residential designation, allowing the developer to move forward, only to reverse its stance years later.

Faced with the potential loss of more than $2 billion in long-term economic benefits, in an era of sweeping property tax reform and major financial uncertainty, abandoning that revenue would have been an act of municipal malpractice. To fund vital services without burdening taxpayers, the Commission made the tough, correct call: They approved a project under the state’s Live Local Act.

This pivot allows for a 210-unit development that includes 84 workforce housing units. Furthermore, this green building has been designed with the latest resiliency standards to ensure that it will stand the test of time.

The Editorial Board and other local critics have weaponized the term “poor doors” to describe the layout of this building, displaying a stunning ignorance of basic architecture. The luxury condos in this tower feature private elevators that open directly into individual living rooms.

To solve this, a separate section of the building was thoughtfully designed for the workforce rentals. These residents aren’t being shoved into a dark alley; they are receiving their own dedicated access, amazing amenities and stunning ocean views. Who are these units for? Our police officers, firefighters, teachers, hospital workers and the service sector community. Giving the people who run our city a chance to actually live on the beach is the realization of founder Joseph Young’s dream, not a betrayal of it.

The opposition’s narrative that Hollywood is usurping home rule is entirely backward. The city is using the tools available to maintain its home rule. If critics truly despise the 365-foot, 210-unit Live Local project, their ire is pointed at the wrong dais.

The Broward County Planning Council and the County Commission have the opportunity to confirm the county’s map, which has existed for nearly 50 years. Confirming the initial position given respects Hollywood’s home rule, and would enable the development of the original, less-dense 111-unit design. Either way, Hollywood’s leadership ensured the city will not lose out on the economic opportunities it desperately needs. That isn’t a mistake; that is leadership.

Keith Poliakoff is a land-use attorney based in Fort Lauderdale who represents PRH 1301 South Ocean Dr., LLC, an affiliate of the Related Group.

Article Link: Hollywood project isn’t a mistake — it’s an economic lifeline | Opinion
Author: Keith Poliakoff

Amid a loud and furious public outcry, a luxury condo tower slated for public land on Hollywood beach would become a Live Local project under a controversial plan approved by the commission Wednesday night.

The 5-2 vote came after a marathon meeting where nearly 30 residents blasted the idea, saying it would forever change a cherished slice of paradise frequented by locals and tourists for decades.

Several speakers questioned the city’s projected windfall on the project, saying they suspected the numbers were inflated.

“This is a horrible contract,” resident Dan Lacey told the commission. “The city of Hollywood becomes a landlord for 100 years. And we are on the hook to collect rents. We’re on the hook for 100 years. This is not the goose that’s laying the golden egg. This is a terrible deal.”

Mayor Josh Levy and the rest of the commission defended the plan, saying it would help bolster the city’s supply of affordable housing.

Commissioners Caryl Shuham and Idelma Quintana cast the two “no” votes after the developer declined to avoid using “poor doors” that would force renters to use a separate entrance from condo owners.

The developer, Miami-based Related Group, plans to build the high-rise tower on city-owned land at 1301 South Ocean Drive. The parcel, deeded to Hollywood more than 50 years ago, is now home to Harry Berry Park and the Hollywood Beach Culture & Community Center.

An amendment to the state’s Live Local Act expected to take effect July 1 would allow developers to build workforce housing on government land in a bid to tackle the state’s supply of affordable housing crisis.

As of late 2025, the plan called for a 27-tower with 111 luxury condo units.

With the potential switch to Live Local, the developer plans to build a taller tower with 210 residences. Of those, 126 would be condos and 84 would be apartments reserved for workforce housing for 30 years.

Over the entire lease, the city would collect an estimated $2.7 billion in payments, according to city projections shared with the commission on Wednesday night.

Shuham skewered the projection, calling it fantastical.

In December, the commission was told the project would bring in $1.8 billion over the 99-year lease, Shuham noted.

“That has increased by $1 billion since December?” she said with a quizzical tone. “It’s impossible. This is not a good deal for the city of Hollywood. The dollars are unrealistic.”

Resident Michael Seltzer also questioned the numbers, including the assumption that the condo units would sell for $5 million apiece.

“I think we’re getting hoodwinked,” he told the commission. “What happens if those numbers are wrong? Those numbers are fabulous. But I have a feeling they might be slightly exaggerated.”

