Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1965-09-15
Citations: 178 So. 2d 573
Docket Number: No. 33944
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Appellee.
Judges: ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 178
Pages: 573–581

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Appellee.
No. 33944.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 15, 1965.
J. Frank Adams, State Atty., Earl Fair-cloth, Atty. Gen., Sam Spector, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
William J. Mongoven, Chipley, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
THOMAS, Justice.
The ninth day of June 1964 Washington County Development Authority, organized under Chapter 61-2988, Special Acts of 1961, adopted a resolution to borrow the sum of $244 thousand from the United States of America, acting through Farmers' Home Administration, and in evidence of the debt to execute an "installment" promissory note for that amount.
According to the terms of the note the interest on unpaid principal was to be 3.046 (three and forty-six thousandths) per cent, per annum. The principal was to be retired in annual installments of $15,391.78 payable on "or at the option of the [governmental] Authority before," 1 January 1970 and the same day of succeeding years, except that all the indebtedness was to be discharged within 30 years.
The indebtedness was incurred, to quote from the copy of the note embedded in the resolution, "to aid in financing a Rural Development Project designated Falling Waters Homesites." By the resolution the Authority was obligated to proceed at once to build rural "homesites" which upon completion were to be sold at appraised market value as determined by the Administration to purchasers approved by the government. Although details of pay- merits by purchasers were not specified, it was stipulated that the loans should he amortized over a period of not more than 30 years with interest of five per cent, per annum.
The resolution contained many provisions for supervision of the accounts, for obtaining title insurance for securing the government against loss in event of default, on the part of any purchaser. It was provided, too, that the note should be "payable solely from the income and revenues of the Authority from said project."
There appears no reason to itemize the provisions with reference to receipt and disbursal of funds because what we have written should bring to the reader the picture of the transaction which we think may be accurately described as a real estate development project. We think it is not so much a question of whether it should be approved in the manner described in the record as whether legally it can be done at all.
Doubtless any real estate development in a community will benefit, at least vicariously, the economy of the community but the real problem is whether or not the community itself can go into the business to get a benefit which it would obliquely receive if the project were that of private enterprise.
Laudable as is the effort of the people to lift their locality to a more prosperous condition by their own bootstraps, so to speak, we do not think it can be done within the framework of our laws. Sec. 10, Art. IX, seems completely to bar the way.
It is said in appellee's brief that "even though the housing to be provided in the project is ultimately to go to private persons, the entire public of Washington County would be beneficially affected." This may be true as we have already indicated. But we cannot accept appel-lee's argument that inasmuch as the funds are to be obtained from the United States Government, through the Farmers' Home Administration, Sec. 10 of Art. IX does not apply under the theory that there is, therefore, no individual, company, corporation or association to whom the State "or in this instance Washington County Development Authority is lending or pledging its credit." The very next sentence in the brief seems to refute the thought for it is asserted that the money to be procured and secured is to be used for a public purpose, namely "the furnishing of rural housing to the citizens and residents and to such other persons [as] may be in need of housing in Washington County, Florida." It occurs to us that this is a contradiction for we are unable to construe the construction of homes for citizens, residents and other persons, in the circumstances reflected in this record, to be a public purpose.
It is obvious that the proposed development is not related to public health, public safety, public morals or public welfare, but only to the convenience of a fragment of the public.
We have, on occasion, approved the issuance of bonds where the proceeds were to be used in the purchase of property generally to be devoted to public use although a part of it would be employed in private enterprise but our approval was forthcoming because the part to be privately employed was but incidental to the main purpose, for example, State ex rel. Ervin v. Cotney, 104 So.2d 346 (Fla.1958), and cases there cited. But we have not gone so far as we are asked to go in this case, and we are not disposed to do so.
It seems to us the present situation is the converse of the ones in which we have shown considerable liberality. Here the prime benefit would be to persons securing homes while the secondary and incidental advantage would redound to the public.
We regret that we cannot for reasons of Constitutional restriction approve what appears to be an earnest effort to improve the lot of the citizens of Washington County.
The decree validating and confirming the "promissory note and all proceedings incident" to its issuance is reversed.
ROBERTS, DREW, O'CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, C. J., and ERVIN, J., dissent with opinions.