Greg Lightfoot, Judge Worley and the Miami Waterfront Fight in early 1900s

Worley and FEC Waterfront Access The pen and the sword, despite popular belief, often work together. In early Miami’s case it was a draftsman’s pencil and a wire cutter. The impact of actions and words are sometimes difficult to judge. Unintended consequences, often presenting themselves far afield from some minor deed, lend to the original purpose a weight unimaginable at the start. Such was the case on a hot, humid summer day in July 1896. In the offices of A.L. Knowlton, Julia Tuttle, Henry Flagler, William and Mary Brickell and Joseph Day agreed to a map drawn by J.S. Frederick (See Map 1). The map divided the new city of Miami in a logical framework of avenues and streets as well as deeding certain plots of land to the various parties. The fluid movements and exacting specification required of Frederick gave way to a moment of forgetting. He hastily crammed the word “park” onto the plot of land between third and seventh streets. Fredrick later claimed he had no idea why he wrote those words and those who paid for the map as well as most Miamians, the city and the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) had no desire to see the land used as a park. This one stoke of the pen might not have had any effect had the hands of George Worley not put wire cutter to fence. This act of civil disobedience by the Miami lawyer and later judge was the perfect complement to the penmanship of Fredrick. Although both might not have realized it, their words and actions would eventually be the catalyst for the redrawing and redefining of Miami’s Waterfront. The long struggle, one which is stilling being waged, for balance along the waterfront between commercial and public interests has at its heart simple actions. Unfortunately, the struggle to wrest control of the waterfront from the FEC was a battle which took many political and legal turns that eventually involved the city, state, Supreme Court, FEC and people of Miami. Important in this struggle was the distinction made between the contemporary concept of public access and its use in turn of the century Miami. The people Of Miami, with few exceptions, were interested in commercial development, under public control, along the waterfront. There was little interest, as the many public statements of politicians and people make clear, in seeing the bay front land used for the rolling greens and tranquil vistas of public parks. The action of George Worley was the catalyst for greater public participation in the waterfront process, however it was primarily a process of commercial control being pasted from the FEC to the people not protection of park land on the bay. However principled our contemporary debate over public land is, the debate in the 1910’s was not so. The principle was commerce. The outcome of this process was only clear after a twenty-year battle for deep-water access by the people of Miami. This study seeks in no way to be comprehensive, to detail each action of every participant, but rather to view the process as a whole, an attempt to navigate the growth of a town and the maturation of public sentiment. This sentiment would later be far kinder to Henry Flagler after the animosity of the period found its was into distant memory. By all accounts, and early photographs of Miami’s bayfront bare this out, the development on the shoreline was a hodgepodge of stone and wooden docks, a few buildings (shacks) and lots of mangroves. The population, still small in the late 1890’s, felt itself blessed to have a railroad that allowed them connection with the outside world. In fact, this railroad, brought to Miami by Henry Flagler, was the baptismal water which guided the frontier outpost to incorporation. As the population grew, interest in securing a harbor and a deep-water channel subsequently grew. The people of the city sought another way to move themselves and their cargo. The issue of deep water had been a vexing problem for Miami since the early 1830’s. The U.S. War Department operated Fort Dallas, which stood on the banks of the Miami River. The main problem for Captain Dawson, the Fort’s Commander, was that “horses, heavy guns and supplies [could] not be landed expeditiously.” J. T. McLaughlin, who was sent in 1842 to survey the problem and possible solutions, concurred with the Captain, “Ft. Dallas, which has been under the occupancy of the land forces…cannot be approached within 8 miles by the vessels of this squadron…our operation had to be carried out in canoes.” Key West was the port of choice for many concerns both commercial and military. Its larger population and deep-water harbor as well as its larger military base relegated Miami to a distant second in the mind of businessmen and generals alike. This situation forced the residents of Miami to bring dry goods from the Key West to the city via water until the Key West extension of the FEC was completed. Henry Flagler realized the importance of deep water for Miami. He was concerned with the movement of goods and people into and out of the city as well. In 1893 he spent $20,000 for the dredging of a 12-foot deep channel that would allow regular steamship service to Miami and more importantly allow these ships to dock on the mainland. Not coincidentally, Flagler had purchased two passenger ships, City of