On December 16th, the following letter was forwarded to Secretary Pelham of the FLDCA, Commissioner Eric Smith of the FLDOE, Superintendent Alberto Carvalho of Miami-Dade Schools, and Representative Juan Zapata of District 119:
Dear Secretary Pelham,
I am writing to seek your help in resolving a difficult situation that has been unfolding in southern Miami-Dade County.
Over the past year, Miami-Dade Schools has endeavored to build a new 2,500 student high school in the midst of an established community on the fringe of the county’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB). The local residents of the area maintain that the project, though representing over $60 million in public monies, has been executed without proper public engagement or regard to public sentiment. Though Miami-Dade Schools remains unresponsive, the local community has repeatedly iterated that this project is in conflict with accepted policies intended to promote both community participation and smart-growth planning.
In August of 2007, Miami-Dade Schools used the power of eminent domain to wrest 40 acres of land from private ownership. Situated on the corner of SW 160 street and SW 152 avenue, this area would become the proposed site for a new high school tentatively dubbed HHH1. At the time of its condemnation, this parcel of agricultural land was being actively cultivated.
It is important to note that the property lies wholly within one mile from Miami-Dade County’s UDB.As you are aware, the Florida legislature passed the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act (F.S. 163.3161) in 1985. This act mandated that all local governments adopt a framework to promote smart growth. In response,
Miami-Dade County adopted their current Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). The CDMP establishes a UDB that serves to delineate areas appropriate for large-scale development in an effort to both limit sprawl, retain agricultural lands, and preserve vital natural resources outside the UDB. The CDMP not only sets forth clear recommendations regarding land use outside the UDB but, in recognizing its potential to promote urban development, also offers specific guidelines regarding improvements and developments inside the UDB.
Educational Element 2 (EDU-2A) of the plan sets forth recommendations regarding the construction of new schools.
The county’s CDMP clearly states that new high schools should not be situated within one mile of the UDB. To work around this issue, the Miami-Dade Schools Facility Planning Office approached the Miami-Dade Zoning Department to seek an exemption. In a letter dated February 1, 2006, the Miami-Dade Planning and Zoning department cited EDU-2A in its recommendation that the site not be utilized for the purposes of constructing a high school. Of significant importance, this entire process was neither transparent nor open to public comment.
In March of 2008, against both the accepted smart growth policies of the CDMP and professional counsel from the Planning and Zoning Department, the Miami-Dade School Board awarded a preconstruction contract in the amount of $229,000 to Betancourt Castellon Associates, Inc. By early April, heavy machinery appeared to clear and fence the site.
Though clearly in planning for well over two years, the local community was afforded no notice regarding the intended construction of this major facility prior to this activity. Since that time, our residents have tried tirelessly to voice numerous well-founded concerns regarding the lack of process involved in this endeavor, the improper location selected for this project, and the likely impacts it will bring.
Over the past year, the Board has been plagued by a series of high-profile issues—most notably, a serious operational budget deficit that has resulted in cuts of hundreds of jobs and salaries. Just last week, the Board voted to sue the state in an effort to recoup $34.7 million it alleges were improperly withheld. Given the realities of this dire financial situation,
we properly question not only how Miami-Dade Schools would endeavor to adequately staff such a large facility, but also why the district would not choose to revisit plans for a project that the community it intends to benefit deems both unnecessary and potentially harmful.
To date, the Miami-Dade School Board has not yet awarded a construction contract for the project. Ownership over a part of the 40-acre parcel is currently in litigation, which has fortunately afforded us a rare window of opportunity.
We remain hopeful that the Department of Community Affairs will exercise its powers of oversight to compel a thorough review of this project. We feel this is particularly important given Lennar’s recent application for an exemption to the CDMP to allow for the development of a nearly 1,000-acre residential development outside the UDB. Dubbed “Parkland”, the mini-city threatens to continue the practice of sprawl by foisting over 19,000 new residents on agricultural lands. The construction of HHH1 at its currently proposed location would merely present yet another improvement to infrastructure on the fringe that would serve to entice and justify such future developments.
That there remains such a palpable disconnect between our local government agencies and the communities they are meant to serve is regrettable. Poor planning and clear lack of interest in involving the public have now left all parties in an unfortunate situation. The solution, however, does not lie in pursuing construction of a flawed project. Rather,
the only appropriate resolution will be reevaluating the true need for this facility, properly articulating how such a facility would be staffed and, most importantly, finding a location that does not compromise smart growth policies and promote unwanted development in the host community. We humbly request you advise Miami-Dade Schools to take such action.
cc: Juan Zapata, District 119 Florida House Representative
cc: Dr. Eric J. Smith, Florida Department of Education Commissioner
cc: Dr. Albeto Carvalho, Miami-Dade Schools Superintendent
