MIAMI — Miami Dade College’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved transferring prime downtown Miami property for the state to give to Donald Trump’s presidential library foundation for the second time Tuesday — two months after the trustees first voted to give up the land.

Tuesday’s do-over vote came amid a legal battle over whether the trustees violated Florida’s Sunshine Laws the first time they voted on the plan, in September. There was no public comment, debate or discussion ahead of that vote, as the college had not publicized what land was being transferred or for what purpose.

This time around, nearly 100 people attended the 8 a.m. meeting in Hialeah to address the trustees. Some were in staunch support, but others were vehemently opposed to what they are calling a land giveaway.

Historian and activist Marvin Dunn has become a prominent voice in opposing the project and is leading the lawsuit against the college. He questioned if the board was actually listening to residents’ concerns or were simply providing an opportunity for people to air grievances or support with the end goal of voting in favor of the land transfer.

“We don’t want this land to be given away. No president should get this land free,” Dunn pointedly told the board. “What is coming back to MDC and the students? If you thought this sham meeting would get rid of my lawsuit, you’re wrong. We’re just getting started.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, the trustees revealed few details of any discussions or negotiations the college had with state leaders or with Trump’s library foundation. There has been no public documentation of specific benefits or concessions for the college in return for its 2.6 acres of Biscayne Boulevard real estate.

“Speaking with Mr. Steve Witkoff,” the Trump advisor and United States Special Envoy to the Middle East, college trustee Marcell Felipe said, “He wasn’t entirely in favor of choosing Miami. They had dozens of options where other cities would not only donate the land, but would pay to build. So Miami, we’re getting a pretty good deal.”

The last time the college sought proposals to develop the same property in 2016, it was seeking a $20 million cash boost and a series of agreements to support students, including a college-run cultural center. That deal fell through and the college has been using the property as a parking lot.

Trustees insisted Tuesday that, despite the fact that there is no cash nor explicit agreements to benefit students in the terms offered to Trump’s library foundation, Trump’s billion-dollar high-rise legacy project will be a boon to the college. Tax filings show the foundation is planning to spend $3 million in 2025 on “architecture and engineering,” though no site plans or renderings were made public ahead of the trustees’ redo vote Tuesday. Five trustees attended the meeting in person and two by phone.

First opportunity for public input

Tuesday’s meeting drew support and ire from residents, elected officials and stakeholders alike, including Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections Alina Garcia, a Republican, who voiced her support for the land’s usage for a Trump presidential library.

“It would be a great tourist attraction,” she said. “Regardless of whether you are Republican, Democrat, whether you like the President or not, regardless of all of that, I think it would be a great honor for us to have a presidential library here.”

Others who work closer to the property questioned who would benefit from the influx of jobs the project might see, particularly without a community benefits agreement or public-private partnership to keep the college involved in the project.

Metris Batts-Coley, president of the Miami Women’s Club and executive director of the Overtown Business Association, questioned if there had been any studies or research to show the highest and best use of the land that would also yield benefits for residents.

“Just the mention of this library makes people nervous,” she said. “Yes, it will bring tourism, it will bring some jobs, but who is going to get those jobs?”

Laura Kelley, chairwoman of the Miami-Dade County Democratic Party, criticized the lack of transparency of the process to decide the fate of the parcel of land and cautioned the message it sends to vote in favor of the land deal.

“Diverting public institutional property for a politically affiliated, private foundation, especially one tied to a polarizing and increasingly unpopular figure, compromises MDC’s neutrality and distracts from its core purpose,” she said. “No compelling case has been made that giving up this land serves MDC’s long term needs or the public good.”

Legal battle to continue

Trustees said last week that Tuesday’s redo was scheduled to avoid an extended legal battle in the case brought by Dunn, which is set to go to trial in August, and “provide the community a second opportunity to address the District Board of Trustees.”

The college did not treat Tuesday’s special board meeting like it would a public hearing: some members of the public were originally told they needed to seek emailed permission beforehand to address the board at the meeting, and the meeting was not livestreamed like regular monthly board meetings.

At the start of Tuesday’s meeting, board Chairman Michael Bileca clarified that speakers would be allowed to sign up to speak in person, without requesting advance permission.

“People are still welcome to sign up and speak this morning, and we’ve received dozens and dozens of those requests,” Bileca said. “We look forward to hearing from each person who signed up to speak.”

Miami Dade Circuit Court Judge Mavel Ruiz previously blocked the college from transferring the deed for the land while Dunn’s lawsuit is ongoing. She indicated during court hearings that a new, publicly noticed vote — like the one Tuesday morning — would likely allow the college to circumvent that decision and move ahead with the transfer.

Dunn has said he plans to continue his legal fight over whether the college violated Sunshine laws in its initial vote. “We’ll conduct discovery depositions, document requests and the like and get the bottom of what happened here,” Dunn’s attorney Richard Brodsky told trustees during Tuesday’s meeting.

Jesus M. Suarez, a Continental PLLC attorney defending the college in that case, also addressed the board, calling the ongoing legal battle over public transparency the “same kind of lawfare that the 45th and 47th president of the United States has been fighting every single day.”

Trustees’ vote on Tuesday transfers its property – valued at $67 million by the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser but likely far more valuable, according to local developers – to Florida’s Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.

That state board, led by the governor, attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner, voted last month to give the land to Trump’s foundation at no cost — once the state receives the land from the college. The only restriction on the gift is that construction begins within five years.

©2025 Miami Herald. Visit at miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.