5 July 16-22, 2026 miaminewtimes.com | browardpalmbeach.com NEW TIMES | CONTENTS | LETTERS | NEWS | NIGHT+DAY | CULTURE | CAFE | MUSIC | Month XX–Month XX, 2008 miaminewtimes.com MIAMI NEW TIMES | CONTENTS | LETTERS | RIPTIDE | METRO | NIGHT+DAY | STAGE | ART | FILM | CAFE | MUSIC | DONE DEAL A failed $400 million Fisher Island venture sparked lawsuits, resignations, and an eminent domain battle. BY JOSEPH CONTRERAS O n paper, it appeared to be one of South Florida’s most lucrative real estate deals. In the fall of 2025, HRP Fisher Island LLC, a development joint venture led by the Chi- cago-area HRP Group, paid $180 million for a 9.6-acre waterfront property on the north shore of Fisher Island, the private residential enclave just south of Miami Beach. The prop- erty includes a nearly century-old fuel depot that supplies PortMiami’s cruise industry. Under the terms of the purchase, the part- nership planned to remove the fuel storage tanks and replace them with two 13-story condominium towers expected to cost about $2 billion. The redevelopment plan also would have eliminated a facility that many Fisher Island residents had long viewed as an eyesore. The purchase immediately raised con- cerns among Miami-Dade County officials because the fuel depot serves the cruise line industry, one of the region’s largest economic engines. Led by County Chief Operating Officer Jimmy Morales and PortMiami Director Hydi Webb, county officials spent roughly eight months negotiating with HRP after the property changed hands. By May 2026, the two sides had reportedly reached an agree- ment in principle: Miami-Dade County would pay HRP Fisher Island LLC $200 mil- lion upfront to acquire the property, preserv- ing the fuel depot. The county also agreed to pay another $200 million over the next 20 years, bringing the total value of the proposed agreement to up to $400 million. But it unraveled within days. Details first surfaced in a lawsuit filed May 28 by the Fisher Island Community Associa- tion and the Fisher Island Club, which main- tain much of the island’s infrastructure and amenities. During the following weekend, The Guardian, which described the ordeal as a “three-way tug-of-war,” and The Wall Street Journal reported on the proposed agreement. By the following Wednesday, Mo- rales and Webb had submitted their resigna- tions. On June 5, Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava announced that she was canceling the proposed agreement, citing its cost to taxpayers. In an interview with New Times three weeks later, Cava said she believed the devel- oper was attempting to use its ownership of critical infrastructure to secure an excessive payout from the county. “It was simply too high a price,” Cava said. “I will not allow developers to hold our infra- structure hostage that we know is critical to PortMiami, that is critical to our jobs, to our economy. That is why I took the action I did.” During the county commission’s June meeting, Cava explained her decision in greater detail. Commissioners voted 12-1 to support pursuing eminent domain to acquire the property, with compensation to be deter- mined through the legal process. State law requires the county and HRP to negotiate for 30 days before an eminent do- main case can proceed. If negotiations fail, a jury would determine the property’s fair mar- ket value. Those negotiations had not begun by press time. HRP executives sharply criticized the county’s decision. In a June 16 statement issued after commis- sioners backed Cava’s decision, HRP Group CEO Roberto E. Perez argued that Miami- Dade officials had missed earlier opportunities to purchase the property from its previous owner, Denver-based TransMontaigne Part- ners, before it was marketed to developers. “The former owner provided extensive notice to the County and Port that the prop- erty would ultimately be sold to a developer ...(and) the property was marketed to real es- tate developers in the public sale,” Perez said. Perez said HRP acquired the property “through a fully transparent, publicly adver- tised process” and that the company “made our intentions to build a world-class residential develop- ment clear from day one.” Perez said HRP would “aggressively fight this unconstitu- tional seizure of our property,” adding that the dispute would ulti- mately cost taxpayers. Perez declined an in- terview request from Miami New Times. The dispute has since expanded beyond the county and HRP. Board members of the Fisher Island Club and Fisher Island Community Association al- lege that HRP promised to transfer four acres of the property to island residents for their exclusive use after the partnership completed its purchase in September 2025. According to a lawsuit filed May 28, that transfer never occurred. The organizations instead allege that HRP negotiated the pro- posed agreement with Miami-Dade County without informing them. Lawyers representing both organizations also sought to block the county’s planned use of eminent domain. Cava told New Times that she was not in- volved in negotiations over the property until shortly before the proposed agreement be- came public. According to an HRP spokesperson who cited information from TransMontaigne Partners, preliminary discussions between county officials and the property’s previous owner began in June 2022. Formal negotia- tions continued after HRP purchased the property in late 2025, but she said she was not directly involved. “I was not included or involved in those discussions,” Cava said. “It wasn’t until the weekend (of May 30-31, 2026) in which I re- viewed the full mediated deal ... that I thor- oughly understood the full breadth and total final cost of the deal and questioned the valid- ity of the deal.” Cava said Deputy Mayor Roy Coley played a key role in reviewing the proposed agree- ment after she directed staff to reexamine it. During that review, Coley identified a 1978 county covenant covering part of the property that restricts its use to fuel-related operations. Coley told reporters the restriction was originally requested by the company operat- ing the fuel depot at the time. According to Coley, removing the covenant today would require approval from two-thirds of the county commission. An HRP spokesperson disputed Coley’s interpretation, telling New Times that the covenant applies to only about one-third of the property and “does not affect any portion of the property where our redevelopment will occur.” The spokesperson also rejected sugges- tions that the partnership purchased the property primarily to resell it. “The suggestion that our plan was any- thing other than real estate professionals pur- suing one of the most exciting development opportunities in the country is illogical and absurd,” the spokesperson said. People familiar with negotiations between HRP and Fisher Island organizations offered a different account. According to James Ferraro, chairman of the Fisher Island Community Association, two members of the partnership favored sell- ing the property to the county rather than de- veloping it. Ferraro identified those partners as Pat- rick Dovigi, the Canadian businessman and former professional hockey goaltender, and Russell Galbut, co-founder of urban develop- ment firm Crescent Heights. “From the get-go, Galbut and Dovigi were flippers; they were just out to make a buck,” Ferraro said. “Others warmed up to the idea when they saw the pot of gold that they were going to get.” Galbut declined to comment. Dovigi did not respond to multiple interview requests. An HRP spokesperson disputed Ferraro’s account, saying he had made “multiple wildly inaccurate statements that directly contradict his prior statements and the agreements he signed on behalf of FICA.” Former U.S. Rep. Joe Garcia was among the earliest public critics of the proposed agreement, holding a press conference on May 21 to oppose it. Garcia said the dispute illustrates the im- portance of balancing private development interests with public infrastructure needs. “There is a difference between piracy and capitalism,” Garcia said. “One is based on maximum gain for the least investment and removes all moral and ethical boundaries. The other is precisely based on rules and eth- ics that maximize gain for the private and community good. Fortunately, our political and community leaders may have learned the difference after this fiasco.” [email protected] An aerial view shows the marine fuel terminal on Fisher Island, the nearly century-old facility at the center of a high-stakes battle between Miami-Dade County, luxury developers, and island residents. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images | METRO | “THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PIRACY AND CAPITALISM.”