Miami and City of Key West, which began service to Nassau and Havana in 1896. Flagler’s goal was to bring passenger to Miami on his railroad, deliver them to his Hotel, the Royal Palm and onto his steamships for vacationing in the Caribbean. However, Flagler had built the deeper water channel further up the shoreline to prevent cargo from being unloaded on the grounds of the Royal Palm. The FEC, in 1897, constructed a terminal station and dock in the vicinity of fifth street on the bay with the eventual hope of securing funds to compete a deep water channel to move larger commercial vessels to the terminal dock. The city, lacking the funds to complete any deep-water project for itself, was an enthusiastic partner. It gave the FEC the right to intersect any land necessary to construct a spur from the main line to the terminal dock (See Map 2). What was good for Flagler was accepted by Miamians as good for the city. However, as the city’s population grew the desire for autonomy grew as well. One man marked the growing dissatisfaction with the railroad and the Flagler interests. Now the problems began. In December 1902, George Worley had been out of town. He arrived back in Miami at about 2:00 am on December 11. He decided to enjoy the cool night air and ocean breeze with a smoke on his dock he had built into the bay. He began his walk across quiet Biscayne Drive to the bay when he noticed that his usual pathway had been fenced off. The barbed wire fenced clearly conveyed its point to the now enraged Worley. The FEC had decided to fence off ‘its’ property between fourteenth and third streets (practically the entire length of the city’s waterfront). The wide-awake Worley stormed to Budge Hardware and woke Oscar Tucker who sold Worley a wire cutter. On the way back to the property Worley stopped by his home and secured the assistance of his double-barreled shotgun. Night patrols, apparently awoken by the loud shouting and cursing of Worley, demurred to him when he returned to the fence armed. The judge took tool to fence and cut nearly from tenth to twelfth streets, walked to his dock and enjoyed his tobacco. He returned to his home, “happy in what he had done.” His handiwork did not last long. Later that morning “Uncle Bob Nelson took a crew of Italians to the bay front to repair the fence, the sound arriving at sunrise. But the judge was on the job and the Italians quickly decamped when he flourished his rifle at them.” Three days after the incident Worley again left town and the railroad took proper advantage of his absence. Worley again cut the repaired fence on December 17 and this time threw the fence posts and barbed wire into the bay. The FEC appealed to the courts and an injunction was issued against Worley on January 20, 1903. Worley ignored the law, which was powerless to stop the crusader, when he again cut the rebuilt fence on January 21. Like the climax of a well-written movie script, the judge was arrested on January 22, 1903 and charged with contempt of court. Worley passionately pleaded his case in front of Circuit Court Judge Minor S. Jones claiming that the land in question according to the original 1896 map was public park land and therefore he could not be prevented from using it. Eventually, Judge Jones agreed with Worley. The land was in fact a public park. He discharged the contempt charge after a six-day trial and ordered the FEC to pay all court costs associated with the trial. However, questions remained. The judge kept the injunction in place because he was unsure how to sort out the competing riparian claims of Worley and the FEC. The FEC appealed the ruling to the Florida State Supreme Court on August 12, 1904. The railroad believed that the land in question was theirs. The company was not concerned about the kids who swam off the private docks that various citizens, including Worley, had built. The concern also was not Worley or his antics. The railroad was primarily concerned with the bay front land itself. They believed that their ownership of the land was being violated by the increasingly boisterous claims of Worley and other property owners who claimed the original plat had deeded the land in question as a public park. Conversely, Worley claimed the company was stealing the freedom of the public and the bay front landowners to the land. Other landowners had agreed with Worley and helped with his legal fees during his circuit court trial. The Supreme Court trial focused on the 1896 map. Worley, went beyond his initial argument, and dragged the issue of riparian rights into the trial. He claimed that the water fronting the city was public property. Therefore by preventing him from using his dock, by fencing off the land he needed to cross to get to it, the FEC was also preventing the free use of the public’s water. This argument of public riparian rights was based on his reading of the 1896 map which he claimed, and the circuit court agreed with, was deeded as a public park. Regardless of the ignorance or lack of capital improvement made by the city in regards to the land, it was still legally public land which reserved all riparian rights therein. The FEC took an opposite view asserting during the circuit court trial and repeating during the Supreme Court trial that the land in question had never been intended for public use. Rather the original signers had designated