City Issues Statement Regarding Brickell Mini-Park

The City of Miami issued a statement regarding a Brickell park today:

 

Statement Regarding Allen Morris Park

(Miami, FL April 25, 2023) – The City of Miami is committed to reopening the Allen Morris Brickell Park to the community. Unfortunately, the City’s efforts to do so have been stifled by a lawsuit filed by a company, who hopes to close the park to the public and develop the property for its financial gain. The company believes it is entitled to ownership of the property because it previously gifted the property to the City and the City allowed Perricone’s Marketplace to operate on a portion of the park. However, Perricone’s Marketplace operated in the park with the full knowledge and consent of the company’s owner. Although a trial judge entered a final judgment in the company’s favor, and determined the company should own the property, the City has appealed that judgment. While the appeal is pending, the judgment is stayed. However, given the uncertainty of the future ownership of the property, the park currently remains closed.

A link to a city legal summary from 2020.

 

 

 

95 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
anon
1 month ago

Sounds like this needs to remain much needed green space to me.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Yea but you can’t blame the owner… the contract was breached. I would do the same thing

Anonymous
1 month ago

No breach. No claim. No Standing. Case dismissed. Summary judgment for the city. Case closed!

Anonymous
1 month ago

You really need to go back to law school.

anonymous
1 month ago

article says judge ruled in favor of the company. What are you even talking about?

Anonymous
1 month ago

It’s being appealed. We believe the City should win the final decision on appeal.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Read the article Perry Mason 😐

Brickell Anon
1 month ago

Watch the full story and footage of the beloved park on the news today here:

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/why-is-allen-morris-brickell-park-locked-up-the-legal-battle-behind-it/3021953/

Miami wants the park open. Allen Morris Company should drop the suit and expressly allow outside dining in the park (even though it is obvious that a park purpose includes outside dining by neighboring restaurant.)

“It’s one of the few green spaces in Brickell, but it’s locked up and surrounded by fences because it’s been the center of a long legal battle. Allen Morris Brickell Park is a green oasis in the middle of urban Brickell, on the corner of Brickell Plaza and Southeast 10th Street.”

Anonymous
1 month ago

Is this because a developer wants to replace Mary Brickell Village with a private high rise?

Anon Italia
1 month ago

Perricones is the best Italian restaurant in Brickell, and that was one of the best outdoor spaces in Miami. The new location impresses too 🇮🇹 ❤️

Azarius
1 month ago

We need to force Flatiron to tear down their sales center and open that park up in front of their tower. More space and better located!

Another Jackass
1 month ago

That sales center was sold to another development some time ago. Maybe you should get your facts straight?

Anonymous
1 month ago

A park landlocked between two streets and a Metromover flyover. It would be a homeless camp.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Why would the company gift the land for a park, while there was a public concession service already in place, that the city allowed to continue operating for the purpose of the park, and fight the city in its efforts to reopen the park? There is something wrong with this case….

Anonymous
1 month ago

Virginia Beach Park nearby has food and concessions on site. It’s a park purpose to offer dining options on site. “ The Historic Concession Stand Building provides special beverages, food and snack menu…”

https://virginiakeybeachpark.net/park-information/

Anonymous
1 month ago

Perricone’s should have never been permitted to use the space. That was the problem right there and we are now the ones who will have to pay for it.

Anonymous
1 month ago

The property did not revert because it was never not used for public park purposes. Allowing Perricone to operate WAS a public park purpose. Public parks need food and vendors on site. This lawsuit is a sham to get a developers greedy hands on the limited park space left in Brickell.

Anonymous
1 month ago

I agree with the judge here. Allowing a private, commercial use is clearly beyond the scope of public park purposes. The city should have known better than to allow this.

Anonymous
1 month ago

We need an appeal of the lower court judgment. We need lawyers on this. Look at Central Park, they have hot dog vendors etc. the decision is totally unreasonable.