As part of the 99-year lease, the developer has promised to build a new park. A modern two-story community center costing up to $20 million also would rise on the site, but the city would foot the bill.

Before voting, Shuham insisted that the developer avoid using “disgraceful” poor doors.

Speaking to her colleagues on the dais, Shuham said “I don’t think any of you want to be known as the poor door landlord, implying that our heroes or our busboys aren’t fit to walk through the same lobby or swim in the same pool as the wealthier residents. No segregation, no separate amenities.”

But when Shuham asked the developer’s attorney if his client would agree to a single entrance for all residents, the answer was a resounding no.

“I’m not agreeing to that,” Keith Poliakoff, attorney for the developer, said before walking back to his seat.

Commissioner Kevin Biederman joined Shuham and Quintana in taking a stance against separate entrances.

“I’m against the poor door entrance,” he said. “I think it should be one entrance. Let’s get this built. Let’s get a community center built.”

Commissioner Peter Hernandez, frustrated by the chorus of critics, suggested that money for the new community center be spent in another part of town where the residents would be grateful.

“I want the $20 million for somewhere else,” he said, looking out at the audience. “You guys don’t want the development anyway.”

Hernandez urged the commission not to “zero out” his idea.

“There is a need in different communities where they will be grateful and very appreciative,” Hernandez said.

The mayor said staff could look into the possibility.

“The developer might be eager to get a larger footprint on the project,” Levy said.

Before the vote, several residents pleaded with the commission to let the voters decide whether to move forward. Many of them reminded the board they’ve been fighting the project since 2021.

“I’ve been here five years doing the same damn thing,” said resident Mark Ross. “No, no, no. It’s not your land to give away.”

Hollywood commissioners signed off on the comprehensive agreement and ground lease four years ago.

Shuham argued that a new comprehensive agreement needed to be drawn up and voted on due to all the changes to the deal.

She pointed to the increase in density, the addition of rental units and the reliance on the Live Local Act.

Shuham also argued the plan should go to a vote of the residents.

“We have time to get it on the ballot for November,” she said.

Her request was met with silence.

Article Link: Hollywood agrees to Live Local plan for high-rise tower on public land
Author: SUSANNAH BRYAN

The need for affordable housing has spread far and wide across the country, including in rural counties and mid-size towns, but community resistance and inexperience within local governments can create hurdles to development, attorneys say.

Demand for housing is a given, and property values are almost guaranteed to rise in hot, primary markets like New York City, Miami and Los Angeles. That means big cities are a perennially popular choice for affordable housing developers, even if land and construction are expensive, according to interviews.

Pursuing affordable housing in secondary and tertiary markets can be a harder draw for for-profit developers, but the work of moving a project through the entitlement process can be easier.
The federal government’s increased attention on affordability, combined with the growing focus among local governments throughout the U.S. on building more homes, has helped make affordable housing a burgeoning asset class, said Dustin Calkins, a real estate partner at Mayer Brown LLP.

Developers are “starting to underwrite more places than they have been, in part because of all the press and discussion around housing affordability and the lack of it throughout the U.S., especially out on the West Coast,” Calkins said.

“I think there’s going to be a big maturation of this industry, sophistication, even in the smaller towns and secondary markets,” he said.

Profits and Financing

Making an affordable housing project “pencil out,” or be financially viable and generative of returns, often requires a mixture of federal, state or local subsidies and tax credits, along with debt.

Large cities can have a big box of capital tools developers can use to make their projects profitable, while in small cities, offerings are not usually as robust, Calkins said.
“On the execution side, on the back end, the financial components and putting capital stacks together sometimes is a little riskier in a secondary market,” he said.

Amy McClain, chair of Ballard Spahr LLP’s real estate practice, said developers are usually quite experienced by the time they start considering entering secondary and tertiary markets.
“This isn’t their first rodeo,” McClain said. “A for-profit developer that’s doing their first deal should not necessarily do it in a rural community.”

Developers pursuing affordable housing outside a hot market might see the projects as the beginning of a pipeline or an initial investment in a community that may not generate returns right away but could lead to more opportunities later.

“A lot of for-profit developers are also socially minded,” McClain said. “They know that they’re in this business. It’s a hard business. There’s a lot of risk, there’s a lot of upfront expense, and the returns are not always guaranteed, but the social outcome is beneficial.”