it a private park for their own private use and economic gain. It was up to these people what use the land would have and since they had not indicated their opposition to the FEC’s presence in the ‘park’ the railroad had a vested and inviolate claim on the land. Furthermore, since the FEC clearly had waterfront deed to the land between the Royal Palm Hotel (the north bank of the Miami River) and eighth street, the riparian rights to the entire waterfront belonged to the company, which alone could decide who had a right to use it. The punchline to the trial was that the city of Miami had previously disavowed all claims to the land in a referendumThat if the word “Park” on Knowlton’s plat of Miami…indicates an intention on the part of the original proprietors to dedicate to the city as a park the land and water front east of Biscayne Drive…the City Council of Miami does not consider that it would be beneficial to the city to devote the said waterfront to public use as a park but regards its use by private owners for commercial purposes and the maritime interests of the port essential to the growth and progress of the city. Despite the resolution, the state Supreme Court held that Worley was right, but only partly. They agreed that the park was, in fact, public land.The strip prior to December 1902 (except the portion actually occupied by the FEC for its terminal) was vacant public property, but used by the public generally for business, commerce and pleasure in the same manner as other vacant property of similar character…Therefore we hold that the strip was and is dedicated as a public park, but that the balance of the strip, together with all riparian rights…are reserved from dedication and constitute private property. Additionally, since the city was not party to the original map, it had no jurisdiction over the land in terms of renouncing deed to it. “It is true that the city council has adopted a resolution purporting to decline the acceptance of the dedication of the park, but we do not see that the city is an indispensable party to a proceeding between other persons.” The Court, who many had hoped would be the final arbiter in the matter, left one important question open - riparian rights. The Court decided not to specifically deal with the question claiming that the trespass of Worley had occurred on land and there for was the only issue which the court had reason to survey.To guard against misconstruction of the real intention sought to be conveyed by writing the word ‘park’ upon the lots, it was entirely proper to specifically reserve or except the riparian rights from dedication. Consequently it is proper to hold that all riparian rights incident to the parcel marked ‘park’ are reserved…The bill does not allege any trespass upon such riparian rights by the defendant, but the alleged trespass is confined to the park and other parts of the strip…and we intimate no opinion with respect thereto. The riparian rights matter was the sticking point. The FEC had already constructed a turning basin for smaller ships adjacent to the terminal dock. This would be the logical place for either the company or the city to construct a port seeing as both the basin and rail spur already existed. The matter was now who would own the land, the terminal dock and the basin. The Supreme Court had decided the public owned the park but did not indicate the ownership of the terminal dock. With that ownership still uncertain the riparian rights held in the balance. Connecting that basin to the deep-water channel had long been a contentious issue and further hampered progress. The hopes many had for decisive Supreme Court action were dashed – for the next 15 years. The issue of deep-water was the bigger context in which the Worley case is a small yet significant part. On Friday June 13th 1902 (!) President Roosevelt signed the River and Harbor bill which ensured federal government support for municipalities that sought the creation of public port and dock facilities. Miami would benefit from this largesse when the government and FEC agreed to spend the required money to build the requisite channels and docks. The bill created by Congress spelled out the required duties of each party Improving Biscayne Bay, Florida, with a view of obtaining a channel 18 feet deep 1600 feet long and 500 feet wide from the wharves of Miami to the sea by way of the two lines north of Norris cut…and a basin of same depth…a contract may be entered into by the Secretary of War for such materials as may be necessary…provided the Florida East Coast Railway shall construct at its own expense the basin and adjacent wharves at Miami…and said basin and channel when so constructed by the railway company shall be open to the free and unobstructed use of the public…Provided further that before nay part of the appropriation shall be expended the railway shall complete its part of the work… The government clearly agreed to the necessity to a deep-water connection for the city. However, it refused to burden the $250,000 to deepen Government Cut until the FEC constructed a turning basin, a channel connecting the basin to Government Cut and most importantly wharves and dock land along the bay. The government was forced to wait until the FEC started the work not only for economic reasons but also because of the structure of the bay itself. To evacuate