Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is really scarey and unbelievable the power of the feds to move in and encroach the rights of the little real estate investor. Its just like pulling money out of your pocket by the thousands. I wanted to inform you that there is a Bert Harris Act (a contractor from Highland County Fla who got into politics and sucessfully sued the fed govenment for financial compensation.) If the FWS reevaluates your property as a habitat for endangered species, you are entitled to be compensated for you loss of value. I am looking for an attorney who would be willing to file a class action suit for the devaluation of my property. I am sure that there is alot of people who were victimized in this last scrubjay reclassification in Charlotte County. I just wanted to inform you of the Bert Harris Act
Could you be more specific? I own lots in Highlands. Do I understand they are devaluing your property because you have scrubjays on it? Huh? I have owned a lot in the Keys and they just wouldn't let you build if you had an endangered weed on your property but that had nothing to do with the value. I know people who had an endangered turtle on a lot but were allowed to move it to another location and then were clear to build.
It is really scarey and unbelievable the power of the feds to move in and encroach the rights of the little real estate investor. Its just like pulling money out of your pocket by the thousands. I wanted to inform you that there is a Bert Harris Act (a contractor from Highland County Fla who got into politics and sucessfully sued the fed govenment for financial compensation.) If the FWS reevaluates your property as a habitat for endangered species, you are entitled to be compensated for you loss of value. I am looking for an attorney who would be willing to file a class action suit for the devaluation of my property. I am sure that there is alot of people who were victimized in this last scrubjay reclassification in Charlotte County. I just wanted to inform you of the Bert Harris Act
Have you ever been involved in a class action suit? I have, we won and I ended up with nothing worth my time. The lawyer got like 40% after taking off all his BS padded costs. When we were done we should have sued him for screwing us a second time. What do you feel is your actual loss? Sometimes as unfair as something may be it may not be worth pursuing. Have you spoken to a lawyer yet and gotten any advice? What did he/she say?
Thank you Landshark99 and Macguy for responding,
First of all I, also own lots in Highland county, but none are affected with any FWS (Fish Wildlife Service) encomberences because they were zoned under some grandfather clause that prevented it. Howerver you, Landshark, might want to check the current statis of your lots because there IS some endangered species in and around Highland County. My scrubjay problem is in Charlotte County. It seems that the little invester has fewer options than the big fish in the sea, but according to Macguy a class action suit might be a small option, but it is better than the option I had before. Another way that I fought back is by calling the Property Appraiser and explaining the rezoning of the scrubjays which devalued my lot so my lot is obviously worth less, so taxes should be worth less, and they went for it. We are talking say 50% less taxes. I agree with Macguy that trusting lawers to keep track of their wages is like leaving the fox in the henhouse. To me it is comforting to know that I can bite back. You never know, there might have been better experiences with class action suits with an HONEST LAWER?? If so, Id better get right with GOD.
Thank you Landshark99 and Macguy for responding,
First of all I, also own lots in Highland county, but none are affected with any FWS (Fish Wildlife Service) encomberences because they were zoned under some grandfather clause that prevented it. Howerver you, Landshark, might want to check the current statis of your lots because there IS some endangered species in and around Highland County. My scrubjay problem is in Charlotte County. It seems that the little invester has fewer options than the big fish in the sea, but according to Macguy a class action suit might be a small option, but it is better than the option I had before. Another way that I fought back is by calling the Property Appraiser and explaining the rezoning of the scrubjays which devalued my lot so my lot is obviously worth less, so taxes should be worth less, and they went for it. We are talking say 50% less taxes. I agree with Macguy that trusting lawers to keep track of their wages is like leaving the fox in the henhouse. To me it is comforting to know that I can bite back. You never know, there might have been better experiences with class action suits with an HONEST LAWER?? If so, Id better get right with GOD.
I was actually involved in two class action suits. They other I was conned into was a complete joke. It was against a long distance provider. I was making copies, sending registered letters and spent a lot of time with it, I was a complete idiot. When it settled the settlement was in the millions. The lawyers got around two million, the rest of us got around $100. each. I actually got a check for $78.00 and I am sure I spent more then that.