In Florida’s big cities, such as Miami and Palm Beach, economic growth and the need for affordable housing is enormous, but land and construction costs have become so expensive that developers are looking at Orange County and Osceola County to make a quicker buck, said Keith Poliakoff of Government Law Group PLLC.

“You still have a need for affordable housing, although it’s less because there’s obviously less jobs there, so less people live there,” Poliakoff said. “But when you go to those counties, you can get the land much cheaper, which means that you can hit your margins for profitability much sooner.”

California requires cities across the state to produce certain amounts of housing at all income levels by certain dates, and some small- to mid-size cities have not been hitting their targets, partly due to challenges with securing financing, said Scott Buser, a partner in Mayer Brown’s real estate practice.

“There just isn’t enough capital available in the secondary markets, from what I’m seeing, to fund affordable housing to the extent the state is mandating,” Buser said.

Execution and Resistance

While the profitability and financing options for development can be a mixed bag outside big urban areas, projects can be easier to move through the local regulatory processes, especially if the proposed development needs a zoning change, attorneys noted.

Small cities tend to have less “bureaucracy” than major cities, said Alex Sellke, a real estate counsel at Ballard Spahr who focuses on development in the Midwest.

Sellke, who frequently advises nonprofit affordable housing developers, recalled working on a project in a North Dakota town that had one city attorney and one city planner.

“We could just call and email them, and it was really easy from that perspective, pretty flexible dealing with some challenges that came up or some flexibility that we needed,” Sellke said. “Still had an elected body that needed to sign off on some things, but there was better, easier access that made the project easier to execute.”

Buser, of Mayer Brown, said entitling an affordable housing project in major California cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles is more difficult than in suburban areas, where regulatory hurdles are easier to manage.

“In a smaller city, you’re dealing with fewer staff people in the city, and so you know the personalities of each staff member, whether it’s the planning commission or the mayor or the city council,” Buser said. “Good developers really have drilled down into each individual vote and know who supports affordable housing and who doesn’t. That’s a little bit tougher to do in a big city.”

But the smallness of a secondary or tertiary market can be a double-edged sword for developers.

“Once you fit into the box in a big city, it tends to be less noticed, especially affordable housing tends to be less noticed, in a good sense,” Buser said. “Because in the suburbs, in the exurbs, affordable housing tends to have a lot of eyeballs on it.”

“Sometimes those eyeballs bring with them the NIMBY attitudes, and that can slow down the execution,” he added, referring to the phrase “Not In My Backyard,” which is shorthand for people who oppose real estate development in their neighborhoods.

In California, residents opposing housing projects have historically turned to filing lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act, although the act has been “watered down over the past few years” through recently passed reforms, Buser noted.

Public opposition to affordable housing can occur in cities of all sizes, though it bubbles up more frequently in secondary and tertiary markets, Sellke said.

“Just the idea of low-income housing in the neighborhood or in the area sparks NIMBYism,” he said.

In one town, he recalled, public outcry over an affordable housing project he was working on led local officials to try to pull approvals they had already granted, which was “patently illegal,” Sellke said.

In addition to a higher risk of NIMBYism, another downside to pursuing projects in small cities is that they may not fully understand the requirements associated with different funding sources often involved in affordable housing development, said Ballard Spahr’s McClain.

“It requires maybe a little bit of education or engagement in a way that helps facilitate the deal, without killing the deal,” she said.

–Editing by Haylee Pearl and Drashti Mehta.

Article Link: The Challenges To Building Affordable Housing In Small Cities
Author: Charlie Innis

State legislators have approved amendments to Florida’s Live Local Act that aim to expand the categories of land that developers can build affordable housing on, as well as make financing for those projects easier.

As this year’s legislative session ended in Tallahassee last week, lawmakers passed a bill to update Live Local for the third time in as many years. The measure now goes to Gov. Ron DeSantis for his signature.

Originally passed in 2023, Live Local aims to spur the creation of more affordable housing across the Sunshine State by allowing developers to bypass local zoning and density requirements and by offering tax incentives.

As of now, the law grants the highest density a city or county allows for projects built on industrial, commercial or mixed-use land, as long as developers reserve at least 40% of the units for affordable housing for the next 30 years. “Affordable” is defined as units for households making at or below 120% of Area Median Income (AMI).