the basin and dig the channel through the peninsula and to build the breakwater it is necessary to float the plant needed to the scene of operation. Under present conditions the water on the east is too shallow to permit the plant from reaching the site. The FEC had full intention of completing their duties. The company president J. R. Parrott “mapped out the work…and no time will be lost in pushing the work sufficiently advanced for the Government to begin…it is safe to say that twelve months of operations will show remarkable progress.” The Metropolis, largely a mouthpiece for the FEC, saw the work being completed by 1905. The terminal building in the park was just the beginning of a larger dock facility the railroad had planned. In 1900 Flagler had merged with Henry Bradley Plant’s shipping company and formed the Peninsular and Occidental. Plant had constructed a small port between six and ninth streets which Flagler wanted to expand. The company saw the improvement of the waterfront as a boom to its own bottom line. They would own the docks, the land it was on and the riparian rights for the entire waterfront. Congress required these areas be open to the public but the company could require adequate payment from the city and private companies seeking to use the port facilities. The company’s enthusiasm, based largely on the prospect of controlling all rail and water outlets in Miami, quickly evaporated in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the Worley case. The Worley decision had made it clear that the money spent by the company would not be to connect its own terminal dock to the deep water but rather to connect city owned property (per the S.C. decision) to Government Cut. This would significant hurt the economic standing of the company especially if they had to both lease dock space for their own passenger ships and allow their railroad to be circumvented as the main source of cargo movement in and out of the city. This economic reality had been made painfully obviously prior to the 1902 fencing in of the bay park property. Merchants like C. D. Leffler, who owned a large general store on 12th street, were importing goods from Key West and having them delivered to their private docks in the bay. As FEC cargo inspectors stood idling in the noonday sun, Leffler and other merchants took advantage of cheaper water freight rates and paid no duty to the railroad. Far from the principled battle that Helen Muir described in Miami: USA, in which Worley, Leffler and other landowners fought “for the children who lived near the bay [to enjoy] regular swimming hours off Worley’s dock,” the issue was clearly economic. The increasingly hostile tone the city and the people took during the Worley trial and afterward convinced the FEC to refuse to uphold its end of the deep-water deal. The relationship between the FEC and the city commission had been relatively amiable up until 1912. In January there emerged substantial confusion over the offering of riparian rights to the city of Miami for the downtown waterfront. On December 20, 1911 St. Augustine was offered by the FEC “in the consideration of the sum of $5 quit claim deed to their strip of land lying between Lantana Avenue and Lake Worth…to the city of West Palm Beach.” This was not an outrageous offer, especially considering the land was not presently of much use to the railroad. The perplexing issue was how the letter ended. “This is the same proposition that we have offered to the city of Miami, and it is but proper that we should do the same for a sister city.” The Metropolis searched high and low throughout the town for someone who had heard of such an offer. F. B. Shutts, attorney for the FEC and first editor of the Miami Herald, clearly asserted the company’s position, “All riparian rights [along the Miami bay front] belong to the Florida East Coast Railroad and we are not giving them away.” Fred Morse, another representative of the company responded similarly, “I have very little use for newspapers they report things inaccurately…Mr. Ingrahan (a FEC official) told me that they were offering West Palm some very liberal propositions…the people of Miami would not take a similar deal. They don’t want propositions, they want to bring suits.” Although the matter was never cleared up and the proposition was never made to Miami, the animosity between the city and the FEC was palpable. The city decided to take drastic action.Stymied by the railroad and the non-fulfillment of its obligations concerning the deep water improvements, the city decided to pursue condemnation proceedings against the FEC for the bay front property. The company, in the person of president Parrott, offered the city 200 feet of waterfront at the foot of 12th street. Some were of the opinion that the offer was generous. Walter Windin, among a group of individuals, who sought the reversal of the condemnation order, asserted “We don’t want the whole waterfront cluttered up with unsightly warehouses but the 200 feet on twelfth street would be plenty. We could build a pier clear out to the channel. This would be much cheaper than condemnation and take far less time.” C. D. Leffler disagreed, “We tried by every means possible but we could get absolutely no concessions from the railroad prior to the vote to condemn the bay front property.” He went on to recount the complex turns in the bay front case and ended with a call to arms “What the [Miami city] council ought to do would be to go down there and take possession of the water front in the name of the city, tell the railroad company to get out…The vote to condemn cannot be rescinded. It has been so voted and this vote will stand. We should fight even if it takes a thousand years.” The city did in fact pursue the condemnation proceedings. This exchange was indicative of a move toward civic action that the population strongly went along with but which mainly served the economic interests of men like Leffler who stood to benefit greatly from a public waterfront. Theodore Hofstatter, later that year, bemoaned the continuing condemnation proceedings at a July Board of Trade meeting. He blamed the lack of a harbor and the failure of the FEC to conduct the necessary work on the people. “There is no fear of Henry Flagler not doing his work if we do what is right but do you think that Mr. Flagler is going to put in another dollar as long as the people wrangle? If the condemnation hearing would have never started we would have a harbor today.” Hofstatter might have been right. Clearly, with no financial interest in the continuance of harbor improvements, Flagler lost interest in completing the work in Miami. However, he was unwilling to give the land and the riparian rights up to the city.This put the city in a difficult position. The US government had made it quite clear to the city that no further work would take place in regards to the harbor and deep water unless the city was able to secure riparian rights to the whole waterfront. As long as the FEC laid claim to the land between twelfth and sixth streets, the rights to the water were also theirs. The Supreme Court had done little to clear up the problem and the city was forced to proceed with condemnation to secure the property. Later in July 1912, cooler heads try to prevail and the FEC was asked for a price tag for the bay front property. The language and tone of the petition set to the FEC marked a substantive departure to the vitriol dished out by Worley and Leffler. Standing on the threshold of a promising future the city of Miami feels the imperative need of harbor facilities for the realization of her legitimate hopes to become a populous and prosperous city and port of commerce. Your company has always expressed its sympathy with these aspirations and its desire to co-operate in securing deep water as evidenced by spending large sums on harbor improvement which will remain of little value to us if government appropriations can not be secured to complete the work…it thus rests in your hands…we do not ask you to make this as a gift…we pledge that any offer you make will be respectfully received and carefully considered…this will not only settle existing disputes but insure for the future better mutual understanding and a heartier co-operation between the company and our community… This petition was then circulated and signed by over one thousand Miamians. The mayor was also called upon to set up a three-member commission to study a variety of proposals concerning the waterfront. The FEC responded to the petition by offering two proposals. The city could either get 500 feet of waterfront land north of the park terminal or it could buy the entire portion between second and twelfth streets. Both proposals required the city to take the burden of responsibility for the improvements the government required of the company. Both proposals also required the landowners adjacent to the bay park to release any claims to the riparian rights in front of the terminal. Although the issue seemed decided, the bay parkland once again asserted itself as significant. The company stubbornly refused to give up the property in the park upon which the terminal stood and thereby continued to claim the riparian rights adjacent to it. The production of these two offers forced the Mayor to name the investigating committee to look into the feasibility of accepting the second option (which was more agreeable to the city leaders) or continuing with condemnation proceedings. Worley, indicating something of a reversal on the bay park matter, rose at the commission meeting to speak in favor of the second offer from the railroad. “If the city of Miami owns 4000 feet of waterfront property then we could say to the whole world that we have the accommodations for the shipping of the world. The deep water proposition is the most important outside of heaven…I rejoice that the city of Miami is trying to do just what I tried to do for the city when I cut that barbed wire fence fifteen years ago.” Worley’s change of heart concerning the terminal is indicative of his economic concerns for the city at large. The city clearly moved in the direction of negotiation when the condemnation proceedings were dropped. The Riparian Rights Committee (set up by the Mayor) believed that securing a deal would be easier with the condemnation proceedings off the table. Then victory seemed to come from the heavens.Never before had the city commission operated in front of such a large crowd - every seat in the chamber was full. Councilman Joseph McDonald rose from his seat and read the offer from J. N. Lummus. He offered the people of Miami 325 feet of bay front land including riparian rights to secure the harbor so