Worldcenter Sent Back For Another Commission Vote After Lawsuit Filed

Miami Worldcenter is going back before the the City of Miami Commission next week.

Commissioners will vote once again on the same development agreement that they approved back in September, at the request of Miami Worldcenter Holdings and mall developer The Forbes Company.

A lawsuit filed on December 22 by attorney Paul Savage on behalf of Grand Central Lounge alleges that proper procedures weren’t followed in the September vote. Savage and Grand Central claim that the public didn’t have a chance to review changes to the agreement prior to approval. They also argue that the variances granted under the agreement are not legal under city code.

Grand Central is operating on property owned by Miami Worldcenter. The nightclub signed a long term lease with a company owned in part by Brad Knoefler, who then sold the property to Worldcenter in 2012.

By voting again, the developers hope to shield themselves from the lawsuit filed by Savage, who has also managed to delay a Walmart in Midtown.

The first reading of the development agreement is scheduled for February 12, with a second reading to follow on February 26.

 

15 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
XVS
6 years ago

The City of Miami is paying with kid gloves while being attacked with a sledgehammer. The city can always nail any night club on any number of violations, on any given day or night if it really wants to. The fact that some night club feels perfectly entitled to harass the whole neighborhood with legal blackmail – whereas anyone else would be quickly run over with the eminent domain clause – is puzzling.

John
6 years ago

What are the plans for the Grand Central location?

Anonymous
6 years ago

Lawyers and lawsuits …. Who needs them!!!!

Obviously
6 years ago

So what this guy Savage wants is for the city commissioners to act like his own personal “Mafia style gangsters” that will do his enforcing in order to strongarm a business (that owns the very spot he’s sitting on/in) from developing their property because it doesn’t please him.

gregory
6 years ago

So Grand Central wants the entire area around them to stay underutilized.

Insider
6 years ago

Grand Central demanded $5 mill in cash to go away. It’s just an extortion attempt they don’t care at all about the neighborhood

Martim
6 years ago

Surprise!

anonymous
6 years ago

They have a lease, no? Do they not have the right to be bought out of their lease?

Chris
6 years ago

I hope that Grand Central gets demolished. Imagine how weird it would be if you have such world class development next to such an eyesore.

Leon
6 years ago

Its a pretty great music venue with a good amount of history.
Just saying.

Andrew
6 years ago

They have been open since 2011. That’s history?

leon
6 years ago

The building was in use prior to that..

The Building has History.

WhyNotNow
6 years ago

This is all about egos. World center should just give them the 5 million since they are stealing 90 million in tax revenues from the city. My bet is, Nitwani, et al realize this place will not get built in this cycle as there are already cracks in the “overheated” condo market we are in. The whole place will become another squatters den soon and remain that way until the next cycle, which will have to wait until about 5 years after Brickell City Centre has their CO. Most likely The principals are hoping to flip this project to some foreign investors, cash out, sit back and wait for the next crash to start buying again. Unfortunately EB5 money is limited and there are already a lot of entities vying for this years pot of visas, so they may not be able to cash out as big as they hoped. Bring out the cheerleaders, tell me I’m wrong. Trust me, I’ve been in this town since the 50s and experience will best your silly optimism any day..

marc
6 years ago

As long as you’re around if it does get built this cycle.

Obviously
6 years ago

Well this “cheerleader” wouldn’t dare refute a person who uses such astute phrases like “My bet is” and “Most likely” and “so they may not be able to” in such sound theoretical jargon like what you’re professing.