Dozens of Live Local projects have been proposed in South Florida since 2023, but only a handful have actually broken ground so far.

Here’s what the latest revisions, if signed into law, could mean.

Land use and zoning expansions

One big change is to make government and religious land eligible for Live Local projects.

Under the new rules, developers could propose Live Local projects on land owned by municipalities, counties and school boards, as long as the government entity agrees to co-file.

“That opens up the door for developers to find other significant locations to build on,” said Keith Poliakoff, an attorney with the Government Law Group in Fort Lauderdale.

What’s more, the bill would also allow Live Local projects to rise on land owned by religious organizations, though the rules would be a bit stricter there.

Developers could co-file projects with faith groups, so long as the site is larger than three acres and the house of worship has been there for at least 10 years. The church or temple must also remain operational after the project’s completion.

In recent years, there’s already been an uptick in religious organizations looking to sell their land to developers or partner with them on new projects. These transactions pair faith groups, which often have underused land but need to raise money, with real estate companies, which have cash to spend but face increasing land constraints in South Florida.

That trend could be turbocharged if the latest Live Local updates go through.

More broadly, the co-filing requirements means South Florida residents could expect a surge in the number of public-private partnerships, according to Poliakoff.

In a possible wrinkle, that means even existing public-private partnerships between local governments and developers could be amended to allow for Live Local projects, he said.

Updated tax benefit schedule

Another big update could come on the financing side.

Property tax benefits for Live Local projects would vest when the building permit is issued. As of now, developers obtain those exemptions upon project completion.

Live Local offers a 75% tax abatement on units for residents who make 80%-120% of AMI, plus a 100% tax abatement on units for residents who make less than 80% of AMI.

“What the new law says is the minute that developer pulls a building permit, there is no ad valorem tax owed on the [affordable] units,” Poliakoff said. “That savings can be so significant that it can take a situation where a project that was not developable … actually meets the financial threshold for a developer to be able to build.”

That could address a longstanding concern of construction lenders, who’ve said they’ve had trouble determining a Live Local project’s final expenses.

“This would provide some clarity upfront for the lender,” said J.C. de Ona, division president for Southeast Florida at Centennial Bank. “It’s a pretty big change, and now it’s definitely going to be easier for a bank to underwrite.”

Expect boosted lending activity for Live Local projects if the changes go into force, he added.

As of this year, there’s been 191 Live Local projects proposed across the Sunshine State, according to figures from the Florida Housing Coalition, a Tallahassee-based nonprofit. Together, they would add about 57,000 housing units, both income-restricted and market-rate.

Miami-Dade County alone accounts for nearly 43% of all Live Local projects proposed statewide. Add in Broward and Palm Beach counties, and South Florida has about six in 10 of all the state’s Live Local proposals.

Article Link: Florida aims to expand affordable housing pipeline with latest Live Local revisions
Author: Mark Dovich

A Live Local lawsuit making its way through the courts could bring dramatic change to the Hollywood beach skyline, potentially paving the way for taller towers far north of Hollywood Boulevard if the developer wins.

And if the city wins, the case would shed light on the limitations of the state’s controversial Live Local law.

In late 2024, Hollywood rejected a developer’s plan to build a 17-story tower several blocks north of Hollywood Boulevard on the barrier island, a section of the beach with a current height cap of 65 feet.

That denial triggered a lawsuit that’s reportedly being watched by cities and developers around the state.

The lawsuit, filed last year by Condra Property Group, accuses Hollywood of wrongly blocking the proposed apartment tower from being built under the state’s Live Local law.

The law, aimed at enticing developers to build more affordable housing throughout Florida, allows them to bypass certain zoning requirements as long as at least 40% of the residential units qualify as workforce housing.

A ruling in the case is expected as soon as February.

If the developer wins, a modern tower would rise 183 feet high on a 3-acre section of the barrier island that’s currently home to nearly a dozen motel properties that stand one or two stories tall. The new tower would sit seven blocks north of the Margaritaville Hollywood Beach Resort.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel reached out to Mayor Josh Levy and Hollywood spokeswoman Joann Hussey. Both declined to comment.

Critics of the project say they are worried about the domino effect: If this project gets the green light, it will pave the way for more tall towers north of Hollywood Boulevard.

