Source: https://www.springfieldlawpa.com/author/emory/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 13:12:37+00:00

Document:
emory | Springfield Law, P.A.
The long-term master plan is subject to review by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), the state land-planning agency, as to whether it complies with the statutory requirements and whether it “will adversely impact important state resources and facilities:” DEO may initiate a formal administrative hearing process regarding these issues, as well as can a third party.
The statute also attempts to link land, water and transportation planning, which was missing in the past and created many difficult development issues amongst the state, regional and local governments. For instance, the water needs, sources and water resource and supply development projects identified in the long-term master plan must be incorporated into the applicable water management district’s water supply plans, and any MPO long-range transportation plan must be consistent with the long-term master plan to the maximum extent feasible.
DEO may appeal a local government’s approval of a DSAP to the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission on the grounds that it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan or the long-term master plan. An aggrieved or adversely affected party may also challenge the development order in court pursuant to § 163.3215, FS.
1. An application for approval of the long-term master plan for Plum Creek’s Envision Alachua Sector Plan is currently being considered by Alachua County.
2. Ch. 98-176, § 15 at 20, Laws of Florida.
You’ve probably heard the term and know that it relates to water, but what precisely are “riparian rights,” who has these rights, and what is the nature of these rights? Riparian rights are those rights which are incident to lands that border upon “navigable waters.” Riparian rights include such things as the right to ingress and egress the waters, and to boat, bathe and fish in the waters. Riparian rights are not proprietary in nature; they inure to the benefit of the upland owner, but they are not owned.
Navigable waters consist of freshwater lakes, rivers and streams, surveyed and owned by the State of Florida. They typically do not include non-meandered lakes, ponds, swamps or overflowed lands – the land under which has been conveyed to a private person without a reservation of any public rights. The State also owns the submerged lands under its navigable waters, as well as any islands, sandbars, and shallow banks within them. Although the State owns these lands and waters, they are considered to be held in trust for all of its citizens under what is known as the Public Trust Doctrine.
Under the Public Trust Doctrine, the State also owns coastal waters and lands within the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The State is said to own everything below the mean high water line and the upland landowner bordering the coastal waters owns everything above the mean high water line. Coastal upland owners have what is referred to as “littoral rights.” Littoral rights are very similar to riparian rights. Littoral rights include navigation, bathing and fishing, and also the rights of access to the water, reasonable use of the water, and an unobstructed view of the water. Further, coastal upland owners are subject to the natural forces of accretion and reliction, under the principles of which an upland owner and/or the State may gain and/or lose land area over time depending upon whether sand is deposited on the coast or eroded from the coastline. And you thought riparian rights had something to do with reptiles?
​A proceeding initiated under Chapter 73 is often called a “slow take” action and a proceeding under Chapter 74 is often called a “quick take” action. In Chapter 73 proceedings, title of the property does not pass to the condemning authority until after a final judgment assessing the compensation due. Most eminent domain actions are filed as “quick take” actions, which are supplemental to Chapter 73 and allow the condemning authority to deposit security funds into the court registry in order to take possession and title of the property prior to final judgment. However, unless specifically afforded the ability to do so in one of the several other statutes providing eminent domain authority to particular entities, only those entities listed in 74.011, Florida Statutes, may use the quick take action. A disadvantage of this quick take procedure is that once the petition is filed, the funds are deposited by the condemning authority into the court registry and are available to the landowner, the court issues an order of taking and the condemnor may not abandon the project unless the landowner/defendant agrees. On the other hand, compensation is not due until after the final judgment in a slow take proceeding, and thus the condemnor is free to abandon or change the project if it receives an unfavorable judgment.
​Owners of property sought for condemnation generally hear from the condemning authority well before the actual initiation of a condemnation proceeding. In fact, before a condemning authority officially files a petition for condemnation, Chapter 73 requires that the condemning authority provide notice of a variety of statutorily required matters (e.g., that the property is necessary for a public project), and also requires the condemnor to both engage in good faith negotiations with the landowner and provide a written offer. Moreover, if the landowner requests, the condemning authority must furnish a copy of the appraisal upon which the offer is based. After receipt of the notice, the landowner has 30 days to respond before the condemning authority may initiate a condemnation proceeding. Where the landowner is a business owner, however, the condemning authority need only make a good faith effort to notify, and is not required to wait 30 days or to engage in good faith negotiations.
​In filing a petition for a condemnation proceeding, the condemnor must file in the circuit court of the county where the property is located. The contents of the petition must include all the information required in 73.021, Florida Statutes, as well as a proper resolution issued by the condemning authority that authorizes the condemnation. Once the petition is filed, there are essentially two phases of a condemnation proceeding. First, the court must assess the validity of the taking (i.e. whether the condemnor has the right and whether the nature and scope of the taking is appropriate). The court makes this determination in a hearing in limine or, in the case of a quick take action, at the request of a defendant pursuant to 74.051(1), Florida Statutes. As for the second part of a condemnation proceeding, a jury determines the amount of compensation due. Thus, the court plays a rather limited role in condemnation proceedings.