desperately sought after. Hundreds cheered as McDonald concluded, “I believe we should accept this offer.” The impasse was apparently settled. The city bought the land for only $7500 but was given an even larger gift in October 1914. W. A. Blount, hired by the city to study the riparian issue, issued a decision that opened the door for even further claims by the city. Blount asserted that the title to the riparian rights rested neither with the FEC nor the city but rather the state of Florida which could deed the rights to whomever it choose. He further claimed (agreeing with the Supreme Court) that the city in its 1897 resolution had no legal right to grant the railroad use of the parkland between third and seventh streets. The state could force the railroad, through injunction, to vacate the park and its terminal there. Blount’s investigation was an exhausting and difficult title and deed search going all the way back to the 1700’s. The city attorney A. J. Rose concurred with the decision and encouraged the city commission to call on the state legislature to pass legislation giving the riparian rights to the city. The city council agreed and in April 1915 asked the legislature to give the city the rights. The city was also following the legal avenues open to it and pressed its claims in circuit court. That court in October 1916 said that the bay park property was to be given to the city except for the portion upon which the FEC had erected the terminal. The company also retained two roads and a 107-foot easement along its tracks that ran to the terminal. The people of Miami wondered exactly what they had won in the ruling. Although the park was legally given to the city, it was land that many believed already belonged to the city since the original 1896 plat. Miamians called on the city to appeal to the State Supreme Court, which they eventually did. They felt that the Worley case had clearly given all the property to the people yet now the FEC retained some of the property. The terminal facility was of lesser importance than the water in front of its dock. This was where the FEC had constructed the turning basin and was the optimal site for the harbor and port facilities. The city, bowing to public pressure and against the advice of their attorneys in the case, appealed to the Supreme Court. The public tasted blood in the water after the city had removed the fence on the bay park property in December 1916. They wanted the appropriation of land, including the terminal dock, to continue and they believed the Supreme Court would oblige. Rose summed up the determination of the city’s people and commission, “Until the last court has the last word.” The FEC, feeling the heat, then offered to deed land worth $500,000 to retain ownership of the terminal dock and the bay park basin (again speaking to its importance for all parties). The city, given the importance the terminal dock and bay park held, surprisingly accepted this offer but it was promptly vetoed by the governor who feared the compromise gave too much to the city. He wrote in his veto, “Riparian rights should be regulated by general state law and not local statute.” The governor and some in the legislature encouraged the city not to enter any agreements that gave away riparian or land rights to the FEC, fearing that local negotiation would reduce the strength of the state in determining riparian rights disputes elsewhere. Finally, faced with a united front of city, state and federal lawsuits and determination, the FEC gave up and offered a deal. They agreed to sell the entire waterfront property as well as the riparian rights to that land for $1,000,000. The people, after legislative and gubernatorial approval, had won. Luckily, the success came two and a half years before the Miami land boom started. Who knows what could have happened? By 1920 what was good for the city and what was good for the railroad had become two very different entities. During the battle with the FEC both J. R. Parrott and Henry Flagler had died. With the victory of the city, the tarnished image of the great Flagler was polished to its once lustrous shine. The city and its people quietly agreed to ignore the lengthy battle with the giant and preferred to remember him as the benevolent father who had shepherded the city through the roughest days. Our contemporary view of Flagler and the FEC is one very much influenced by this revisionist look – animosity has given way to admiration. Today our view is closer to the one held by the Metropolis in 1900, which wrote of Flagler in response to criticism from a St. Augustine resident, “Mr. Flagler’s money is today building churches, school houses, roads and many other improvements for the benefit of the people of the east coast…his is distributing his great wealth amongst the suffering humanity…realizing that the almighty had placed it in his hands for a noble purpose.” The lack of knowledge of the Worley case and the common belief that the battle for the waterfront is a modern development overlooks a significant portion of Miami’s early history. The contemporary battle for the waterfront is primarily one focused on public vs. private interests. However, the concept of public access to the waterfront has changed over the last century. There was little discussion of using the bay parkland as a park. Rather the citizens’ concern was free access to the waterfront and its riparian rights for commercial uses. Leffler, Worley and other landowners and businessmen wanted the cheapest method of moving goods into the city as well as a means to establish the city as the hub of a growing vacation destination. The people of Miami, along with city commission members, balked at the idea of spending money to acquire Royal Palm Park because they felt the money would be better spent on the harbor improvements. The language used by those who advocated public use of the waterfront centered strictly on the economic benefit the city would derive from a ‘free’ waterfront. No commercial city can afford to maintain a pleasure park along the waterfront to the exclusion of better and cheaper transportation facilities. It is clearly in the interest of Miami to have deeper water, larger docks and cheaper freights and the only way to get these things is to fill in or build out from the present shallow water’s edge. Every reasonable man will admit that the ‘scrub’ along the bay front has never been and could never be to any advantage to the public. But that on the other hand the spending of $400,000 for building steamship docks will be of large benefit of all the people. The tone had not changed much by 1919, in the final years of the battle when the city began to debate what might eventually be done with the bay front property. Your tourist comes here with a yacht and he can’t tie up anywhere without paying for the privilege. He gets out and the park is owned by the railroad company…we should condemn the park for municipal purposes and could then build on the property a civic center – court house, municipal buildings, library, etc. and docks and piers for pleasure crafts. Although this statement is from an article entitled “Condemn Land on Water Front and Create Big Park” there is not mention of parks anywhere in it. The view of the park is that it only serves a purpose if the land is build upon and commercially viable. Certainly, this is not to say that no citizen had a concern for public parkland on the waterfront. Men like Commodore Ralph Munroe and J. L. Lummus were deeply concerned about the growth of commerce along the waterfront. Munroe feared commercial vessels would interfere with enjoyment of sailing on the bay. J. N. Lummus required a portion of the land he sold to the city to be used as part land. However, these were certainly minority opinions. Rather, the overwhelming concern was economic expansion. The youth of the city seems to have had a large effect on this perspective. Unlike other older waterfront cities, like Chicago and New York, which had determined by the turn of the century that public parks were one of the keys to a great city, Miami was just beginning the journey toward economic development. The powers that be did not collectively see greatness, or a least civic viability, as related to parks. The difficult question to answer is whether the fight would have been as stubbornly and defiantly fought against the railroad for the open spaces and rolling greens of public parks. This may not have enticed the power brokers, like Worley, Leffler and others to jump into the fray. Certainly, this fight began a detailed and significant discussion about the ownership of the waterfront, but it is not correct to place it in the same lineage as modern attempts to secure waterfront parkland in downtown Miami. The land is the same, but the concerns have changed BibliographyMiami Metropolis (All Articles are Page One Unless Otherwise Noted)“Monopoly on the East Coast,” Miami Metropolis, April 27, 1900.“River and Harbor Bill Signed by President,” Miami Metropolis, June 20, 1902.“From Miami to the Sea,” Miami Metropolis, March 20, 1903.“The Bay Park Matter,” Miami Metropolis, February 6, 1903.“Government Began Work for Deep Water Harbor at Miami 77 Years Ago,” Miami Daily Metropolis,October 17, 1913. “Who Offered Riparian Rights in Deal with City of Miami,” Miami Metropolis, January 12, 1912. “Do Not Want to Condemn Waterfront,” Miami Metropolis, July 8, 1912“Waterfront Condemnation Proceeding Will Continue Hofstatter Motion Tabled,” Miami Metropolis, July 16, 1912.“Business Men Ask Railroad to Sell Bay Front Property,” Miami Metropolis, July 27, 1912.“Railway Company Will Give 500 Feet of Waterfront for Wharves or will Sell All Land between 2nd and 12th,” Miami Metropolis, November 8, 1912.“Discussion of Riparian Rights Results in Naming of Investigating Committee,” Miami Metropolis, November 12, 1912.“Unanimous Vote to Buy Tract Cast by Council While Hundreds Cheer,” Miami Metropolis, October 17, 1913. “State can Grant to City Title to the Bay Front Says City Attorney Rose,” Miami Metropolis, October 18, 1913. “Till the Last Court Has the Last Word,” Miami Metropolis, January 26, 1917.“New Primary Act Dead, Waterfront Bill Vetoed,” Miami Metropolis, June 11, 1917.“Condemn Land on Water Front and Create Big Park,” Miami Metropolis, June 11, 1919.Books, Articles and Court RecordsHelen Muir, Miami: USA, (New York: Penguin Books, 1970).James Buchanan ed, Miami: A Chronological and Documentary History, (New York: Oceania Publishing, 1978).Nathan B. Sharpee, “Ft. Dallas and the Naval Depot of Key Biscayne,” Tequesta, (1961).Flordia East Coast Railway vs. George Worley, July 18, 1903.Florida East Coast Railway vs. George Worley, May 9, 1905.