“Once you let it go up, it paves the way for more,” said longtime resident Ann Ralston. “That’s the section that’s quaint and beachy. You go south of Hollywood Boulevard and you feel like you’re in Sunny Isles Beach.”

Mark Drachman, co-founder and managing partner at Condra Property Group, told the Sun Sentinel it took close to $40 million and nearly three years to acquire the 11 properties that would be demolished to make way for the modern new tower.

“If we win this, we’d start demolition within the next couple months,” Drachman said. “We’d start construction six months later.”

The project calls for a three-story beach club with shops and restaurants. The beach club would sit along the Broadwalk with the high-rise tower behind it, closer to State Road A1A. A six-story parking garage would be built directly to the north.

“The architecture is meant to complement the beach vibes so it’s not this giant building on the beach,” Drachman said. “It’ll take two years to build. We’d open in fall 2028.”

Drachman said he’s well aware that some people don’t want the project built. But some do, he added.

“Some people spoke against it at the city’s Technical Advisory Committee meeting,” he said. “But some people we don’t even know got up and spoke in favor of it. When you’re building really nice new product, you’re getting rid of really, really bad product.”

If the developers win their case, the following properties that sit between Surf Road and A1A will be demolished: 20 Nebraska St., 309 Oklahoma St., 320 McKinley St., 322-324 Nebraska St., 324 McKinley St., 326 Nebraska St., 333 Oklahoma St., 341 Oklahoma St., 2007 N. Ocean Drive, 2012 N. Ocean Drive and 2115 N. Ocean Drive.

Drachman and his partners filed suit in January 2025 after Hollywood rejected their plan to build a high-rise tower with 282 residents, including 114 workforce housing apartments that would be reserved for people earning from 80% to 120% of the county’s area median income.

The Margaritaville resort is less than a mile away and 8 inches taller than the proposed apartment tower.

Under the Live Local law, developers can match the currently allowed height for a commercial or residential building up to a mile away.

The developers argue they can use Margaritaville as the height benchmark for the new tower.

Hollywood argues they can’t because Margaritaville was built on city-owned land in a Government Use District and was approved only under the discretion of the Hollywood commission.

The city denied the developer’s proposal in August 2024, saying Margaritaville sits within a specialized zone that allows the Hollywood commission to determine building height on a case-by-case basis.

The developer’s legal team says Hollywood officials are misinterpreting state law by refusing to accept Margaritaville as the height benchmark.

During a hearing on Jan. 13, both sides argued their case before Broward Circuit Judge David A. Haimes.

Dan Abbott, an attorney representing the city, gave the judge a quick background on how Margaritaville came to be built.

Hollywood taxpayers kicked in $28 million to help make the Jimmy Buffett-themed resort a reality.

“It was only built after getting commission approval based on the board’s discretion,” Abbott argued. “You only count buildings for the currently allowed height (to allow as a benchmark under Live Local). If you have to petition your government to allow you to build it, that’s not a currently allowed height.”

Jacob Korman, an attorney for the developer, argued that the height of the Margaritaville hotel is indeed currently allowed today. And even if it weren’t, “the entire purpose of the Live Local Act is to override local zoning codes,” Korman argued.

“No further time should be spent on the city’s intentional misrepresentation of the facts,” Korman said. “There is no doubt that our client’s project complies with the Live Local law.”

Korman pointed out that Hollywood already has several tall buildings near the beach, all of them south of Hollywood Boulevard.

He held up a poster board showing the height of those towers and the year they were built. Among those listed:

— Hyde Beach House (483 feet, built in 2019).
— The Diplomat hotel (444 feet, built in 2002).
— Trump Hollywood (443 feet, built in 2009).
— Hyde Resort & Residences (443 feet, built in 2016).
— Diplomat Oceanfront Residences (323 feet, built in 2007).
— Apogee Beach (254 feet, built in 2013).

The judge asked: “Why do you have to have that (new tower) on the beach?”

Korman pointed to the poster board.

The judge had this reply: “South of Hollywood Boulevard I guess they made the decision that’s going to be all high-rises.”

Korman told the judge: “(The Live Local law) applies on the beach. It applies everywhere. That’s what the Legislature wanted.”

Article Link: Domino effect? Live Local lawsuit could bring big change to Hollywood beach
Author: Susannha Bryan