I have a long-running and good-natured contest with my Owners' Counsel and ABA colleague Dwight Merriam about who gets items of interest "fastest with the mostest." More than a few times has he sent me items, only to find out that we've already posted on the subject, or there is a post in the hopper.
But sometimes, not only is Dwight ahead of me, he's way in front. Today is one of those days. Dwight sends along a bill (HB 1077), now making its way through the Florida Legislature that we were not even aware of until today, but which is of great interest. 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."
(1) The Legislature finds that in the land use planning and permitting process, a landowner or applicant may be especially vulnerable to excessive demands for relinquishment of property or money in exchange for planning and permitting approvals. The Legislature further finds that exaction demands beyond the direct impact of a proposed development are against public policy and are therefore prohibited.(2) A county, municipality, or other local governmental 21 entity may not impose on or against any private property a tax, fee, charge, or condition or require any other development exaction, either directly or indirectly, that:
(a) Requires building, maintaining, or improving a public, private, or public-private infrastructure or facility that is unrelated to the direct impact of a proposed development, improvement project, or the subject of an application for a development order or administrative approval.
(b) Is more stringent than an exaction imposed by a state or federal agency on or against the same property that concerns the same impact.
There's more to the bill, of course, and you can read the entire proposal below. This bill would make it an independent violation of state law to demand unrelated and disproportionate exactions.
The proposal is obviously spurred by the Koontz case, which made its way to the Supreme Court last Term, and which was decided in the property owner's favor.
The photo above is of Dwight (now crowned, on the left) and the petitioner in that case, Coy Koontz, Jr. (on the right), who recently joined us in New Orleans for our Owners' Counsel gathering.
Congratulations, Dwight, for beating us to the punch.
