This is how our public assets are negotiated: The case of (affordable housing).

This is how our public assets are negotiated: The case of (affordable housing). The county has handed over our land — in the name of a “public-private partnership”

While thousands of residents in Miami-Dade live on the brink of eviction, the county has handed over our land—in the name of a “public-private partnership”—a parcel valued at more than $33.6 million to build a luxury tower in Brickell. The result? Of the 465 apartments built, only 93 are allegedly affordable for low-income people. The rest are available for prices ranging from $2,656 to $4,603 per month, far beyond the reach of the average resident.

The land: a public jewel handed over

The 29-story Magnus Brickell tower, located at 201 SW 10th Street, was built on a 58,366-square-foot (1.34-acre) lot owned by the county. This land belonged to the Miami-Dade Housing Agency (MDHA) and was previously occupied by a senior housing complex.

According to Property Appraiser records, the land has an assessed value of $33,606,895 and has been exempt from taxes due to its public ownership. That is, in addition to the land, the county has not collected a single dollar in taxes from this property in recent years.

What did we get in return?

Of the total 465 residential units:

• 93 units are reserved for people earning less than 50% of the area median income. Will the same seniors who lived in the demolished 96 apartments now enjoy the sauna and podcast room?
• 70 units for those earning up to 140% of the average.
• 302 market-rate units, with rents between $2,656 and $4,603 per month.

The breakdown makes it clear that only 20% of the total is allegedly affordable, despite the use of a multimillion-dollar public lot.

Market comparison: a bad deal?

In the same Brickell area:

• A one-bedroom, 800-square-foot apartment has sold this year for between $410,000 and $880,000 (according to Property Appraiser records).
• Each unit could be worth between $450,000 and $950,000.

How many public housing units could have been built with such land?
With land of that value and available federal funds like ARPA, it would have been possible to build more than 200 fully affordable housing units—without subsidizing market-rate units.

The “Hidden Business” Behind Projects Like Magnus Brickell Is Not Only What Is Announced, But What Is Left Unsaid

Here we break down the most obvious (and some not so obvious) elements that reveal how a private real estate operation is disguised as a social initiative:

Disguising a Privileged Acquisition as “Affordable Housing”

• The project is presented as a “solution to the housing crisis,” but in the agreement with the county only 20% of the units are allegedly affordable.
• The developer receives a centrally located, tax-exempt public lot without competing on the open market.

Obtaining County and Federal Funding Without Proportional Social Return

• The county contributes the land and possibly infrastructure, exemptions, and public guarantees.
• In exchange, the developer primarily builds market-rate units that rent for over $3,500 a month.

Locking in Future Phases and Long-Term Contracts

• The developer strengthens ties with the county, opening doors for future contracts, concessions, or expansions (such as a school or parking).
• By building on county land, the operator can negotiate favorable terms for managing parking, schools, community centers, or public spaces.

Avoiding Open Bidding

• As a “public-private partnership,” there is no open competition or land auction.
• This favors a select group of developers — in this case, the powerful Related Group.

Consolidating Political Influence and Indirect Returns

• Developers make legal political donations, reinforcing their position with officials who approved the project.
• By delivering a small portion as “affordable housing,” the politician gains media points, though the true beneficiaries are few… and the business, multimillion-dollar.

Silent Expulsion of Former Residents

• The 96 senior apartments were demolished.
• No information has been shared on how many original residents returned or were relocated.
• Gentrification disguised as social justice.

Artificially Inflating Area Value Using Public Funds

• The state invests in transportation, schools, and urban spaces.
• This raises market value… but the benefits are reaped by private investors, not historical residents.

Dodging Real Oversight of ARPA and HUD Fund Use

• No clear financial statements are published.
• No one answers how many dollars from those programs truly benefit low-income people.

More Than Housing: Luxury and Marketing

Among the project’s “amenities”:

• Resort-style pool
• Cinema and podcast room
• Luxury gym
• Summer kitchen
• Wellness studio with massages

All partially financed by the free transfer of public land. Meanwhile, thousands in Liberty City, Allapattah, and Brownsville live in uncertified buildings, with septic tanks, and no access to dignified housing.

And the Public School?

• The project includes a K–8 school on the same site, also under construction. Though it sounds good on paper, it’s still unclear how much the county has invested or whether this school will truly be accessible or just a “luxury annex” for new residents.

The Hidden Price: Subsidies, Taxes, and Privileges

• Not only was the land given away. The county also:
  • Granted tax exemptions.
  • Took on infrastructure costs.
  • Actively participated in the development through the Housing and Community Development Office.

The People Provide the Land. The Developer Takes the Business.

The Magnus Brickell case mirrors what happens daily in Miami-Dade. Policies claiming to help the needy often end up benefiting developers at the public’s expense.

• Where are the residents of the old senior building?
• How many returned?
• How many were promised a return… but no longer fit in the new Brickell?

Public and PPP Housing Analysis in Miami-Dade

100% Public Projects (PHCD + HUD)

Mixed Projects (Public + Private)

Affordable Housing Projects (2023–2025)

You can view the full table here, which includes over a dozen current projects combining public and private investment. Key examples:

• Delmas North (NE Miami): 100% affordable, $16.5M in funding.
• Laguna Gardens (Miami Gardens): ~30% affordable, garden-style design.
• Earlington Heights Towers: 856 units with ~12% affordable.

Many of these projects only reserve between 10% and 25% of their units as affordable.

And all of this without requiring at least half of the units to be affordable.

Challenges and Risks

• Limited Accessibility: Much “workforce housing,” but little for those earning under $60,000/year.
• Gentrification and Displacement: Public land used to displace original residents.
• Lack of Transparency: No public records showing how much money is spent or who benefits.
• Luxury Amenities: Publicly funded while Liberty City and Brownsville remain with septic tanks.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

The Magnus Brickell case reflects an alarming trend: using public funds and land to enrich private developers. While claiming to “combat the housing crisis,” the real winners are the usual suspects.

Miami-Dade deserves transparent contracts, public figures, and truly affordable housing.
This is not about gifting land — it’s about ensuring every dollar invested in the name of the community returns as housing justice.

Questions for Those Responsible

• How many former Brickell residents were relocated?
• What did each “affordable” unit actually cost?
• Who signed these contracts and under what criteria?

The people provide the land.
The people deserve the truth.
The people deserve to come back.