Does this doom Al Capone’s mansion? New state law empowers owners to demolish old homes
For more than a year, preservationists had been making steady headway in an uphill, high-profile battle to save gangster Al Capone’s estate on Miami Beach’s Palm Island from possible demolition.
And then the state of Florida stepped in.
A new and little-noticed state law of mysterious origin, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and in effect as of July 1, just happens to prohibit local authorities from stopping the demolition of low-lying houses in designated flood zones — including Palm Island.
Citing the new rule, the city of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board abruptly canceled a long-awaited hearing set for July 12 that would have helped finally determine the fate of the 1922 Capone house, pulling the rug out from under the preservationists’ effort at a critical point.
Beach officials say the new rule, the latest in a series of preemption measures by the GOP-dominated state Legislature that remove specific powers from cities and counties, takes the Capone matter out of their hands. That’s because the house — like every other house in Miami Beach — sits in a flood zone.
The new state rule exempts houses already designated as historic by local authorities, the state or federal government, but bars cities and counties from designating any new flood-zone homes as protected landmarks without owner consent. It’s a sweeping change that could have extensive consequences for local officials trying to stave off demolition of architecturally and historically significant homes amid growing redevelopment pressure, given that the entire state coastline and many inland areas are designated flood zones.
Beach administrators say that left them little choice but to take the Capone hearing off the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the historic preservation board, which was set to consider whether the house should be designated a protected historic landmark.
The board had voted in January over the objections of city planners to pursue possible designation of the house, after months of pressure by preservationists worried that new owners who bought it for $15.5 million last year would seek to demolish the estate.
The owners have not applied for a demolition permit and a representative says they haven’t decided what to do with the valuable bayfront property. Although the property owner is listed in Miami-Dade County records as a corporation, a lobbyist registration form recently filed with the city disclosed that the Capone house’s next-door neighbors, Albert Claramonte, of the tile contractor company Southeast Surfaces, and his wife Karise Claramonte acquired the historic estate and placed it in a trust for their five children.
The trust representative, Coral Gables accountant Toni Alam, told the Miami Herald his clients have yet to decide whether preservation or demolition will bring the biggest return on the family’s investment.
“We won’t do anything that won’t give them the time to grow the investment,” Alam said. “Just because you can demolish, doesn’t mean we will demolish. It’s an investment.”
‘I hope they see the bigger picture’
Preservationists say that gives them a glimmer of hope the notorious gangster’s house, where he died in 1947, can still be saved.
“I hope they see the bigger picture,” said Daniel Ciraldo, executive director of the Miami Design Preservation League, referring to the Capone house owners. “To be a great city, you need to have those layers of history. We will have to go to these owners and educate them on the benefits of preserving this home.”
But the effect of the new law will extend far more broadly than the Capone house, which seems to have partly inspired the legislation, apparently approved with no debate or public discussion.
In a memorandum to Miami Beach commissioners, city manager Alina Hudak and city attorney Rafael Paz said the new state preemption rule covers every single-family home in the municipality because they are all located in designated flood zones. The new law applies specifically to houses that sit at or below what’s called base flood elevation — a measure of the expected level of water in a severe storm that varies from place to place by topography. Many, if not most older homes sit below that threshold, while new homes must by law be built above it.
The new demolition rule comes as Miami Beach, generally known as a bulwark of historic preservation, has been embroiled in controversy over officials’ unwillingness to protect its rich trove of historic and architecturally important single-family homes from demolition. Sizzling demand for new ultra-luxury estates has led to a rash of teardowns of numerous early and mid-20th-century homes that have historically characterized the city. Critics say the accelerating trend threatens to erase the city’s residential architectural heritage.
The state law also effectively kills Miami Beach’s ordinance that requires review of applications for new houses that would replace pre-1942 homes to ensure the new structures represent a high design quality and fit in with their surroundings, city officials say.
“It is going to have a detrimental effect on the quality of design, architecture and the built environment,” said Sarah Giller Nelson, vice chair of the Miami Beach Design Review Board.
Prominent developer sees demolition spree
One prominent, and at times controversial Beach developer known for replacing older homes with gargantuan mega-mansions, gloated that the new law means little will now stand in his way.
Todd Michael Glaser, who first bought the Capone house in September 2021 for $10.75 million for demolition before flipping it to the current owners amid a backlash from city residents, said he’s now looking to buy 30 to 40 houses in the next several months. He plans to demolish the existing structures and sell them as vacant lots for wealthy executives and investors like hedge-fund billionaire Ken Griffin who are relocating to the city, so they can build “their dream home,” he said.
“This is going to change the way Miami Beach is going to look,” Glaser said.
It’s unclear who pushed the state demolition rule, passed unanimously on March 4 by the state House and Senate as part of a broader, uncontroversial tweak of building-inspector qualifications and review deadlines for building departments. The demolition rule was not in the original bill filed in the House by Rep. Chip LaMarca, a Broward County Republican, but was added by the House Commerce Committee with no apparent public comment or discussion.
LaMarca did not respond to a phone message on Friday requesting an interview for this story.
