Boca Raton Public Land Referendum Set for January Special Election, Residents Fume

A sign from the ‘Save Boca’ campaign in opposition to a government campus redevelopment plan. (Photo: Boca Daily News)

After a cantankerous city council meeting at which officials were chided by residents for refusing to hold an up-or-down vote on an ordinance that would force future public referenda on the sale, lease or “alienation” of public property, the council ultimately voted to place two questions on the Jan. 13, 2026 special election ballot.

The twin ballot measures – one in the form of an ordinance and one in the form of an amendment to the city charter – were supposed to have gone to the voters in the March 2026 municipal election, but were switched to Jan. 13 after Gov. Ron DeSantis authorized a special election to fill the seat for House District 87 vacated by Rep. Mike Caruso. Both questions will be identical in wording, and will preclude the city council from selling, leasing or “alienating” from residents any piece of public property a half-acre in size or greater.

The ballot initiatives were spurred by opposition to a plan to extend a 99 year lease to developers Terra Group and Frisbie Group to redevelop 31 acres of city property in order to generate revenue to build a new city government campus. A formal agreement with Terra-Frisbie had initially been eyed for approval at Tuesday night’s meeting, but has since been pre-empted by the referendum effort. The “Save Boca” campaign successfully collected enough signatures from residents to place both questions on the ballot.

The language for both the ordinance adoption and the charter amendment questions asks voters to approve the identical policy: “The city council shall not in any manner alienate from the public, lease or sell any land that is owned by the City of Boca Raton greater than one-half (0.5) acre, or any part thereof, except upon approval of the proposed action at a referendum election.”

The city charter amendment would always have gone to voters as a matter of law, however the ordinance could have been adopted by the council on its own. Alternatively, the council could have considered the measure and rejected it, forcing the vote. Instead, despite calls from Councilman Andy Thomson to hold a vote on the ordinance, the council simply declined to consider the matter. Thomson motioned for the adoption of the ordinance, but did not receive a second. With no up-or-down vote, the ordinance will be placed on the ballot by default. The council voted in favor of placing both questions on the January ballot; that vote was approved unanimously.

The lack of a vote on the ordinance drew the ire of residents who attended the four-and-a-half hour meeting, with several asking council members why they would not want to express a position either way.

“There were 12,900 signatures and you won’t even take a vote on it,” said Jon Pearlman, founder of the Save Boca group. He later added: “This was the necessary response to what was happening, and thank God we realized it just in time. Our public land was in the hands of ‘stewards’ who were supposed to shepherd it, and represent us, and they failed.”

Mayor Scott Singer and several council members expressed concern with the two ballot questions despite declining to formally oppose them in a vote. They argued that the language of the questions was overly broad, and could preclude the governing body from conducting routine government business, such as renewing leases to nonprofits, approving utility easements, or awarding concession agreements with vendors.

“The way this is worded, ‘any alienation of land greater than one-half of an acre,’ could have unintended consequences for the city,” said Councilman Marc Wigder. “We agree that projects that are large should be voted on by the people. I’m not against that, but I’m against this nuclear option here. I’m for the ordinance, but it will need changes eventually, even if it’s adopted by the people so we can properly manage the city, easements, utility things. I see this charter amendment preventing the city from doing a lot of the good things it does.”

Singer, likewise, expressed opposition to the language of the ballot measures but said he was supportive of giving residents the opportunity to vote on major projects such as the city government campus proposal.

“I don’t care for this language for a couple of reasons,” he said, of the ordinance and charter amendment. “There are routine matters all the time. It’s not ‘sale or lease,’ it’s ‘alienation,’ which is a vague term. This isn’t inconsequential. I see a pathway for a lot of litigation here, and for that reason I don’t think it’s the best.”

Singer referenced a scenario in which a resident might sue to block a wedding in a city park because they were being “alienated” from using a portion of the park that day. Residents, however, said the purported “nuclear option” was necessary.

“This is a self-inflicted wound. You guys did this,” said resident Richard Warner. “If you didn’t keep parading Frisbie out here to ram this down people’s throats, we wouldn’t be this way. We don’t want to be flexible. In your arrogance, you’ve gone on, just like it’s a fait accompli.”

Thomson was the sole council member who favored a vote on the substantive issue of the ordinance, which is considered “introduced” by the signature campaign.

“The title of the charter provision is ‘action by the council,'” he said. “To me, action requires that the item be voted upon by this body before it goes to the voters. What we have tonight … seems to be an action of some sort, I suppose, but it seems to be passive action. I, myself, would prefer concrete action.”

Placing the measure on the January ballot separates it from the March municipal election, at which residents will choose a new mayor and multiple council seats. The ballot measures will now be paired with a special election to fill Caruso’s seat, which he vacated August 18, 2025, when DeSantis appointed him as clerk of the circuit court and comptroller of Palm Beach County.