By Coral Gables Gazette staff

After close to a year of increasingly hostile rhetoric, in which the Coral Gables Commission directed the city attorney to move forward with litigation against the Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center Association, the commission reversed course, at least temporarily, during its June 2 meeting.

A pause with conditions

In a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Ariel Fernandez dissenting, commissioners approved a resolution sponsored by Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson that pauses litigation efforts against the nonprofit association while discussions continue. But the measure came with a significant condition: the city will not pursue major capital improvements to the Youth Center until the association agrees to modify the controversial reverter clause that has become the focal point of the dispute.

The reverter clause at the center of the fight

The clause, created in the 1950s to protect the War Memorial Youth Center property from being converted to another use, gives the association the right to reclaim the property if the city violates the terms of the original deed. It survived legal challenges decades ago, including a case in which the association successfully blocked a previous city commission’s effort to build a school on the site.

Anderson argued the clause no longer adequately protects residents. “The reverter clause has been a point of contention because of its lack of clarity,” Anderson said. She described it as a “one-way street” and argued that if the property ever reverted to the association, “there is no requirement for that organization to continue to run a facility as it is intended to be run for the benefit of the youth.”

Later in the discussion, Anderson doubled down on her concerns. “It does not protect the youth center. It absolutely does not protect the youth center,” she said. “There are no protections for the residents in that reverter clause. None whatsoever.”

Critics of the city’s position note that the clause was specifically drafted to ensure the property remains a youth center and that it was a previous commission — not the association — that attempted to change the property’s use when it sought to build a school there in the 1960s.

The resolution pauses litigation and effectively links future large-scale renovations to resolving the reverter clause dispute. Anderson said the goal is to “bring closure to this issue” and create clearer language governing the property.

Skepticism over negotiations

Mayor Vince Lago supported pausing the lawsuit but expressed skepticism that negotiations would produce a breakthrough.

“I’m in favor of getting together around the table,” Lago said. “I just don’t want to once again be waiting at the altar for a fourth time for them just to even show up.”

Lago pushed for a three-month timeline before revisiting the matter, but Anderson rejected that suggestion, proposing instead that the issue return after the November election, potentially six months away.

Commissioner Richard Lara supported the resolution and withdrew a separate item he had planned to introduce that would also have halted litigation and encouraged further discussions.

Fernandez and Castro object to the city’s approach

Not all commissioners were convinced.

Commissioner Ariel Fernandez criticized the resolution, arguing that conditioning future renovations on eliminating the reverter clause amounted to coercion.

During the discussion, he characterized the proposal as “extortion” and described it as a continuation of the commission majority’s campaign against the association. The remark prompted a sharp rebuke from Lago, who called the accusation “shameful” and that “it (was) the most obscene thing” he’s seen a commissioner do.

Commissioner Melissa Castro also opposed the city’s continued efforts to remove the reverter clause. “The reverter is there to ensure that the residents of Coral Gables always have a youth center to rely on,” Castro said. “That property will never change its use.” She questioned why the city continues spending taxpayer funds to challenge a provision she believes exists to protect residents and preserve the facility’s mission.

The association has consistently maintained that the city is attempting to weaken protections deliberately put in place to preserve the youth center. In a May 18 letter to city officials, attorney and association board member Jane Muir accused the city of pursuing a campaign aimed at eliminating the reverter clause and warned commissioners of potential legal exposure if litigation moved forward.

Association welcomes pause, defends reverter clause

In a statement to the Gazette after the meeting, Muir acknowledged the commission’s decision to halt legal action was a positive step after months of escalating tensions, although she tempered her optimism. “The association welcomes the commission’s decision to pause litigation,” she said. “We appreciate Commissioner Lara’s acknowledgment that our organization has the best interests of the War Memorial Youth Center at heart, and Commissioner Fernandez’s recognition that the city’s intended legal action could be considered extortion.”

Muir said the association remains committed to its longstanding role as steward of the center, noting that it continues to fund scholarships for children attending summer camp at the facility, a program she said has existed for more than 25 years. She also agreed with Fernandez’s characterization of the city’s approach as extortion, arguing that the association has never received a satisfactory legal explanation for why the city must eliminate the reverter clause. Muir said the association views the deed restriction as a critical protection that ensures the property remains dedicated to serving the city’s youth.

Responding directly to Anderson’s argument that the reverter clause could place the center at risk of future misuse, Muir said the provision was created specifically to guard against that possibility. “The reverter clause was placed in the 1958 deed precisely to protect the center from future political pressure,” she said. “It ensures that if the city ever stops using this property for the benefit of Coral Gables youth, the property returns to the association, whose entire mission is to maintain that use. That is not danger. That is protection.”

Muir also pointed to the commission’s decision earlier in the same meeting to remove a restrictive covenant from another city-owned parcel to clear the way for a controversial dog park, arguing that such actions demonstrate how easily deed restrictions can be altered by future commissions. The reverter clause, she said, provides a stronger safeguard because it cannot be removed by a simple majority vote.

While firmly opposing any effort to eliminate the reverter, Muir left open the possibility of other solutions. “If the city wishes to create some resolution or covenant that further clarifies the intended use of the War Memorial Youth Center property without disturbing the existing reverter, then theoretically they have the option to do that,” she said. “What our association will not do is give away our legally enforceable property right that has existed for nearly 70 years in exchange for an instrument that can be rescinded at any time by a Commission majority.”

Correction: Initially the Gazette incorrectly reported the vote.