A new lawsuit was filed this week after the City of Miami gave Miami-Dade County a green light to demolish a portion of the historic Coconut Grove Playhouse.
Opponents of Miami-Dade County’s plan to demolish a portion of the Coconut Grove Playhouse and restore the rest of the historic structure have gone back to court in an effort to block the county’s plan before demolition begins.
The City of Miami issued a demolition permit for the playhouse on Tuesday, opening the way for the county to begin work on the long-delayed project. County leaders hailed the development, saying they were prepared to move forward quickly.
“After years of collaboration, compromise and commitment, the start of this first phase of work signals the playhouse is on track to reopen in 2027, in time for its 100th anniversary,” County Commissioner Raquel Regalado said in a statement.
But opponents moved quickly to halt those plans, filing a lawsuit on Wednesday that asks a circuit court judge to block the demolition permit until the county presents final design plans to the city’s Historic and Environmental Preservation Board.
The lawsuit, filed by attorney David Winker, also challenges the county’s source of funding for the project, saying the use of county bond funding approved by voters would violate Florida’s constitution.
“The County now seeks to use the $23.6 million of bond money approved by the electorate to demolish approximately 80% of the Coconut Grove Playhouse, rather than ‘restore its structural integrity and add to its performance and educational capabilities,’” as voters were promised, the lawsuit states.
“In fact, the County plan will diminish its performance and educational capabilities by reducing its seating from 1,130 to 300 seats, and replace 2/3 of the performance space with leased commercial space.”
The 1927 playhouse closed in 2006 amid financial difficulties and has been shuttered since. Advocates want to restore the entire playhouse, including its auditorium, with at least 500 plus seats, but Regalado and others say a larger theater would fail economically, while creating a traffic nightmare in a neighborhood already choked with cars.
Instead, the county plans to restore the playhouse’s distinctive front building at 3500 Main Highway and replace the auditorium behind it with a new 300-seat theater, to be run by GableStage in partnership with Florida International University. The county plan also includes a new parking garage and public spaces with shops and restaurants.
The fight over the fate of the playhouse has dragged on for years. Opponents have gone to court repeatedly to challenge the county’s plan but with little success. Winker has led that effort. He said he expects this new lawsuit will be met with skepticism. But the issues it raises are new, he said, and haven’t been litigated before.
The lawsuit challenges the county’s plan on three key points.
Opponents say the county is required to submit final plans to the Historic and Environmental Protection Board (HEPB) before moving forward. The HEPB tentatively approved the partial demolition of the playhouse in 2017, on the condition that the county would return to the board with final plans.
“To date, this step has not occurred. No historic preservation board approval has been given for the pending demolition,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit also says the county has failed to consult the Florida Division of Historical Resources on its plan. The consultation – known as a 267 review – is required because the playhouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, opponents say.
On the issue of funding, the lawsuit says the county’s decision to use bond funding to demolish the auditorium is illegal, given the way in which the county pitched voters on how the bond proceeds would be used.
“The misuse of the bond funding by the County is in direct violation of Article VII and VIII of the Florida Constitution,” the lawsuit says.
The latest litigation is certain to anger proponents of the county plan, who argue that the battle over the playhouse has dragged on for too long.
Regalado has declared the battle to be over several times, only to see opponents bounce back with a new challenge. She didn’t respond to a request for comment on the new litigation.
Miami District 2 Commissioner Damian Pardo was not available to comment either, but he hinted at the frustration many feel in a statement he released on Tuesday regarding the demolition permit.
“Today’s permit marks decisive action forward on a contentious community issue marred by polarized debate,” Pardo said. “While it may not be the desired outcome for some, after almost 20 years of stagnation, we are excited to witness new beginnings.”
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to clarify the minimum number of seats which playhouse advocates say should be part of any restoration plan.
I find it disingenuous to say there have been compromises. Exactly what compromises were made? Putting historical elements in the lobby? That’s the grand compromise? I would like Raquel Regalado to list the compromises. One by one. Exactly how has the County plan been adjusted to accommodate residents’ concerns and requests?
While everyone wants to see theater return to the Grove, the county’s plan would demolish three-quarters of the Coconut Grove Playhouse – one of Miami’s oldest, nationally recognized, historically designated structures.
Furthermore, the County’s plan would replace the Playhouse with a small glass-and-concrete theater, surrounded by a mini-mall with shops, bars and restaurants spilling into the residential areas of historic Village West / Little Bahamas.
The truth is that this is a publicly owned, civic-zoned property. It should be restored as a theater and civic space – not a shopping mall.
Voters are tired of their public resources being sacrificed to serve developers’ interests. City Commissioner Pardo and County Commissioner Regalado should listen to their constituents’ concerns and formulate a plan that respects the history and integrity of one of Miami’s oldest communities.
These are difficult decisions, but congratulations to David Winker and others fighting for the preservation of Miami’s beautiful, historic neighborhoods.
What compromise? It was more like an offer we can’t refuse from what Billy Corben so aptly calls the Miami Mafia. There was a vote 20 years ago where voted for “restoration of the Playhouse” using our $25 million. Demolishing 100% of the theater and 90% of the overall building is not restoration. When citizens vote on something, what audacious right does the county have to say they are going to ignore the voters’ decision and “compromise” on what we already voted to do? So, here yet again is an email I just sent this morning to the County Mayor and Commissioner Regalado. It is one of many requests sent to them only to be denied information or told to pay thousands of dollars for a small amount of information.
Madame Mayor,
I would like to make a public records request for evidence from the county to show whether you have submitted your Coconut Grove Playhouse plans to the State Department of Environmental Protection. State law and the lease require by state law that the county submit plans to the state DEP. I will share with you the exact wording of that law which was sent to me a few years ago by then Director of the Division of Historic Resources Tim Parsons.
Tim Parsons, as you may know, is the state official who wrote a letter to the County informing you that your plans are not compliant with state and federal historic preservation laws and that subsequently the county grant application for funding for your project was denied.
I will share with you what Tim Parsons wrote to me regarding the laws that require the county as tenant to submit their plans to the State DEP for a 267 review, also required by law and the lease:
“Chapter 267 requires agencies having jurisdiction over an ‘undertaking’ to give DHR a ‘reasonable opportunity to comment’ on the undertaking.
Construction on the Coconut Grove Playhouse would be an undertaking. DEP would have to approve that construction. My current understanding is that the County’s plans have not been sent to DEP for approval. Therefore, DEP itself has not reviewed the plans.
That is why there has been no “267 review,” which requires seeking DHR’s comment for initiation.
If upon DEP’s or DHR’s review of the plans, should the County propose moving forward with them, if it is determined that the structure would be substantially altered or demolished, at that point DEP would be required to consult with DHR on any possible “feasible and prudent alternatives”.
That’s straight out of the law, and that is the linear process that a Chapter 267 consultation would follow.” (Sent from Tim Parsons).
Please advise whether the county has complied with this law and lease requirement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Max Pearl
[email protected]
(305)984-2732