Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Public commenters split over Bunker Aviation lease at Opa‑locka Executive Airport

October 16, 2025 | Miami-Dade County, Florida


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Public commenters split over Bunker Aviation lease at Opa‑locka Executive Airport
Public comment at a Miami‑Dade County Airport Committee meeting was divided over item 3A, a lease supplement involving Bunker Aviation Partners and owner Eric Greenwald.

The discussion matters because county lease decisions affect airport development, local jobs and compliance with federal airport assurances between Miami‑Dade County and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Erin Hendricks, an attorney representing Bunker Aviation Partners, urged the committee to approve the item and described Greenwald’s history at the Opa‑locka Executive Airport. Hendricks said she has worked with Greenwald “for over 15 years” and that his projects helped transform the airport from “derelict aircraft” and failing infrastructure. She attributed several large developments to AA Acquisitions and its partners, saying, “In total, AA, its sub tenants, and assignees have developed over 220 acres, invested more than $200 million and created hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in the local community.”

Carlos Gomez, a resident who identified his address as 372 South Drive, Miami Springs, opposed the project. He accused AA Acquisitions of acquiring county leases and then selling them to other developers, calling that business model “flipping property.” Gomez said he has filed an FAA Part 13 complaint against Miami‑Dade Aviation Department (MDAD) and the fixed‑base operators and that he plans to file a Part 16 complaint for the case at issue. He urged Bunker Aviation and AA Acquisitions to demonstrate compliance with “airport assurances,” which Gomez described as a mandatory federal requirement between the federal government and Miami‑Dade County.

No committee vote on item 3A was recorded in the meeting transcript. The item was discussed only during the public‑comment portion of the meeting; the committee did not take a formal decision on the lease supplement during the recorded portion of the session.

Speakers and filings cited competing factual claims about past development and financial figures; those claims were made on the record by the speakers identified above. The committee heard the comments but did not resolve the factual disputes or record a final action on item 3A at the meeting.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Florida articles free in 2025

Republi.us
Republi.us
Family Scribe
Family Scribe