In a significant controversy affecting the character of the Palmetto Bay community, a proposal to develop a large-scale project near Old Cutler Road has ignited public outrage and raised concerns about transparency in local government.
The proposal, which aims to construct 450 residential units, a 120-room hotel, and 133,000 square feet of commercial space, along with buildings reaching heights of 10 stories, has been met with overwhelming opposition from residents.
This contentious plan was quietly placed on the village agenda last month following a deal made between the village administration and the developer of the Palmetto Bay Village Center, drawing criticism for its lack of public engagement prior to the meeting.
In the two weeks leading up to the initial council meeting, village officials promoted various events on social media while leaving critical information about the development proposal all but concealed.
The only notification given to residents was raw footage from a legally required workshop, which was buried in social media feeds.
Determined to shed light on the development and rally local support, one community member took to the streets, knocking on over 100 doors to inform residents about the impending decision that could forever change their neighborhood.
The turnout at the meeting that followed was substantial, with over 100 residents in attendance despite inclement weather.
A common concern voiced among the audience was the anticipated increase in traffic congestion, as Old Cutler Road is already known for severe gridlock during peak hours.
In a surprising move, as residents expressed their concerns, the village’s Mayor, Cunningham, threatened to have individuals removed from the meeting for applauding speakers in opposition to the proposal.
In response to the backlash, the council deferred the vote on the proposal but subsequently pressured the community member to hold private discussions with the developer—a request he declined.
Community opponents made it clear that the deal was neither inevitable nor legally mandated, suggesting it was a reaction to previous political missteps taken by village officials.
The council had previously rejected a less invasive proposal from the developer during an election year, which led to a lawsuit.
A judge’s ruling in favor of the developer forced the village to negotiate a larger and more complex proposal, a situation many residents believe was avoidable.
At a subsequent council meeting, the same resident presented the council with a viable alternative plan that would have complied with the court’s order without enabling the construction of a massive commercial complex and hotel, while also ensuring the protection of the local pine rockland habitat.
The village attorney confirmed the proposed alternative would have satisfied the legal requirements.
However, the administration claimed they had no choice but to accept the developer’s larger proposal, warning of potential financial risks if the deal was not passed.
Mayor Cunningham and Council members Fiore and Cody voted 3-2 to approve the controversial proposal, despite the many voices of opposition from the community.
Mayor Cunningham characterized the large development as a ‘better fit’ for the community, even as many residents disagreed vehemently.
This is not the end of the story, however.
With two of the council members who supported the deal unable to run for re-election in 2026, this may serve as a pivotal moment for community engagement and activism.
Residents are encouraged to voice their opinions and advocate for greater transparency and a government that prioritizes the needs of its constituents over out-of-town developers.
The ongoing dialogue about this proposal underscores the importance of residents having a say in their community’s future, emphasizing that public engagement is essential in local governance.
image source from：communitynewspapers
