Vice Mayor Caryl Shuham is a construction lawyer who is skilled at analyzing complex contracts and documents. Listen to her analysis of the 1301 proposal on YouTube. Important points about 1301 in Caryl’s analysis:

• Caryl analyzed the city’s projected budget and deficits and her conclusion is that the commission does not need to vote for 1301 because of money concerns. We will be fine without this one condo tower. She says our city manager confirmed this.

• The ground lease and business agreement were full of problems, and every advantage that could’ve been given to the developer was given. The deal proposed on Feb 2nd put the City at great risk, lawsuits, and liability for 99 years.

• The City was responsible for all the unforeseen circumstances at the job site. There was not a fair risk allocation between the two parties, and there was no cap on the unforeseeable conditions, and doesn’t exclude conditions caused by the developer themselves.

• The developer was given a long time to delay finishing the project. They would have more than 90 months to finish the project with no penalties. So, if the condo market goes south, they wouldn't have to finish for more than 90 months, and apparently, they could leave the project in whatever condition its in at the time, and that could also be with no access to park or parking. There was also not a reasonable amount of liquidated damages.

• Trying to manage a legal relationship between the City and a condo association for 99 years would be a nightmare. It is not worth it. The condo association would be responsible for maintaining the building, but what if they don’t? Maintenance concerns can cause the city a lot of aggravation. State law allows condos to opt out of reserves. What if the condo association goes under?

• The developer is getting the great deal. They are projected to make $70-100 million dollars, and then they will walk away.

• The projected rent and other figures are not guaranteed, and many projections seemed incorrect. Projections are speculative, and sales projections do not seem reasonable. The numbers used are unreasonably high. Staff has relied heavily on CBRE info. There may be a conflict of interest as CBRE gets a million dollars in commission if this deal goes through.

• The developer is not paying for the new public facilities (community center, parking, restaurant, etc). That money would be deducted from the rent, etc.

• This project does nothing for economic development. It only brings in revenue. “Do we sell our soul for just money?” It won’t solve our future financial problems.

• During construction, the property/community center/parking might not be able to be used by the public for 4 years or more.

• Residents did not want this building to be rentals, yet rentals are allowed in this contract, especially if the units can’t be sold as condos. It can become a multi-family rental building, and we don’t even know how much we would get if it was a rental situation and not a condo.

• There were no rules on the restaurant/retail space. It could become any type of space, even a strip club.

• Control of/pricing in the garage is still unclear, and nobody has confirmed whether or not residents would be able to use their resident annual parking sticker in this garage. There’s nothing that prevents the residents and guests of the condo to monopolize the parking garage. There is also not any requirement for minimum uncovered street parking spaces, and residents want to keep their uncovered street parking.

• There’s nothing in the contract that insures that these will truly be luxury units.

• At the end of 99 years, we get the building back “as is.”

• Why is there so much use of the word sub-tenant in the contract? There’s no limitation on what or who a sub-tenant can be.

• Vacating Azalea Terrace is not ideal, and none of the other developers realized that they had the option to build on top of Azalea Terrace in their proposal.

• If residents want to file a lawsuit against the City if this deal goes through, they may win. There are very good legal arguments to oppose this P3 project. This includes the charter language, P3 statute (which was enacted in 2016), and the requirements set forth in the deed. In addition, even if the City could win, Caryl does not want that to be their legacy. The City may also not ever get approval from the National Park Service to make the changes to Harry Berry Park and its small parking area.

• The height and density is a problem and is out of scale and out of character for the beach. It would shade the beach in a spot that doesn’t currently have shadows. Allowing another skyscraper would signal to speculators that Hollywood is getting ready to fold. It would be a domino effect in the wrong direction. This is paving the way to become the next Sunny Isles Beach.

• Changes in design (material design changes) would be completely left up to whoever the city manager is. Commissioners would not be approving any design changes. That’s a lot of power to give to a city manager, especially since we can’t predict who will be city manager over the next 99 years.

• The huge majority of the public does not want it. Many community organizations and civic associations have come out against this project. No organizations have come out to support the project. It is a beloved property that will be negatively changed if we were to allow this 30 story private tower.

• We can improve the property and facilities without this condo project.

• It is the wrong project for this site. This is not smart, sustainable development.

• The risk is too great for the modest financial gains.

• Despite months of negotiations, this is not a good deal for the City. The developer is a single purpose entity, they have no assets, and they don’t own the property. Once it’s built and condos would be sold, Related would be gone, and we'd be left dealing with the 99 year agreement with a condo association. There’s nobody there later to look to if there are defects and lawsuits.

• The developer came to the City with this deal. They do not have to accept it.

Watch Vice Mayor Shuham's analysis on YouTube:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt6STOIl_4g&feature=youtu.be

5 members of Hollywood's City Commission voted to let Related Group try again.

Save the date for March 16th.
City Hall, 2nd floor.
Time TBD

Sun Sentinel Editorial: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-op-edit-hollywood-high-rise-beach-condo-20220203-an3wjb4b6bhbbcjipugz4d6rii-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3jfFWccSfBgxffvbvWjMG3qlAs9lTZy-yTH8skBpyVMCRSEOVFlKHAbvg

City Commission delays vote until March: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/hollywood/fl-ne-condo-tower-hollywood-beach-vote-20220203-iiikon4pkjb27a4u6swijk7fq4-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2z55kyqIYoKJtsytxpJBu5A4MxONH2fPV_FffMTArOIIV0X_Rb4ZKFJCc

The LWCF sign is now up in Harry Berry Park: https://www.facebook.com/101689205539310/photos/a.105152758526288/159310329777197/

This acre includes Harry Berry Park, the restrooms, the playground, and the small parking lot on the west side by A1A.

This is acknowledgment that this acre was acquired with federal funding and that the City & developer would need National Park Service approval to change any part of this acre. They haven’t even applied for permission yet.
Also, in order to access this park and it’s parking lot, you MUST be able to drive down Azalea Terrace. 

Sign the letter to the City Commission at: NoNewTower.com

Thank you to the more than 125 residents who showed up to speak about 1301 and waited hours to speak!