Azarius
1 month ago

Was the area where Perricones operated in only accessed by their customers? Did they rope off or designate a space within the park for services. If so They violated! if you look at this space we should allow them to build and force Flatiron to tear down their sales center and open that park up in front of their tower. More space and better located!

Anon
1 month ago

Perricone’s is not a private membership club. Anyone from the public could sit in the park and order from the concession provider (perricones)

Anon
1 month ago

No it was the part of the park renovated by Perricones for public use and outside concessions served by the market. Evidence shows Allen Morris Company approved said use to improve the park and fulfill the purpose of the grant.

Frankonymous
1 month ago

Flatiron sold that years ago, and it’s been other sales centers since. Keep up, Assarius.

Anonymous
1 month ago

You can’t honestly think that hot dog vendors and a restaurant with its tables taking up a significant portion of the park are the same.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Look at the Boat House in Central Park. Many parks have tables and restaurant services on site.

Anonymous
1 month ago

The size of the park relative to the commercial use is definitely something to consider. Central Park is gigantic, so a few tables here and there don’t detract from the park’s otherwise public use. This park, on the other hand, is the size of my bedroom and Perricone’s essentially used the whole thing.

City Dweller
1 month ago

It was not the whole thing. I walked through there and it was a beautiful public space for the entire city to walk through and experience… having tables where people could sit and eat outside in the park, only enhanced the public park space and experience.

Anonymous
1 month ago

I lived nearby for years before Perricone’s moved out. I never knew it was a public park. I thought it was a private patio area for the restaurant.

Anonymous
1 month ago

You must be used to the unkept parks in Miami. Coming from a place that maintains parks, it seemed like a park to me. Maybe it resembles a Miami park to you now that it’s abandoned and unkept and being grabbed by a developer?

Anonymous
1 month ago

You come from a place that maintains parks? Oh please do tell where that is. Can’t possibly be NYC because every time I visit, the parks are full of bums and rats.

Dictator-veloper
1 month ago

How dare people eat food in an urban park?! That’s not the purpose! A park should just be baron land with no purpose or amenities. Want a toilet? Gotcha – pooping isn’t a park purpose, it’s now become an outhouse. Take back daddies donation!

Anonymous
1 month ago

Eat at home, then go throw a football around on that “baron” land. Problem solved.

Anonymous
1 month ago

You mean the big sign that said public park didn’t give it away?

Anonymous
1 month ago

Look at most urban planning designs around the country. They all have “ concessions” which are just outside tables facilitated by private restaurant vendor. It’s not like the city used it for something unrelated to the park (like building a condo on the land, which the plaintiffs seem to be trying to do) – a win against the city would defeat the purpose of the grant!! This is grossly outrageous.

Anonymous
1 month ago

The well thought out posts have multiple downvotes, and the shilling “look at what another city 1000 miles away does” and “letting an expensive exclusive restaurant take over public space is terrific” posts got multiple upvotes.

Anonymous
1 month ago

A food stand is completely different to a full-blown restaurant.

Anon
1 month ago

IT wasn’t a full-blown restaurant. It was an outside seating area of an adjacent restaurant overlooking the park.

Anonymous
1 month ago

False. The restaurant’s outdoor space took up the majority of the park. I lived right there.

Anonymous
1 month ago

If that is the case, is the City using taxpayer money on a lawsuit just to save face? Someone should buy it and donate it back.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Not allowing some type of commercial use to activate the park is the OPPOSITE of what a park needs to function. This is not a preserve….It’s an urban park.

Lowermerion
1 month ago

Correct. Once you limit access and start charging for the space it becomes a commercial contract no longer open green space. Perricones had almost the entire park under a tent.

Anon
1 month ago

The lack of urban parks and plazas in Miami is sad. I suppose every square inch of land needs to be turned over to developers in the city’s eyes.

anonymous
1 month ago

lack of urban parks ? yes i agree , there are lots of parks in the suburbs but not in the urban core. there is bayfront park in downtown and margaret pace park in edgewater but I don’t know of any parks in Brickell , midtown or wynwood

Anonymous
1 month ago

Maybe if the urban parks and plazas that exist weren’t dumps, opinions might change.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Require developers to build and maintain parks.

