The 1st DCA just released this opinion, which overturned a circuit court finding of a temporary taking when development permits were held up due to an injunction based on Leon County's failure to implement stormwater policies, and that the existence or breach of a Development Agreement didn't create compensable damages.
Lots of interesting things here.
1) Ok, you're not likely to get temporary takings damages based on a moratorium when your property goes from 600,000 to over 1,000,000 in value (in 3 years) during the moratorium
2) You're also unlikely to get any sympathy for a temporary regulatory delay (ala Lake Tahoe) when the moratorium is based on an injunction against the issuance of devleopment orders based on a planned need for (but failure to provide for) adequate stormwater facilities and infrastructure.
3) The existence of a development agreement - and claims of the breach of it - aren't going to hold up in the face of a public-interest serving moratorium because a contract that becomes impractical or impossible due to a government order isn't enforceable; and that's without even getting into whether it would be enforceable under the Morgran Co v Orange County case (aka the Development Agreement Act doesn't trump the policy against contracting away police powers).
4) It also looks to me (and there's not enough detail on the original suit that led to the injunction for me to know) that this may be the first instance where we see 163.3215 used as a sword rather than a shield - that is, to proactively prevent the future issuance of building permits where it's clear that they would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan rather than waiting until after the DO issues. [read the statute again - while you only have 30 days after a DO issues to challenge, 3215 actually provides for injunctive relief to prevent the issuance of an inconsistent DO]
I'm sure that some gov't attorneys out there are breathing a (probably justified) sigh of relief.
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
Hi kids, the heat is on and the bunker denizens are leading the way with their official 3d DCA summer pickle ball league -- judicial gentle...
-
Having been disappointed by several recent 11th Circuit opinions, I am pleased to see here a straightforward application of the "econo...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Greenberg Traurig says it's not really necessary; Judge Middlebrooks says it is probably a good idea: In response, Plaintiff argues, in...
-
Shuster & Saben Defeats US Bank & Douglas Zahm PA in Foreclosure Appeal In 2011, firm attorney Richard Shuster obtained the dis...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
Now that's a headline I thought I'd never write. Actually, it's a very unfortunate case involving a tourist who died riding a Ba...
-
Many of us have hired these guys as experts over the years, and I see the firm is merging and changing its name : South Florida's eight...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét