A group of West Kendall residents in a longtime fight against the redevelopment of the 
Calusa Golf Course won an important battle last week when the Miami-Dade Commission basically did nothing — and, effectively, killed a proposal to turn the 168 acres into more homes.
But Ladra has a feeling that the war is not over and the plan could come back from the dead.
And the whole ordeal has left us with little trust in a government land use and zoning mechanism called a covenant.
Developers want to turn the abandoned golf course in the Calusa community into 670 homes buffered by 100 feet of green space that also includes a bike and pedestrian path. They tried to buy the adjacent and opposing residents — and commission votes to transmit the request for a land use change to Tallahassee — with the promise of potential picnic pavillions, zen gardens, play lots and a dog park on the 3.5 mile perimeter loop.
But homeowners have consistently said they don’t want any of that. And they point to a 99-year covenant with 49 more years on it and say they bought their homes based on this promise that the county made that the golf course would remain a golf course unless 75 percent of the adjacent and affected homeowners agreed with a new plan.
That’s not close to happening and Commissioner Audrey Edmonson suggested it would not ever happen — but she 
doesn’t know that. Commissioner Sally Heyman said their attitude is “We want a golf course and nothing else.” But they haven’t said that. Both of them called the development urban infill. In West Kendall. Really.
The residents are opposed to wt developers are presenting now because they don’t like the density, which could add between 1,000 and 1,500 cars to their roads daily. Ladra is certain they like the dog park and the other shiny bells and whistles. Who wouldn’t? There could be room for negotiating if they go down in density. They say they’ve already come down from 1,100 units — 481 single-family houses and 619 town homes — which has to have been a bait and switch because nobody can legitimately conceive of that many units there. The comparible properties are between 2.5 and .64 dwellings per acre, so that would mean a maximum of 210 dwellings, though residents probably want to see it closer to around 54.
So, maybe something in the middle? How about 100? Developers still stand to make a ton of money.
And add a clubhouse with an indoor gym and basketball court. Or a public pool. Make it a deal the adjacent residents can’t refuse.
That’s what Commissioner Xavier Suarez, Ladra is certain, had in mind when he first sugges
ted delaying the vote on the application until May so that, perhaps, the developers and the residents could come to some kind of an agreement. But he got pushback on that from commissioners who preferred to transmit the application, which sends the proposed redevelopment to state agencies for whatever input they would have — which, in this case, seems minimal and inconsecuential.
Both Commissioners Bruno Barreiro and Jose “Pepe” Diaz kept insisting that they were only seeking more information, though Ladra is uncertain what kind of information any state agency could provide on the impact of the redevelopment of this golf course. At least, what kind of information that would be more important than the facts at hand. Namely, the covenant that homeowner after homeowner referred to as part of their property rights.
The whole time this golf course has been discussed, the conversation centers on the 99-year covenant? If you look up the word covenant in the dictionary, some of its synonyms, you will find, are contract, agreement, commitment, guarantee, pledge, promise, bond.
How can commissioners continue to talk about covenants on other projects when they come back and pretend that this one doesn’t exist? Commissioner Rebeca Sosa had some difficulty with an action that should have given each and every one of them great pause.
“Who’s going to trust us,” Sosa asked.
Exactly.
It forced Suarez to make a motion to deny the transmittal, which died in a tie vote and was not resurrected before the meeting ended, so it, in effect, goes back to square one.
Suarez said that out of 484 letters or emails he got about the controversial plan, 480 mention the covenant. So it’s ont like this obscure, real estate term that none of the homeowners really knew what it meant. Just getting 484 letters or emails against a project is enough of a message to tell commissioners what they should do, even without a covenant. Dozens of them have attended at least three public hearings to urge our county government to deny the request.
But it’s going to come back. Golf courses have become the next horizon for developers who snatch them up, have them rezoned and then build whatever they want on what was once a grassy view.
Nobody is saying that this has to remain a golf course, if that is truly no longer a feasable use. But if this comes back without the resident’s approval, how can we ever believe that a covenant on any development — including, for example, the American Dream megamall — will be worth anything at all if this one is broken?
We can’t. Any break of a covenant will further erode what little trust we have left in local government.
Calusa golf course controversy shows ‘covenants’ are crap added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
Honestly, I believe a covenant is just that a covenant. A promise or pledge to live up to the trust put in the County Commissioners. I’ve been a proud resident of Calusa since 1989, and it hasn’t changed, and we don’t want it to. property values have already quadrupled. we don’t need to roll the dice on this one. it would be a danger to our children and the peace inside the community. go away Mr. Bacardi !!!
Both sides can get what they want and every bodies property increases in value. There is no need to build a “regular” 18-hole golf course. They take up too much space and are not a financially smart investment in today’s economy. It costs a lot of money and daily care to maintain the playing quality of a golf course. Rather than build a ‘regular” par-72 18-hole golf course which takes up too much space and costs too much money to maintain and make money, but instead keep with the tiny / downsizing theme in today’s market by either building a 9-hole “regular” par-36 golf course or an 18-hole par 3 golf course where every hole is a par-3 under 200 yards.
Covenants aside, this quiet neighborhood has a two lane road that circles the golf course. On it are hundreds of homes that face the road. School children walk to the elementary school. There are blind curves everywhere. Building hundreds of dwellings makes sense because of capacity and infrastructure.
If some sort of compromise is in order, so be it but this needs to be settled once and for all.
Covenants are not worth the shit..smoke and mirrors commissioners hide behind when the want to push a project and something they ignore when it suits.
There is a covenant in Pinecrest that was established by the BCC when “down-blouse” Larry Hawkins was commissioner for the area. Larry, always one to spot an opportunity with a donor, made a deal with Kendall Toyota/Lexus to let them buy some adjoining homes and turn them into part of the business. Problem is that’s illegal without re-zoning so Larry came up with a covenant assuring neighbors the lots would never be developed, they would stay solely as a buffer with employee surface parking only and the dealer would never use the surrounding residential streets for test drives, delivers etc.
Fast forward to 2016 and the dealer is back claiming the original deal conflicts with state law since is has traditionally been used as part of the business and the village MUST change the zoning to business. Then once zoned business the village can not prohibit them from expanding the service garage on to the lots as that would deny them the full use of their newly minted commercial zoning.
At the 11 hour in the vote, a resident found the the old covenant. The village knew about it all along but kept it on the DL to help the dealer’s case.
Reading it now, it turns out it’s not worth the paper it is written on, None of the conditions were ever enforceable, noise, landscaping, deliveries in fact it turns out the no test driving on public roads isn’t even a legal a convent condition.. Larry cooked it up to bamboozle the residents.
The shame in all of this was it was the unchecked balance of power in these type deals that lead to Key Biscayne and Pinecrest to incorporating 20 years ago.. Turns out the new Village council is just as malleable for developers as the old BCC. Only difference is now the developer only has to buy 3 sleepy little village idiots instead of 7 who operate under a much brighter light.
The same thing happened several years ago when the owners of the Fountainbleau Golf Club decided to sell the land and close the course. Most homeowners, including some in my condo association, had bought homes near the course because they liked the view. Naturally they protested when Shoma Homes bought the land, but the county went along with the developers
Exactly!
A covenant should be respected. Honestly, after the way the Calusa community has been treated I have an enormous distrust in our commissioners who should have all denied the application from the beginning since there is a covenant.