​In 1971, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Environmental Protection Act. This Act, codified as section 403.412, Florida Statutes, authorizes Florida citizens, subdivisions and municipalities of the state, as well as the Department of Legal Affairs, as well as private citizens who meet the standing requirements under the Act, to bring suit in the name of environmental protection. More particularly, section 403.412 allows these entities to initiate actions for injunctive relief in order to either compel enforcement by an agency charged with enforcing laws, rules, or regulations that protect the “air, water, and other natural resources of Florida,” or to prohibit any person, corporation, or government agency or authority from violating such laws, rules, or regulations.
Finally, the Act also expressly gives not-for-profit corporations organized for the purpose of protecting the environment or natural resources the authority to initiate section 120.569 or 120.70 administrative hearings. The only restrictions are that: 1) the not-for-profit must consist of at least 25 current members who reside in the county where the activity is proposed, and 2) the not-for-profit must have been formed at least one year before the government agency’s initiation of the activity.
​Adopted at the height of the environmental movement, the Florida Environmental Protection Act makes up part of the legislative response to Article II, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, which was added to the state constitution in the late 1960’s. In addition to aspirational language regarding protection and conservation of the state’s natural resources and scenic beauty, Article II, Section 7 requires the Florida Legislature to make “[a]dequate provision . . . by law” to carry out these goals. As a result, the Legislature responded by adopting a variety of laws pertaining to the environment, including the Florida Environmental Protection Act.
​Since the Act gives private citizens standing to bring suit to enforce the law, actions brought under it are often referred to as “citizen suits.” Some champion the benefits of the expanded role of citizens in environmental governance that citizen suit provisions can offer. Several states have statutes authorizing citizen suits and virtually all major federal environmental statutes contain citizen suit provisions.
​Florida’s citizen suit provision prescribes its use for judicial proceedings in a variety of different ways. For example, it requires, as a condition precedent to instituting a suit, the petitioner to file a “verified complaint” with the agency question in order to give that agency 30 days to attempt to remedy the matter. Section 403.412 also provides for costs and attorney’s fees to be paid to the prevailing party, and restricts venue to the county or counties where the alleged transgression occurs.
Like other types of petitioners, citizens bringing suit under 403.412 must be appropriately situated so as to properly claim standing. That said, among the states with citizen suit provisions, Florida’s standing requirement is relatively lenient because Florida’s 403.412 citizen suit provision does not require a party to prove a special injury, which is typically required to show standing in other lawsuits. In other words, standing under section 403.412 does not require the party to incur an injury “different both in kind and degree” from injury suffered by the general public. This less restrictive standing requirement could be an important consideration when, for example, an activity requires both a state and federal permit, thus giving a challenger the option to challenge in either state or federal court. Yet, despite its lenient standing requirement, very few citizen suits have actually been brought under the Florida Environmental Protection Act.
​In Florida, governmental entities may take privately-owned real property for a “public purpose,” provided the owner receives “full compensation.” Under the Florida Constitution, the public purpose and full compensation requirements generally result in greater protection for private landowners than under federal law, and the precise meanings of these two terms have been fleshed out by the State Legislature and Florida courts. While this article’s focus is on intentional eminent domain situations, many of the same principles apply to inverse condemnation proceedings.
​What is a public purpose/use? Under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, “public use” has been interpreted broadly to include projects ranging from the more traditional eminent domain purposes, such as transportation or military defense, to projects that provide a “public benefit” or fulfill an “economic development” purpose, such as clearing an area of blight or slum. Florida courts often use the two terms interchangeably and also interpreted public purpose/use rather broadly until a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case prompted new legislation and an amendment to the Florida Constitution.
A use to be public must be fixed and definite. It must be one in which the public, as such, has an interest, and the terms and manner of its enjoyment must be within the control of the State, independent of the rights of the private owner of the property appropriated to the use. The use of property cannot be said to be public if it can be gainsaid, denied, or withdrawn by the owner. The public interest must dominate the private gain.
In accordance with this, condemned property must be available to the public, though not all members of the public must directly enjoy the benefits of it. Moreover, property taken by eminent domain may result in private gain, so long as the taking is clearly and predominantly for a public purpose and the private gain is merely incidental. In practice, this principle has often proven difficult to apply.
