Jeffrey kalinowski

Here are strong reasons why a hot city like Miami should invest in indoor pickleball courts.
⸻

Player Health & Safety
   •   Shade and air conditioning protect against heat exhaustion, sunburn, and long-term UV exposure.
   •   Cooler, climate-controlled spaces reduce injury risk from slippery wet courts after rain.
⸻

Tourism & Events
   •   Miami is a major destination city. Indoor pickleball courts can host national tournaments, clinics, and leagues without weather concerns, making it more attractive for tourism and sports tourism dollars.

⸻

Community Accessibility
   •   Indoor spaces can accommodate more diverse groups: seniors who are sensitive to heat, children in after-school programs, and adults who want to play after work without braving the elements.

⸻

Revenue Generation
   •   Indoor facilities can charge for memberships, leagues, lessons, and rentals.
   •   Food/beverage vendors, pro shops, and sponsorship opportunities can drive additional revenue.

⸻

Noise Control
   •   Pickleball paddles/courts generate a sharp noise that often leads to neighborhood complaints. Indoors, noise impact is minimized.

⸻

Future-
   •   Pickleball is the fastest-growing sport in the U.S., and indoor facilities future-proof the city against rising demand.
   •   As Miami develops its sports and recreation identity, indoor courts position the city as a leader in pickleball culture.

This deal with a private company should not be approved. The village should not be using taxpayer dollars to build a building for a private company to run a pickle ball center. There are much better uses for these funds that all residents will use. I would like to see a community center built with a community pool and programs that will benefit all residents.

This deal does not benefit most PB residents.Why would PB fund a facility for a private company to charge high prices paid for by residents?Anything being built should be a community center that would offer activities for all ages and at a minimal cost.PB has no community pool for lap swimming or training,while Cutler Bay has one and is building another. Who is benefiting from this deal ?Why a 30 yr contract? What about liability ?Racketball was all the craze and then the courts had to be repurposed.We are the Village of Parks yet you are spending $ on cement courts instead of clearing invasive trees off of the Woods land as committed.Residents need to hold the council accountable.PB has the wrong priorities.We can’t get back greenspace. We need parks with tree canopies as Cutler Bay is investing in.Residents young and old want parks with trees instead of concrete,over development & traffic.We don’t want park hours cut to pay for council member perks.We need transparency because this deal does not do anything to maintain the character of the village and makes no improvement to quality of life to most residents.After the hottest summer on record you would think that we would do everything possible to reduce the heat and not give the Grove land back to the county so it can be sold to developers who profit while PB residents lose.Neighbors bought property next to the Grove because it was environmentally protected.The courts only benefit those making $ off a shady backroom deal

I DO NOT support these terms and conditions for pickleball players.
I have questions and we all need ANSWERS:
Was a tender called for this $3.3 million project? If not, why? If yes when and how?
Why is 90% of revenue going towards the chosen company, and 10% for Palmetto Bay? It should be much greater revenue sharing for the owners of the land.
Why 48 to 60 dollars to rent a court for one hour? Most community facilities charge much less.
How did you decide to grant a 30-year contract to a private company? Renewable for 10 years period. This is so risky.
What about potential liabilities, who is responsible, the chosen company or the residents? We need details and granularity of this issue.
If there will be free open play, why only 3 days of 7 days in a week? Will schedules benefit working residents? We need details
Residents are funding this project and we are expecting BETTER conditions, clear facts and numbers.

Good evening! From my perspective, this agreement appears to favor corporate profitability at the expense of community interests. Residents are funding the bulk of the $3.3 million construction costs, yet receive only a minimal return—just 10% of the revenue—while Diadem maintains 90% of the profits. Additionally, high user fees and limited free access disproportionately burden residents, particularly seniors and families seeking affordable recreation. Given the long-term contract and lack of guarantees regarding pricing or management, this
arrangement does not present a sound financial benefit for the community. Essentially, it prioritizes corporate gains over maximizing public value and accessible recreational opportunities for residents.