The law may have been prompted at least in part by the preservation battles in Miami Beach and efforts by the Town of Palm Beach to combat its own rash of house teardowns by identifying and “landmarking” historically or architecturally important homes to prevent their demolition. Like Miami Beach, the island of Palm Beach is entirely covered by flood zones, officials said.
A legislative staff analysis of the demolition language in the bill cites the Herald’s news coverage of the Capone house kerfuffle and the broader Beach preservation battle, as well as Palm Beach’s preservation ordinance. It also cites the preservation ordinance of Coral Gables, another South Florida city known for its zeal in protecting significant homes.
Genesis of legislation unclear
The law and the legislative analysis don’t explicitly state its aims. But it appears intended to ease the way for owners of vulnerable single-family houses in flood zones to demolish them and replace them with new homes set at a higher elevations. The issue has become more prominent as climate change exacerbates flooding and the threats posed by storm surge across Florida.
One preservationist who analyzed the law, Miami attorney Lynn Lewis, said it appears to represent an “imperfect” effort to balance public interest in responding to sea-level rise in older or vulnerable neighborhoods, while keeping in place protections for homes already designated as historic, and allowing for the future designation of houses so long as owners agree.
“I see this law as dealing with competing public policy interests,” said Lewis, a former longtime member of Miami’s historic preservation board and legal counsel to Dade Heritage Trust, a prominent preservation organization. “One interest is in not burdening a property owner that is smart enough to be aware about sea-level rise and wants to be proactive — that we’re not going to make it difficult for you.
“The other policy interest is in historic preservation. This is thus a compromise, and like many compromises, it’s imperfect.”
But the new law also appears to represent a developer’s dream, entirely clearing away the ability of local officials to protect important homes in extensive swaths of the state that are designated as moderate to high-hazard flood zones by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In Miami-Dade, an online county map shows broad stretches of the county are FEMA flood zones, including all territory belonging to towns north of Miami Beach such as Surfside and Bal Harbour. Most of the county west of the Palmetto Expressway is also a designated flood zone, including much of Kendall. So are coastal and inland strips of the city of Miami, including neighborhoods bordering the Miami River, and Coral Gables and its canals, as well as houses and streets bordering its golf courses and its bayfront neighborhoods.
Climate change to expand scope of law
Preservationists caution that the effect will only become more extensive as climate change drives more flooding and FEMA continues to expand its maps, as it has for the past several years.
The precise scope of impact remains unclear, however. Some local preservation groups and municipal preservation offices had not heard about or seen the state demolition legislation until Herald reporters contacted them.
Warren Adams, Coral Gables’ preservation director, said he has not analyzed the new law, which he saw only after a reporter contacted the city. He noted the law’s immediate effect on the city could be minimal because most of the stock of older homes eligible for historic designation sit north of U.S. 1, while most of its coastal flood zones sit to the south of the road, where homes are newer.
The Gables city attorney will look at the law to see if its own preservation ordinance needs to be modified in response. The preservation office reviews every demolition application in the city to identify properties that qualify for consideration for designation as architectural or historic landmarks. Those that pass muster are referred to the city preservation board and commission, which approve most but not all nominations.
Last year, Adams said, the city designated about a dozen homes, and five this year.
The practical effect of the new rules may turn on the question of owner consent.
The law is triggered when the owner of a low-lying single-family home in designated flood zones applies for a permit to tear it down, meaning the city would be barred from designation of those properties if owners don’t consent. Coral Gables does not now require owner permission before designating a property as historic. Courts have repeatedly ruled that governments don’t need owner consent for designation of properties that meet certain architectural or historic criteria because it’s part of their zoning authority.
Coral Gables, bastion of preservation, could face challenges
Adams said his office will have to review homes on a “case-by-case” basis for compliance with the new state rule as they come up for potential designation as historic — something he noted will depend on where exactly a particular flood-zone house sits in relation to the base flood elevation.
But Lewis, the Dade Heritage Trust counsel, said the new rule could have a significant effect on Coral Gables.
“Preservation is in their DNA,” she said. “They will have to grapple with this.”
The Beach, by contrast, does not designate individual homes without owner consent, and so almost no legally protected houses exist outside the city’s historic districts. In Miami, while owner consent is not legally required by its preservation ordinance, in practice the city won’t designate homes without it — though it has often done so in the past. The city’s preservation director did not respond to a request for an interview for this story.
Without that power, preservationists say, few historic properties would be protected. They note that historic districts that dramatically helped turn around once-flagging and now famed areas like South Beach and Miami’s Upper East Side neighborhoods were approved over strenuous objections from property owners.
Another South Florida municipality, the Town of Palm Beach, may find its hands tied as it tries to defend its residential architectural heritage. The town prefers to get owners’ consent but often will designate homes without their agreement, its director of planning and zoning, Wayne Bergman, said in an email responding to questions.
Like Miami Beach, the entire island is a flood zone and under heavy redevelopment pressure, but Palm Beach has responded with a vigorous effort to identify and designate meritorious houses. In a six-month period ending in May, for instance, the town declared 16 properties, most of them homes, as protected historic landmarks.
Bergman said the town will continue trying to designate homes despite the state law, but concedes authorities would have to relent in cases when owners object and say they intend to pursue demolition.
This story was originally published July 10, 2022 at 7:00 AM.