​Florida’s eminent domain law changed significantly in response to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London. The Kelo Court ruled that the City of New London’s use of its eminent domain authority to take property and give it to a private developer in the name of economic redevelopment was an appropriate public use. The Florida Legislature reacted by adopting legislation in 2006 intended to protect against such a scenario. This legislation strengthened the public purpose restriction by forbidding the transfer of condemned property to a private party within 10 years of the property’s condemnation. The new legislation also specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain to either abate or eliminate a public nuisance, or to prevent or eliminate slum or blight conditions. In addition, the Legislature proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution that similarly prohibited the transfer of condemned property to private parties. The amendment, which was soundly passed by the Florida voters, only allows exceptions to be made via a three-fifths majority vote of both legislative houses.
​What is full compensation? The purpose of the constitutional guarantee of full compensation is, as far as possible and practicable, to make a property owner, who is deprived of his or her property, whole. Although full compensation normally equates to the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking, this is not the exclusive standard used, and the method used to determine compensation depends on the particular circumstances of each case. When fair market value is used to determine full compensation, all factors that would reasonably be contemplated in negotiations between a willing seller and buyer should be considered. Moreover, the value of the property should be based on the highest and best use to which the property is being put or reasonably may be put. Moving costs, appraisal costs, expert witness fees, attorney’s fees, severance damages, and other reasonable costs should all be considered as part of the valuation of full compensation.​Furthermore, the property owner is entitled to interest from the date of the taking until the condemning authority pays the compensation.
​As an “inherent attribute of sovereignty,” the government is empowered to “take” privately owned land. Such authority, known as “eminent domain” or “condemnation,” is restricted in several ways by both the United States and Florida constitutions. The government may take private property by either initiating eminent domain proceedings so as to intentionally take the property or by regulating in a way that deprives a landowner of the use of his or her property.
Takings can take the form of either a partial taking (e.g., a strip of land), a temporary taking (e.g., associated with the completion of a project on another property), an easement or right of way (e.g., for the use of part of a property for power lines), or a complete taking. Regulatory takings generally lead to “inverse condemnation” actions, in which a private landowner initiates an action based on a claim that government regulation has in effect resulted in a taking.
​With a long tradition of private property rights in both Florida and the rest of the United States, the need for governments to use eminent domain power to address public needs often gives rise to impassioned disapproval from landowners and citizens. The use of this power can also result in significant financial and other personal consequences to those who are directly impacted. Nevertheless, whether representing private landowners or a condemning authority exercising the power of eminent domain, attorneys often find themselves in the midst of balancing between the public need for the use of certain property and the interests of private ownership.
​The main restrictions in the U.S. Constitution on the government’s exercise of eminent domain authority are that the government may only take property for “public use” and that it must give “just compensation” for the property taken. The Florida Constitution spells-out similar requirements, except that Florida’s Constitution employs the terms “public purpose” and “full compensation.” Not surprisingly, a significant body of case law exists interpreting these terms.
​The constitutional eminent domain restrictions are found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has been interpreted to apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Article X, § 6 of Florida’s Constitution contains the constitutional provisions specific to eminent domain in Florida, including the provision that “[n]o private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor . . . .” By requiring “full compensation,” the Florida Constitution gives more protection to landowners than the Federal Constitution’s “just compensation” requirement because it requires the landowner to be made whole by such compensation, including the costs incurred before a taking occurs. This requirement also gives rise to attorney’s fees and costs, which are generally not provided under federal law. The distinction between the U.S. Constitution’s “public use” and the Florida Constitution’s “public purpose” is not as clear.
​A relatively recent amendment to Article X, § 6 further restricts the government’s exercise of eminent domain in Florida. Florida citizens voted to approve an amendment in 2006 in response to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case. Kelo v. City of New London centered on the “public purpose” requirement and involved a group of homeowners that challenged the City’s use of eminent domain in an economically depressed area. The City wanted to demolish a group of homes in order to give the land to a private developer in the name of economic development. The Court found in favor of the City, thus paving the way for local governments to use eminent domain for the fairly broad purpose of economic development. The Kelo decision triggered a public outcry among property rights’ advocates across the nation and caused many states to change their eminent domain laws. In Florida, the amendment included a provision prohibiting government from transferring property taken by eminent domain to natural persons or private entities, unless approved by a three-fifths majority of the Legislature.
​Although the term “government” as used when discussing inherent eminent domain power generally refers to federal, state and local governments, such governmental entities can delegate the power to other entities such as transportation departments, public utilities and even, in limited circumstances, to private corporations. In Florida, several statutes grant eminent domain power to such entities ranging from the Department of Correction, Department of Transportation, and drainage and watershed improvement districts. Any entity exercising such delegated authority must abide by the same legal restrictions imposed upon federal, state and local governments.
Note: An inverse condemnation action originates from a “taking,” but it is a different process and will not be addressed in this series of articles.

References: § 163
 § 15
 v. 
 § 6
 § 6
 v.