Welcome to the Grapevine

The only place for Coconut Grove, FL News, Views & Opinions - Sunlight is the best disinfectant

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

"Soccer slip" may be home to thriving coral reef

Love how The Miami New Times comes up with these things. It seems that the boat slip in downtown Miami, where David Beckham wants his soccer stadium has now been found to have a thriving artificial coral reef, according to biologist Colin Foord. 

"The developers are saying that filling this slip is like going from a Chevy to a Cadillac," Colin tells Riptide. "Well, wait a minute. There is a reef here!"

According to Colin, there are  lobsters, green moray eels, and phosphorescent brain coral under water in the slip.

The main thing now even before any stadium votes, which may or may not occur now is that they are putting a charter amendment on the August 26 ballot that would allow the City of Miami to sell or lease submerged lands to buyers who own or have a lease on the contiguous upland without a referendum. So if this passes in August, no vote would be needed in November.

Hopefully this new news about the coral reef would make this a non-issue now.

Story here in Miami New Times.

And as for the comments going back and forth on the previous stories here and here, I don't think anyone is against a soccer stadium being built, especially on Beckham's dime, I think the problem is that we have less and less waterfront left and residents would like it kept as open as possible. You go to any major city and the waterfront is open, Miami, which is one of the most beautiful and recognized waterfront cities in the world, walls up the waterfront. From Brooklyn, NY to Venice California, the waterfront is open to the public on most coastlines, even Ocean Drive, here in Miami Beach, is open for all, while the hotels and buildings are on the other side of the street area.

As for comments about Miami Marine Stadium being torn down since it sits on waterfront, I think we need to agree that it's there now and has been for 50 years and maybe if it was to be built today we would be against it, but I don't think it should be torn down.

And for those comparing the soccer stadium proposal to the Coconut Grove Expo Center; you're trying to make us sound schizophrenic. We aren't. Yes, we wanted the Expo Center to remain, even though it blocked the water. It was a thriving movie/tv studio. It made no sense to destroy it. Maybe we would not want it built today if it was a project proposed today. And of course maybe in 50 years we will be glad the soccer stadium was built on the waterfront, but I doubt it. Times have changed people are more conscious of their environment these days. And they are tired of land grabs by billionaire sports team owners, too.

For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You now want to save the coral reef? Sarnoff has repeatedly said from day one and most people never listened: "This is a land of opportunity not a land of guarantees." Are these not the words of a kleptomaniac?

May 28, 2014 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Land grab. So true. A bunch of foreign speculators fronted by spokesmodel David Beckham want free waterfront land. Lightweights Tomas Regalado, Carlos Gimenez and slimy Marc Sarnoff get stars in their eyes and forget they work for the citizens of Miami. Demand that commissioners vote no.

May 28, 2014 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To call the CG Exhibition Center a "thriving" movie studio is disingenious. Burn Notice paid about $200K/yr for first 5 years, and $450K in its last year ... for a total of less than $1.5M; not enough to buy sod or lay it. This is not anyone's definition of "thriving." Sorry Charlie, but you do sound schizophrenic. Now the City is planning another white elephant ... er ... exhibition center downtown. Seems JL Knight is now too small. Maybe they could make movies there?

May 28, 2014 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

even if people or this blog supported 100 bad ideas, or 100 other buildings blocking views of the waterfront, that is not a good argument that this soccer stadium, one that likely no one will ever go to, should be built.

Let's talk about this particular deal and its merits.
A) do we need another stadium?
B) will it actually be good for the city economically (long-views please)?
C) Would another location make the franchise less viable?
D) would a partnership with another entity in need of stadium be better (or with a current stadium)?
D-1) Marlins park?
D-2) FIU
D-3) partnership with the U?

May 28, 2014 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are reefs & then there are biotic reefs. For example, humanity uses cow/horse manure for fertilizers, but not human waste. About 40 years Applied Marine Technology hired me to survey this underwater slip, plus I have dove for lobster just about everywhere around & about Government Cut, Venetian Causeway, Star Island, Bear Cut. Frankly l would never eat another seafood produce again from these areas, nor pass them to friends or sell them to restaurant's for human consumption. Lobster, Moray Eels and this so called brain coral are the direct result of bottom feeders, who in modern life "OBSORB" the very worse pollutant's that humanity can impose upon it's environments & upon the surrounding inhabitants, who like me and my customers caught and ate this crud. If this is someone's delay tactic the soccer stadium shall never be constructed because it would never hold up as an argument. Jobie Steppe

May 28, 2014 6:46 PM  
Blogger Tony Scornavacca Jr. said...

Primarily, the open water view at that location is a public benefit, and it should not be altered. Besides that, ticket sales for soccer games are not likely to be enough to support any stadium built in S. Florida.

May 29, 2014 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D) would a partnership with another entity in need of stadium be better (or with a current stadium)?
D-1) Marlins park?
D-2) FIU
D-3) partnership with the U?

Don't forget Tropical Park.

Also, I'm sure one of the concerns at Marlins Park are the surroundings - which we all know are not the prettiest. But if they already are budgeting $250 mil, and already have agreed to pay for the bay infill - why not build at Marlins and put the $20 mill or so on beautification/improvements?


May 29, 2014 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great cities are doing everything they can to preserve and beautify their waterfronts. Great cities respect open space. Miami's elected officials swoon over celebrities. The Miami Herald's columnist Fabiola Santiago wrote a great column May 28. Read it. We need elected officials who study all sides of issues and most importantly, we need elected officials who respect future generations.

