This case didn't garner that much attention in the media...I guess there was some other stuff people were more interested in o.O
Koontz vs. St. Johns River Watershed
The use the word 'extortion' a lot.
Very interesting case indeed. I read the opinion the day they released it.
My guess is the local folks will ignore the case and keep on doing things the same way they always have. The logic will be that few clients will have the money to push things to court. I once told a planner that they were barred by law from doing what he was trying to do. His reply to me was that he didn't care and if the client sued the county he didn't care because it wasn't his money that would be paying the attorneys.
Larry P
Excellent ruling by the court. These BS planning requirement need to be killed off.
I just glanced at it when it was released, but from what I remember all the court did was state that Nollan and Dolan apply to monetary exactions and they also apply when a permit is denied.
Didn't they remand rather than rule on merit? If so it could be years before any real outcome is decided.
A fellow surveyor told me recently that during a visit with the county attorney, the CA told him (my friend) that it wasn't the county attorney's job to to advise the county officials of the law, but rather, to defend the descisions the county officals made.....o.O
"beam me up, Scotty..."
> A fellow surveyor told me recently that during a visit with the county attorney, the CA told him (my friend) that it wasn't the county attorney's job to to advise the county officials of the law, but rather, to defend the descisions the county officals made.....o.O
>
>
>
> "beam me up, Scotty..."
Our County loses in court constantly. I once asked the County attorney why he let the planning board do so many stupid things. He told me they never ask his opinion. In fact, they have told him they aren't interested in his opinion. His job is to defend anything they decide they want to do.
smh
Larry P
PS: Welcome home. Hope the family enjoyed the trip.
There was a statement posted about recording plats at a neighboring county clerk's office. It had no standing in statute or local ordinances. A neighboring county's attorney told a colleague essentially the same thing - "If you don't like it, sue the county."
My colleague instead printed out the applicable statutes and ordinances and made packets for each magistrate. He scheduled to appear before the fiscal court. He simply pointed out the contradictory 'requirement' versus the statute language and asked that the fiscal court request an opinion from the state attorney general for clarification.
Within a couple of days, a flunky for the county attorney's office called to let my colleague know that the posting at the clerk's office had been removed and that he could in fact record a re-tracement plat without having the planning commission review it.
It is amazing how many government agencies willfully violate laws because they know that either no one will challenge them or, if challenged, there are no consequences for any of the parties creating the problems.
> It is amazing how many government agencies willfully violate laws because they know that either no one will challenge them or, if challenged, there are no consequences for any of the parties creating the problems.
Indeed. I think the crux of the problem is that government employees are pretty much shielded from personal liability for their official acts. Succinctly stated by a government worker I know thusly: "Around here, you can only get in serious trouble by either killing someone or stealing a pencil."
Remanded as it is a State Law issue:
"...because petitioner brought his claim under state law."
"For similar reasons, we decline to reach respondent’s
argument that its demands for property were too indefinite to give rise to liability under Nollan and Dolan. The
Florida Supreme Court did not reach the question whether
respondent issued a demand of sufficient concreteness to
trigger the special protections of Nollan and Dolan. It
relied instead on the Florida District Court of Appeals’
characterization of respondent’s behavior as a demand for
Nollan/Dolan purposes. See 77 So. 3d, at 1224 (quoting 5
So. 3d, at 10). Whether that characterization is correct is
beyond the scope of the questions the Court agreed to take
up for review."
"Finally, respondent argues that we need not decide
whether its demand for offsite improvements satisfied
Nollan and Dolan because it gave petitioner another
avenue for obtaining permit approval."
"We agree with respondent
that, so long as a permitting authority offers the landowner
at least one alternative that would satisfy Nollan and
Dolan, the landowner has not been subjected to an unconstitutional condition."
We hold that the government’s demand for property
from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for
money. The Court expresses no view on the merits of
petitioner’s claim that respondent’s actions here failed to
comply with the principles set forth in this opinion and
those two cases. The Florida Supreme Court’s judgment is
reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Attitude is the same here.
