Case Name: PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellant, v. William WRIGHT, Richard Elliott, Thomas J. Kamide, Herbert G. Elliott, and Edward L. Connop, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-01-27
Citations: 612 So. 2d 709
Docket Number: No. 92-1912
Parties: PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellant, v. William WRIGHT, Richard Elliott, Thomas J. Kamide, Herbert G. Elliott, and Edward L. Connop, Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 612
Pages: 709–713

Head Matter:
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellant, v. William WRIGHT, Richard Elliott, Thomas J. Kamide, Herbert G. Elliott, and Edward L. Connop, Appellees.
No. 92-1912.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 27, 1993.
Robert P. Banks, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
William P. Doney of Vance & Doney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
FARMER, Judge.
We affirm the trial court's invalidation of Palm Beach County's thoroughfare map on the basis of Joint Ventures Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 563 So.2d 622 (Fla.1990) (statutory moratorium on development of property in transportation corridor during pre-acquisition planning effected taking of all use of property without just compensation and is therefore invalid); Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority v. Orange North Associates, 590 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (same; fact of taking sufficiently established on motion for summary judgment even though landowner had not thereby proved any damages); and Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority v. W & F Agrigrowth-Fernfield, Ltd., 582 So.2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA) (attempt by governmental action to "landbank" private property in anticipation of future acquisition that avoids eonsti-tutional/statutory, substantive and procedural protections, and having effect of freezing or depressing land value, effects taking of property requiring just compensation), rev. denied, 591 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1991). The County has failed to show how its thoroughfare map is functionally distinguishable from the reservation map in Joint Ventures, especially as its own comprehensive plan requires that any development in the area of the thoroughfare map be consistent with and provide for future rights-of-way. Recognizing, however, that our decision passes on a question of great public importance, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court for resolution:
IS A COUNTY THOROUGHFARE MAP DESIGNATING CORRIDORS FOR FUTURE ROADWAYS, AND WHICH FORBIDS LAND USE ACTIVITY THAT WOULD IMPEDE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROADWAY, ADOPTED INCIDENT TO A COMPREHENSIVE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN ENACTED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT, FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER Joint Ventures Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 563 So.2d 622 (Fla.1990)?
ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
STONE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.