The attorney who has led the fight to block a partial demolition of the playhouse says Miami-Dade County still needs to clear several hurdles before moving forward.
In the wake of an election that didn’t go their way, opponents of Miami-Dade County’s plan to save the Coconut Grove Playhouse by first demolishing a part of it are vowing to continue their fight over the fate of the historic theater.
“No one’s giving up,” attorney David Winker told the Spotlight. “We’re going to continue the fight, but it’s going to be an uphill battle.”
Miami-Dade Commissioner Raquel Regalado, an advocate of the county’s restoration plan, defeated challenger Cindy Lerner on November 5 to win another four-year term. Lerner had sided with those pushing for a full restoration of the 1927 theater.
Winker has led the fight to block the county’s plan, alongside the advocacy group Save the Coconut Grove Playhouse. Opponents have suffered a series of legal setbacks in recent months, however, including a court ruling in October that appeared to give the county a greenlight to demolish the theater’s 1,150-seat auditorium.
The county plans to replace the auditorium with a 300-seat performance space while preserving the playhouse’s distinctive façade and the three-story building behind it.
While opponents await the county’s next move, Winker and others are mapping plans to continue the fight. In a recent interview, Winker outlined three different strategies he intends to pursue to oppose the proposed demolition.
“First, we believe that the county needs to go back” before the City of Miami’s Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) and submit its plan for additional review, Winker said. “We’re going to make sure the process is followed,” he added.
In April of 2017, the HEPB conditionally approved a certificate of appropriateness when presented with an initial draft of the county’s plan for the playhouse. In Resolution: HEPB-R-17-023 the Board outlined some of these key stipulations upon which the condition approval rested:
“No demolition permit will be issued until the plan comes back to the HEPB and is approved,” the board stated. Winker said opponents will insist that happens.
“We are going to ask the city that it be brought back before the HEPB board to make sure that they complete the process and review it one more time,” he said.
Since the HEPB last reviewed the county’s plan in 2017, the playhouse was added to the National Register of Historic Places – a development that will likely invite additional scrutiny of the county’s plan.
Opponents contend the county’s plan could result in the loss of the historic designation, a concern that state of Florida officials also appear to share.
In February of 2019, the City of Miami submitted the county’s plans for the playhouse to the Florida Office of Cultural & Historic Preservation for review. In a response, Jason Aldridge, a deputy state historic preservation officer, expressed concern:
“Yes, our office would consider demolition of the Playhouse as outlined in the provided plans to be an adverse effect to this historic property based on the resulting loss of the property’s historic character and integrity,” his letter reads, in part.
“If the proposed plans are implemented the property will no longer possess the historic character and integrity that allowed the property to be listed in the National Register. Therefore, the playhouse could be removed from the National Register.”
The county disputes this. In a lengthy rejoinder posted on the county’s website, the county cites the Sears Tower in downtown Miami as an example of a local landmark that was partially demolished and still retained its historic status.
Bringing the matter back before the state Office of Cultural & Historic Preservation constitutes the second piece of Winker’s legal strategy:
“No one has contacted the State of Florida, who is the owner of the property, so we’re going to be asking that they get state approval because it’s going to cause this building to be taken off the National Historic Register,” Winker said. “We’re going to make sure that the state is aware, that the owner of the property knows that they (the county) are demolishing 80% of it.”
Finally, Winker plans to re-file a suit he’d previously brought arguing that Miami Dade County’s plan to use $20 million in bond funding for the project violates the terms under which voters approved that funding.
“They can’t use the $20 million bond that was designed to rehabilitate and restore the playhouse to demolish [the playhouse],” Winker said. “To be clear, that doesn’t stop the demolition, but it would prevent them from using the bond money they have earmarked for the demolition for this project.”
County officials did not respond to the Spotlight’s request for comment on the issues raised by Winker and other opponents.
On its website, however, the county’s Department of Cultural Affairs said the County Attorney’s office had reviewed the county’s plan and determined that the playhouse project is an appropriate use of the bond money.
“These funding sources have been reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney and have been determined as eligible for the project as designed,” the county’s website says.
I would like to point out that the Office of the County Attorney that deemed this project ‘an appropriate use of taxpayer funds’, is NOT an impartial voice. They work FOR the county. They sent their lawyer wearing man-eating shark socks to a commission meeting, in effort to convince the commissioners that somehow the County plan to DEMOLISH 80% of the Playhouse is actually a historic preservation project. The deceit they have been spewing to the public is confusing for the Miami citizens who only want to see their Playhouse restored and revived once again.