May 29, 2014 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jobie - No one is talking about using the boat slip as a food source, but instead, the need to preserve the balance. The fact that you suggest these 'bottom feeders' "obsorb" [sic] the crap we put into the water, would demonstrate value to any smart, reasonable, or well-informed person. Now put your tinfoil hat down and stop typing.

the point is this is their first choice, but this is our worst option. Every other possibility I've heard mentioned would be better for Miami. How about a mixed use stadium at tropical park - let Miami use it for football - everyone chips in, brilliant.

May 29, 2014 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we dont want stadiums in south miami and they will never happen here.first its not close to the metro rail.ive always said the best place would be the old hialeah race track.there is so much unused space there and its next to the metro rail and tri rail.why has nobody ever thought of this space.its central to everything.and legal gambling also.

May 29, 2014 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Miami Herald is reporting Carlos Gimenez is doing creative accounting at Miami-Dade County. Arsht Center losing $30 mil to $35 mil per year? AA Arena/Heat costing taxpayers $7 Mil per year? $3 Billion Marlins deal taking a toll?

May 30, 2014 12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 4:07, where do you dim wits get your comment info from? No one said anything at all about using this area as a food source, nor is anyone wearing a tinfoil hat! What is it, you see a name & have a brain orgasm & get off making comment(s) predicated upon what? Read again, if the argument turns out to be this area holds a reef with lobster, ells and coral, so what. These creatures are all bottom feeders that are consuming pollutants who become polluted. Plus there is no reef, just junk from human activity - - - - but please continue your pointless comments, they're entertaining~! Jobie

May 30, 2014 8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps soccer fanatics could advocate for a 100' tall concrete structure on Peacock Park, or maybe on Alice Wainwright Park?

May 30, 2014 1:43 PM  
Blogger Michelle Niemeyer said...

Bottom feeders filter pollution from the water. No, we don't want to eat them, but we don't want to get rid of them either.

That's not the point. Why should we allow any of our limited public waterfront property, which provides open space and views as well as access to the water for activities that can only be done on the water, to be taken away so a stadium can be built. In a stadium, people go inside and look to the inside. It can be anywhere. The only benefit is that the pictures look pretty on a TV screen.

May 30, 2014 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michelle Niemeyer "Bottom feeders filter pollution from the water".

Where did you get that from? I wrote that anything in that enclosure that eats, eats in part pollution; I did not say bottom feeders filter pollution. There is no view from Bay front ships and Government cut and there is no possibility to create anything involving human activity in this area that is safe! Hello, it's all polluted and not fit for human activity. I.E., on or in the water. HELLO. If this area is filled humans would all be better off. But not with the same type fill that went into our parks in Coconut Grove. Jobie Steppwe

May 30, 2014 8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jobie Steppwe,
The people who live in 880 Biscayne and 900 and 1000 Biscayne pay RE taxes on their condos. 1,300 people live across from Bicentennial Park and the slip. You live in the Grove. They look at the park every day. They disagree with you. They love the slip. They do not want it filled.

May 30, 2014 10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 10:32 "They love the slip". Where or when did Jobie indicated he thought/wanted this slip filled in? He didn't. Jobie indicated he had conducted an underwater survey of this slip for Applied Marine Technology and reported it was full of debris & polluted sediment. And your response was "They love the slip". No one loves a body of water full of pollution and garbage, except bottom feeders. Where do you people come from?

May 31, 2014 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 8:54 AM
You seemed to have missed the recent story in Miami New Times? Researchers swam in the slip recently and found plant life and much more activity than you allege. See the article and photos. Today online you can found photos of dolphins in the slip taken by a resident of 1100 Biscayne. The humans who live near the slip DO NOT want it filled in.

May 31, 2014 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's life forms on comets, Mars, several moons, hot springs, 30,000 feet under water and many other harsh environments, including this slip. I didn't say there's no activity. I read the story and these researchers had to cover/protect their bodies especially their ears, which they washed out with alcohol, and another solution for their eyes. Most of the fish found in and around this area have lesions, the entire area is contaminated with mercury & other harmful chemicals. People who think it's cool & nifty to see a dolphin swimming in filth & somehow are gratified probably smoke, drink cokes and fall asleep after consuming alcohol and drugs all day long! Jobie Steppe

June 01, 2014 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grass, trees and landscaping will provide a cleaner environment for residents than a 2 block long mass of concrete and steel. Natural filtering sure beats concrete 90' high.

June 01, 2014 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 12.:03, you are so right, however the cost of transporting the fill, along with grass, trees & palms could easily top $25-M or so. And look at our local parks which were all filled with toxins & ash & the related clean up cost. Plus it appears that very few people, families and their children & pets seldom use this beautiful park - - - - so why do anything? Better yet leave it alone and dock something that the public might consider using. The water and muck is contaminated, but some kind of marine facility just might draw a crowd and not harm the public.

June 01, 2014 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm totally against this whole soccer stadium in that boat slip. It is the most ridiculous idea ever! This David B guy just wants our waterfront. I do have to say I'm glad the CG Expo is gone and I'm looking forward to a beautiful park being built. I hope it will generate business for the Central Grove. I'm not crazy about the traffic it will bring though. I'm also not crazy about the shops/rest. planned. The design is awful. Just my humble opinion. On another note...How come we can't get new bathrooms at Kennedy?

June 04, 2014 10:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home