Miami’s Waterfront Is Not for Sale.
Miami’s Waterfront Is Not for Sale.
The ballot question voters will see this November 2026 hides what’s really in the deal – and a Miami lawsuit says it’s illegal. Tell your Commissioners to fix it.
Big out-of-state money is coming for one of Miami’s last public waterfronts.
Virginia Key is one of the last stretches of open, public bayfront in the City of Miami. For generations, boaters, families, fishermen, and everyday residents have been able to use it – because the land belongs to the public, and the City of Miami holds it for us.
That’s about to change.
On November 3, 2026, City of Miami voters will be asked to approve a 75-year lease – of about 27.62 acres of that public waterfront to a private company called Virginia Key LLC. Behind that company: Suntex Marinas, a Dallas, Texas corporation that runs marinas in more than a dozen states, plus another out-of-state partner.
For up to three-quarters of a century, if this passes, decisions about our waterfront will not be made by our City. They’ll be made by out-of-state investors.
And here’s the part almost no one has been told: the ballot question voters will see does not accurately describe the actual lease the City signed. A lawsuit filed July 1, 2026 by Miami residents and businesses says the ballot language is so misleading it violates Florida law.
There is still time to fix it. But only if you act before July 23, 2026 — the last City Commission meeting before the ballot language locks in.
What the ballot will say (and what it doesn’t)
Here’s the ballot question voters will see in November, word for word:
Proposed Lease and Redevelopment of existing Rickenbacker and Marine Stadium Marinas on Virginia Key
“Shall City lease approximately 27.62 acres on Virginia Key to Virginia Key, LLC for:
- 45-year initial term with two 15-year renewals;
- Minimum annual guaranteed rent to City of $2,200,000 (with escalations) totaling approximately $203,980,000 over the initial term plus 6% of gross revenues;
- Approximately $80,000,000 privately funded investment to redevelop existing Rickenbacker and Marine Stadium marinas in an environmentally sensitive manner, including boat storage, restaurants, retail, and public parking?”
Sounds reasonable, right? Now here is what the lawsuit – filed by Rickenbacker Marina, Biscayne Marine Partners, and a City of Miami resident – says the actual lease shows:
1. The “$80 million” promise isn’t in the lease. The ballot tells voters they’re approving “approximately $80,000,000” of investment “to redevelop” the marinas. The lawsuit alleges that when you read the actual lease the City signed, that $80 million commitment isn’t there. No enforceable dollar figure. No required improvements schedule. The lease reportedly says construction plans haven’t even been provided, and that the conceptual plans can be revised later.
2. The “environmentally sensitive” promise isn’t in the lease. The ballot promises “environmentally sensitive” redevelopment. The lawsuit alleges the actual lease contains no environmental performance requirements matching that promise.
3. The “public parking” isn’t guaranteed. The ballot lists “public parking.” The lawsuit alleges parking can be modified in the tenant’s sole discretion.
4. The “renewals” are the tenant’s call, not the City’s. The ballot’s “two 15-year renewals” language sounds like the City retains the option to end the lease at 45 years. The lawsuit alleges the extensions are at the tenant’s sole discretion — meaning the City has no power to walk away at 45 years. This is a 75-year lock-up, not a 45-year deal.
5. The rent is anchored to a decade-old appraisal. The financial terms were negotiated based on appraisals from 2017. The lawsuit alleges the executed lease locks the City into rent below fair market value – and that even the incumbent operator’s current rent to the City exceeds the guaranteed rent in the new deal. Miami is being asked to sign a decade-old deal at yesterday’s prices for 75 years.
6. The identity of who runs the marinas may have already changed. The company that won the original bid promised specific investors and operators. The lawsuit alleges that between the 2023 court ruling and the June 11, 2026 Commission vote, corporate transfers and restructures swapped out critical investors and operators in ways the original bid prohibited – meaning the entity voters are approving may not be the entity that actually runs the marinas.
None of that appears in the 75-word ballot summary voters will actually read.
“But wasn’t this ordered by a court?”
The City Attorney told Commissioners they had no choice – that a 2023 court ruling forced them to put this on the ballot, and voting no would subject them to contempt of court and personal liability.