Anonymous
1 month ago

^^then you’ll wonder why unit costs/rents become even more unaffordable. Guess who those costs get passed on to?

Anon
1 month ago

Don’t worry. That’s not the main concern for everyone. Affordable housing is being built and many more units dropping soon. And prices go up and down, but allowing developers to overbuild without infrastructure and green space is irreversible damage.

Anonymous
1 month ago

It will be a shame to loose this beautiful park in this concrete jungle.

Anon
1 month ago

Zone for exclusive use as park while the City owns it.

Anonymous
1 month ago

The City needs to Fluff off and open this park up. They are SO out of touch. This is one of the nicest parks in Brickell and needs to open immediately as per the original agreement.

Zz01
1 month ago

Did you read the article? The city wants to open the park but they lost a lawsuit which would require them to turn over the property.

Help City of Miami
1 month ago

The city keeps getting threatened with lawsuits over basic unreasonable park and public land rights. Related threatened a lawsuit against the city in the public hearing recently. Isn’t there some type of sovereign immunity to protect the city and taxpayer for protracted* litigation like this?

Anon
1 month ago

Rezone it as protected space and preserve its place in history. Offer the company a chance to pay for a statute of Allen Morris on the land. *Write it into code tonight or tomorrow. The park should open next week.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Stop using legal terms you know nothing about. The judge agreed with the claimant. It was clearly not frivolous and the claimant clearly had standing. Stick with your day job.

Casey
1 month ago

Pathetic.

anonny
1 month ago

facts. palm beach would never do this. definitely considering that area.

peej
1 month ago

so which company filed the lawsuit? Good lord this shit is stupid, just open the park already.

Herald
1 month ago

Someone messed up. Who?

Shame Allen Morris
1 month ago

Shame Allen Morris company! Shame!

Frankonymous
1 month ago

Allen Morris gave the park in the first place and restricted it to remain a park!! The city is at fault here, shame them. Also, try reading.

Chad
1 month ago

How is allowing a food vendor on a portion of the park somehow going against that?

Anonymous
1 month ago

It’s not like the food was prepared in the park. The food services were rendered next door.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Stop calling a sit-down restaurant a food vendor. This is not the same thing as a hot dog stand. The restaurant took up almost the entire park.

Anonymous
1 month ago

This is tricky. How come there were travel blogs that toted it as a park, and there were paved open access walkways? Both sides need to come up with a private-public deal that restores park space to the people, better than any space before.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Terrible lower court decision and BAD public policy. Does this mean we can’t have outside dining and conesssions at any parks? Do all the parks have to look like unmanicured dog trails in the future? We can’t have tables and food at parks? This is insane.

Anonymous
1 month ago

No, just those parks which were dedicated to the city on the precise condition that they weren’t to be used for commercial purposes.

Anon
1 month ago

If the previous owner gifted the space to the city, what claim could they possibly have on it now? I feel it’s none of their business what the city used it for over the years. If I buy a house where the previous owner asked me pretty please don’t demolish and rebuild it, they can’t do anything to stop me from doing so as far as I know, short of it being a protected historical landmark.

Anon
1 month ago

After further research, there was a deed restriction, I see that, but I don’t see how that was violated. Perricone’s customers might have been allowed to use it, but I don’t remember it ever being closed off from the public. It was still a public park.

Nathaniel Talcott
1 month ago

Did the city collect rent Perricone? If so, it would be a blatant violation.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Possibly, but if the funds were used to maintain the park maybe it was a park purpose. I hope it was not an abuse of power. At end of day, the people are owed a park. Who made the call to collect rent? Please name them.

Anonymous
1 month ago

It’s pretty simple. The vast majority of the park was occupied by tables, at which members of the public could not sit unless they were rendering payment to a private establishment.

