To the Editor:
Wednesday April 1 is the date of the next Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB) meeting at Miami City Hall. It’s also April Fool’s Day. This meeting is no joke.
To D or Not to D: A Play in One Act About Density Transfers
Scene: An office overlooking Biscayne Bay. Late morning. A casually dressed man and someone in business attire are discussing a City of Miami program that allows developers to increase the density of their projects by purchasing extra density from affordable housing projects.
Players: Beeg, a developer of high-rise condos for the wealthy, and Thizway, his zoning lawyer.
Beeg: I’m worried, Thiz, the natives are getting restless. The worst whiners are complaining their quality of life is getting worse even as their homestead property values go up! Thank God most of the others are asleep, fighting traffic, or are too worn out to pay attention.
Thizway: Lighten up! We’ve trained the politicians and the media to use buzzwords like Affordable Housing, Workforce Housing, Rapid Transit Zoning and Live Local as cover stories to build high-rises everywhere.
Beeg: But some of these whiners have already gone to court to block the “bonus height” that city commissioners approved in 2023. Where does it stop? Is that what PZAB will be talking about?
Thizway: Not directly. PZAB will be talking about the city’s Transfer of Development Density program. But don’t worry. PZAB’s votes are just recommendations, so leave it to me. That’s how I got my nickname. When the proposal gets to the City Commission, I’ll tell commissioners to look at the Zoning Code this way.
Beeg: Which way is that?
Thizway: Our way. Don’t worry about the height. While max height used to be 5 stories up to 81 feet, with bonuses some developments can now go as high as 123 feet. By dropping “affordable” requirements, luxury developers don’t have to have any poor people making their real customers uncomfortable. Not too bad, eh? All you really have to worry about is density, and parking,
Beeg: For sure. Parking requirements. UGH!
Thizway: Yeah. Parking is expensive. That’s why we got parking waivers extended to include developments on corridors “within a mile” of Metrorail, like 27th Avenue to the Bay. What a joke! As if rich people are going to give up their cars!
Beeg: Whew! Let’s go back to Density.
Thizway: OK. You’re limited to 65 units per acre. You can apply for a zoning change to increase your density, but that’s expensive, and requires a public hearing and usually Public Benefits. There’s another way to get more density. You can buy it!
Beeg: Explain that.
Thizway: The city’s transfer program allows certain developments to buy more density, as long as those developments are consistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, whose language is open to interpretation. Helping commissioners “interpret” is what I do.
Beeg: I get that. But why won’t the Commission side with the whiners who are against more density and who say their Neighborhood Conservation District – NCD – protects them from the bigger projects we want to build?
Thizway: Because everything today is about “Affordable Housing,” dummy. Sorry. But put it all together. The City allows developers in poorer areas like West Grove or Overtown to sell credits for unused density to “eligible receiving sites” elsewhere. Then the Live Local Act passed in Tallahassee says local building codes don’t matter when it comes to building “affordable housing” anywhere and everywhere. It’s called “preemption.” And now we have this proposed change to the Density Transfer program,
Beeg: What would that change do? What’s the big deal whether the seller of those credits can sell the excess over 70 units instead of 200 units? I’m going to buy all the credits I can, regardless.
Thizway: You got it! Not so dumb after all. Oops. Sorry again. There’ll be more credits offered for sale if the threshold is lower. And maybe more 70-unit low-income projects built. Who the hell knows? But whoever buys those credits can argue they are entitled to more height because the Live Local Act supposedly preempts the Commission from denying it. They can’t encourage you to buy credits and then not let you use them! You’d have “vested rights,” capisce?
Beeg: I love vested rights. I buy five stories and then like magic I have eight!
THIZWAY: Not magic! Your election campaign donations – and mine – at work. That’s why the whiners are saying they want every development in an NCD to be prohibited from buying Density credits. The NCD’s are specifically written to protect neighborhoods, but not specifically enough to stop me from getting three of the five commissioners to see it our way.
Beeg: I see, Thiz. At least I think I do. This stuff gets so complicated all the whiners can say over and over at public hearings is that they don’t like it! How about a martini? It’s almost lunchtime.
THE END
Andy Parrish
Coconut Grove
Andy’s clever play does more than entertain. It captures a concern many residents share: that overdevelopment often moves forward through technical zoning changes, bonus incentives, and flexible interpretations of the rules, rather than through one obvious, headline-grabbing vote. That is what makes the play both funny and unsettling.
The play imagines a developer and his zoning lawyer discussing how to squeeze more value from a project through bonus floors, parking waivers, transferable density credits, and favorable “interpretations” of the code and comprehensive plan. Its central point is that projects can become much larger and more intense than residents expect, even when officials insist nothing major has changed. Beneath the humor is a serious warning: neighborhood protections can be weakened when the code is vague or when exceptions and bonus programs are layered on top of one another.
What makes the play especially effective is that it points to a larger pattern. The real concern is not just one building or one ordinance, but the steady use of height rules, density transfers, parking reductions, and “affordable housing” justifications to increase development intensity in and near established neighborhoods. Unless protections like NCD rules are explicit and airtight, they can be interpreted in ways that still allow more density and bulk than residents thought possible. In plain language, the play warns that overdevelopment often happens through cumulative code changes and legal maneuvering, not just through direct rezonings. Kudos to Andy for making this issue understandable.
Like the warning cry of a canary in a coal mine. A very insightful, sarcastic and somewhat disturbing theater of the absurd.
AMEN. Andy Parrish hits a home run again… 👍 Now only if our elected officials would understand that the whiners, when offstage, are actually the voters… And simply those who care deeply about the future of our community.
Thanks, bigtime, to Andy Parrish for applying his creative skills so skillfully to illuminating this issue (these issues) in a way that makes the way the game gets played more visible and comprehensible to the “average Joe or Jane.”
It’s one thing to know that corruption is pervasive, but it comes a lot closer to being understood when we get to see details and the actual mindsets of these perpetrators, which brings these things so much closer to what we might be able to do something about by addressing the details.
Well done!