Here is the truth:
- A court ordered a referendum. It did not order the specific misleading wording of the referendum. No court has ever reviewed or approved the ballot language on this measure.
- A court ordered a lease. But it ordered the lease that came out of a fair, competitive procurement process. The lawsuit alleges that what the City actually signed is a renegotiated, materially different lease – restructured in 2019–2020, then further modified – that is not the deal the court blessed and is not the deal voters were supposed to get.
- Elected officials cannot be personally sued for voting decisions. The lawsuit alleges the contempt-and-liability warnings the City Attorney used to pressure the Commission were legally unsound.
On June 11, 2026, Commissioners themselves said on the record that they didn’t fully understand what they were voting on, that the deal was “10 years old,” and that absent the coercion warnings, they would have voted the deal down that same day. One Commissioner said outright: “vote this thing down today and say, new contract for everybody.”
That is not democratic decision-making. That is a Commission being told they have no choice, on a lease they hadn’t been briefed on, sending a misleading question to voters.
What the law requires
Florida law (§101.161) requires that ballot summaries be “clear and unambiguous,” state the true chief purpose of the measure, and not mislead voters – including by leaving out material facts. The Florida Supreme Court has said a ballot summary cannot “fly under false colors” or “hide the ball.”
Florida’s Supreme Court has struck down ballot summaries that hide the ball from voters – misleading them by what the summary says or by what it leaves out (Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000); Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1982)). The lawsuit filed July 1 asks the court to apply that same rule here.
But we should not have to wait for a judge. The City Commission can fix the ballot language itself — right now — before the July 24 deadline to submit it to the Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections.
What we’re asking Commissioners to do
Before July 23, 2026 (the last Commission meeting before the ballot lock), Commissioners should amend the ballot language so it:
- Discloses the true maximum term – up to 75 years, with renewals at the tenant’s sole discretion.
- Removes the “$80,000,000” and “environmentally sensitive” language since those obligations are not in the lease.
- Tells voters the financial terms are based on a 2017 appraisal that cannot be renegotiated.
- Identifies who actually controls the tenant entity today – including any out-of-state partners.
That is an accurate ballot question, which every Miami voter – for it or against – deserves.
Your Call to Action: Email Your City of Miami Commissioners Today
We built a one-click email that goes to all five City Commissioners, the Mayor, and the City Manager at once. All you have to do is click, add your name, and send.
👉 CLICK HERE TO EMAIL YOUR COMMISSIONERS
If the link doesn’t open your email, here are the addresses to copy and paste:
To:
- District1office@miamigov.com (Commissioner Gabela, District 1)
- DPardo@miamigov.com (Commissioner Pardo, District 2)
- rescalona@miamigov.com (Commissioner Escalona, District 3)
- d4@miamigov.com (Commissioner Rosado, District 4)
- district5@miamigov.com (Commissioner King, District 5)
- mayor@miamigov.com (Mayor Higgins)
- Jreyes@miamigov.com (City Manager Reyes)
CC:
- clerks@miamigov.com (City Clerk — for the public record)
- law@miamigov.com (City Attorney Wysong)
Subject: Fix the misleading Virginia Key marina ballot language before July 23 2026
Other ways to help right now
- Show up July 23. The last Commission meeting before the ballot locks. Public comment matters — Commissioners respond to a full room.
- Share this. Forward to this webpage to every City of Miami neighbor, HOA, boater, marine business, and small business you know. This vote is City-of-Miami-only.
- Sign up at saveourmarina.org to stay informed as the case moves through court and the campaign moves toward November 3.
- Talk to your neighbors. A ballot question dies from misinformation. It survives from accurate information, told one neighbor at a time.
The bottom line
A Dallas corporation and its partners want to lock up 27.62 acres of Miami’s public waterfront for the next 75 years, on terms written a decade ago, using ballot language that hides what’s actually in the lease.
A lawsuit says the ballot language is illegal.
Commissioners themselves said, on the record, they don’t support this deal.
We have until July 23 to make them fix the ballot before it goes to voters.
Do the one thing that takes 30 seconds. Send the email.
