Here’s more on that bill which we noted the other day that is making its way through the Florida legislature. The bill would prohibit Florida municipal and local governments from inserting a condition in a development permit unless the exaction is related to the “direct impact of a proposed development.”
In “Bills would expand on U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Florida property ‘takings’ case,” in the Florida Current, Bruce Richie writes that “HB 1077 and SB 1310 appear to have backing from property rights supporters following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year involving the St. Johns River Water Management District.” He was also kind enough to seek out our input:
Robert H. Thomas, a lawyer in Hawaii who represents the Pacific Legal Foundation in cases there, said having a state law in place provides another layer of protection beyond the U.S. Supreme Court decision. He said some legal scholars are beginning to publish articles about how to limit the effects of the Koontz decision.
“The Florida legislation also would make it less likely, in my opinion, that a local government or municipality will try to test any boundaries that the Koontz decision left open,” Thomas said.
But there was a counterpoint:
Nancy Stroud, a land use attorney in Boca Raton, told the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association earlier this month that local governments now have to be careful about what they discuss with permit applicants prior to approval.
“I don’t think we need any better protection than the U.S. Supreme Court case,” she told The Florida Current this week. “That was very strong for developers. This (legislation) will tie the hands of developers and local governments who are trying to take care of the real impact of development.”
Read the entire piece here, and follow along since we presume the Current will keep up with this issue.