Anonymous
1 month ago

If that’s the case, I am mistaken. I thought it was simply an outside area overlooking the park, not a separate tented private area. Whomever decided to rent out the space for private commercial, owes the Miami-Dade taxpayer. Those parties should have to buy the land from the developer and maintain the park. This is a waste of everyone’s money to litigate in court, and that money could be going to an actual park, not legal fees!

anonymous
1 month ago

Hialeah has lots of nice parks like the Amelia Earhart park and Milander park .Brickellistas please take metro rail to Hialeah so you know what a real park is

Anonymous
1 month ago

Ew but then we would have to see… Hialeah. I’d rather take a trip to hell.

Lowermerion
1 month ago

The city has given the house away to developers. What do you think they want this land for, a park? They’ve been renting this “park” as commercial space for years. No different from Lolitas across the street. Apparently the city wanted more and the Morris Company said enough. The city even tried to swap the property, ludicrous, to a section if the flatiron area. How many bananas should we give out at city hall.

Anons
1 month ago

Wow I do get the sense the City cares more about profits than park space. Look at how they hand out development waivers like candy, just bc it builds the tax base pockets. Can we get some public and park advocates in office?

Anonymous
1 month ago

You guys need to remember that other areas of the city have awesome parks. The problem is Brickell. Brickell was a financial district most recently–without a need for many parks– and it developed rapidly into a residential area. The city didn’t plan ahead. But let’s not blame the city for a lack of parks everywhere. I live on Margaret Pace Park and it’s beautiful. Downtown also has great parks. I am thankful to the city for these parks.

Anon
1 month ago

They didn’t plan ahead, is NOT an excuse. Just like there is no excuse for losing this park. We need new leaders with civic legal backgrounds, not PR spokesmodels who know nothing about urban planning and pander to donors. And the City needs to paid back for this loss, if it comes to that, with a brand new park in Brickell and damages to pay us back for the legal fees.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Keep dreaming.

Anon
1 month ago

Very confused why this is being posted now. The park was recently redeveloped in connection with the construction on the citizenM. I was unaware it was still closed post renovations.

D in Downtown
1 month ago

This statement is actually misleading by the city and they are leaving out parts of the lawsuit including the city allowing the Citizen M development to be built also being a breach. The city ruined the opportunity for a beautiful public green space from one of the founding developers of Brickell. Major mistake by the City of Miami.

Adrian
1 month ago

It seems like a case for the Scooby Doo gang.

Adrian
1 month ago

After reading an article, it was entrusted to the city, but it came with strings attached. And if the city broke it by first swapping the park for another park then therein lied the problem.

Anonymous
1 month ago

I don’t read anything about an attempted park swap.

Cover the Podiums
1 month ago

who cares. Its grass patch literally surrounded by visible parking podiums and a metro mover line. Nothing beautiful about this park.

Anonymous
1 month ago

It’s one of the most beautiful remaining parks in Brickell with lush tropical trees.

Aurelius
1 month ago

Interesting so many people complain about a pocket of land with a few trees when we have Simpson Park which is HUGE and just south of Brickell and its an empty wasteland.

Anonymous
1 month ago

That is a preserve! Parks have food vendors and other public amenities. Like the one successors in interest to Allen Morris Company seem to be trying to pry back. Preserves are meant to be natural pockets of untouched natural landscape.

Anonymous
1 month ago

Brickell needs more pocket parks and paseos! We can’t let any go, we need to add more.

Anonymous
1 month ago

This is the argument from the developer lobby. Look over there, that park is a dog park. That park is a wasteland. Then when we get a nice park, the argument becomes “that’s not a park it’s a restaurant.” People want maintained parks with food vendors on site and other amenities. The city was fulfilling the owners wishes, and is being exploited once again. Shame!

Anonymous
1 month ago

Empty wasteland? It’s probably the only park around downtown that isn’t a wasteland.

Anonymouse
1 month ago

Yea, and it’s open for like 15 mins a day.

calivalle
1 month ago

What a shame, maybe Kenny buys it and donates it and call it Griffin park..

Anonymous
1 month ago

Hope Kenny reshapes the landscape – the best development isn’t just profitable, it’s also ethical and improves the City.