Miami residents sue city over ‘misleading’ referendum on Joe Carollo-sponsored outdoor gym
A group of Miami residents has filed a lawsuit against the city seeking to remove a referendum about the installation of outdoor gym equipment in a downtown park from the August ballot and to bar officials from tabulating and releasing the results, calling the ballot question “unclear and misleading to voters” and alleging that it violates Florida law.
The lawsuit, filed Sunday night in Miami-Dade Circuit Court by a half-dozen Miami residents, seeks to nullify a referendum tied directly to Miami City Commissioner Joe Carollo, chairman of the Bayfront Park Management Trust, a semi-autonomous city agency that oversees the city’s downtown, bayfront parks.
Under Carollo’s chairmanship, the Trust moved to install outdoor gym equipment in Maurice A. Ferré Park, located between Kaseya Center and the the Pérez and Frost museums, in October.
In November, after a downtown condo association filed an appeal, the city’s Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board voted to reverse the city Planning Department’s approval of the gym after determining that it was not installed according to proper permitting and design procedure and should not have been approved.
Then in May, Carollo asked his colleagues on the City Commission to let voters decide if the gym equipment should stay. They voted 3-1 to put the question on the Aug. 20 ballot. (Carollo’s request came in the form of a “pocket item,” meaning it was not included on the publicly-available meeting agenda.)
Miami Referendum 3, titled “Keeping installed outdoor gym equipment at Maurice A. Ferré Park,” reads as follows:
- “Shall the city of Miami keep already installed outdoor gym equipment like in many of our parks at the city park located at 1075 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33132, also known as Maurice A. Ferré Park, to enhance recreational facilities and promote community health and fitness for all our residents?”
Based on the way the ballot question is worded, plaintiffs argue that “the City has put its thumb on the scale” by asking a “leading question” that suggests the city’s desired answer in the title and summary. They allege that it violates the Florida Election Code’s requirement that ballot language be “clear and unambiguous.”
READ MORE: Should Joe Carollo-sponsored gym equipment stay in Ferré Park? Miami voters will decide
Michael Feuling, a downtown resident who is among the six plaintiffs on the lawsuit, said the gym equipment was installed without community input and in defiance of the city’s master plan.
“We played by the rules,” Feuling said. “He didn’t. It was just another dirty trick by Joe Carollo, and it’s time the city says ‘enough.’”
With just a little over a week left until the election, and with early voting and vote-by-mail already underway, Carollo called the lawsuit “an act of desperation.”
“They don’t want Miami residents to decide this,” he said, “and they know that they’re going to lose.” Carollo added that the public was informed about the gym equipment before it was installed because the proposal was discussed at a “well-attended” public meeting more than a year beforehand. He said it was also discussed at Bayfront Park Management Trust meetings.
In addition to removing the referendum from the ballot, the plaintiffs are also asking for an injunction to bar officials from tabulating and releasing the results.
Feuling said the gym equipment saga is part of a “long list” of issues residents have had over Carollo’s chairmanship of the Bayfront Park Management Trust. Earlier this year, he presented a petition to the City Commission with over 1,000 signatures calling for Carollo’s removal from the Trust, accusing him of “abuse of power, mismanagement, and authoritarian behavior.” (Carollo has said many of the people who signed the petition live outside Miami.)
“This has been going on for years,” Feuling said. “It’s just not right.”
The plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that the ballot question language “fails to make clear that the [gym equipment] was installed prior to the issuance of a final, nonappealable warrant” and that it does not explain whether it’s a binding referendum or straw ballot. (While the ballot question itself doesn’t say so, Carollo told the Miami Herald that the question is a binding referendum, and that if it passes, future efforts to remove the gym equipment would need to go back to voters.)
The plaintiffs also argue that the question violates a Florida statute that prohibits referendums on development orders.
After the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board’s November ruling, the director of the Bayfront Park Management Trust filed an appeal. The City Commission in May voted down that appeal, effectively upholding the PZAB ruling and ordering the gym equipment removed. However, that vote by the City Commission came two weeks after it had already agreed to send the question to voters.
According to the lawsuit, the ballot question paints “a starkly different picture than what actually occurred.”
“Put another way, a voter reading Referendum 3 could not be faulted for incorrectly concluding that he or she is being asked whether to keep in place a legal status quo or to affirmatively demolish a lawfully permitted recreational facility,” the plaintiffs allege. “A reasonable voter would simply have no reason to conclude, based upon the referendum’s language, that his or her vote could effectively forgive the City for ignoring its laws and procedures with impunity.”
Carollo disagreed with the allegations, saying “the process has been followed” and that the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board’s ruling was made for “political reasons.”
Carollo said he intends to follow the will of the voters. If the referendum passes, he believes it should override the City Commission’s previous vote in May directing the equipment to be removed. But if the referendum fails, Carollo said, the gym equipment must go.
“This is a very clear, plain ballot question,” Carollo said. “There’s nothing misleading about it.”
The lawsuit also names the city clerk, as well as Superviser of Elections Christina White, as defendants.
Robert Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Elections Department, said the agency is aware of the lawsuit but has not been served yet.
“Once received, we will review the complaint with the County Attorneys Office and proceed accordingly,” Rodriguez said.
The city did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This story was originally published August 12, 2024 at 2:45 PM.
.jpg)