I was actually involved in two class action suits. They other I was conned into was a complete joke. It was against a long distance provider. I was making copies, sending registered letters and spent a lot of time with it, I was a complete idiot. When it settled the settlement was in the millions. The lawyers got around two million, the rest of us got around $100. each. I actually got a check for $78.00 and I am sure I spent more then that.
Thank you Macguy for responding, If your lawers got around two million, would that mean that someone you sued had to pay it? That someone who paid it was your target and the reason for suing. It looks like you gotem good. I myself have lowered my lot prices from 30k to 16k as a result of the scrubjay thing. I am keeping the paperwork (for evidence)from the last sale that was blown out of the title co because of the rezoning toward the end of the sale. I was curious about the outcome of the OTHER class action suit you were involved with. All I know is if I dont at least try, I get nothing
Number: AGO 2006-31
Date: July 20, 2006
Subject: Bert J. Harris Act, governmental action
Mr. James A. Cherof
Town of Lauderdale By The Sea Attorney
3099 East Commercial Boulevard
Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
RE: BERT J. HARRIS, JR., PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT – MUNICIPALITIES – REAL PROPERTY – PROPERTY RIGHTS – CHARTERS – citizen initiated charter amendment as governmental action under Bert J. Harris Act. ss. 70.001 and 166.031, Fla. Stat.
Dear Mr. Cherof:
As Attorney for the Town of Lauderdale By The Sea, you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following questions:
1. Does an amendment to a town charter initiated by ten percent of the registered electors pursuant to section 166.031(1), Florida Statutes, constitute "action of a governmental entity" as that term is used in the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act?
2. Following such amendments to the charter, does subsequent action by the Town Commission, compelled by language in the charter as amended, constitute "action of a governmental entity" as that term is defined in the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act?
Your questions are related and will be answered together.
According to your letter, the electors of the Town of Lauderdale By The Sea submitted a proposed amendment to the town charter using the procedure authorized by section 166.031(1), Florida Statutes. This amendment was submitted to the electors and was approved earlier this year.[1]
The charter amendment provides for a 44-foot height limit on new construction in the area that was annexed into the town from unincorporated Broward County in 2001. Prior to approval of the charter amendment, the 44-foot height limit did not exist in the annexation area. Under Broward County zoning regulations, buildings as high as 15 stories or 150 feet were allowed, subject to other zoning regulations.
In the annexation area there are several 15-story high-rise buildings that now exceed the new 44-foot height limit. These buildings are now legal nonconforming structures. In addition, there are several undeveloped parcels in the area that were zoned under Broward County regulations to permit structures of 15 stories in height that now may only be constructed to a maximum height of 44-feet. The town is concerned about potential liability for imposing an inordinate burden on property rights through the adoption and implementation of this charter amendment and has requested assistance in resolving these questions.
The 1995 Legislature enacted the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act."[2] The act provides in part that when a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief that may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the property caused by the action of government, as provided in the statute.[3] This cause of action is separate and distinct from any cause of action that might arise under the law of takings.[4]
The term "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" is defined in section 3(e) of the act to mean that
"[A]n action of one or more governmental entities has directly restricted or limited the use of real property such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the public at large."
Legislative intent is the polestar that guides statutory construction analysis.[5] The legislative intent of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act is evident from the first section of the act, which clearly provides that the statute was intended to protect private property interests against "inordinately burdensome" governmental regulations that do not necessarily amount to a constitutional taking.[6]
Section 70.001(1), Florida Statues, provides for relief or payment of compensation "when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance" unfairly affects real property. An amendment to the municipal charter would appear to come within the scope of this language. A municipal charter is the paramount law of that municipality. It represents the constitution of the town, enumerating and providing all the powers the town possesses. A municipal charter consists of the creative act and all laws in force relating to the corporation, whether in defining its powers or regulating the method of their exercise.[7] Thus, the provisions of the Charter of the Town of Lauderdale By The Sea are laws within the scope of section 70.001, Florida Statutes, and can give rise to liability for any inordinate burden the charter provisions impose on real property "for the good of the public" when "in fairness [this disproportionate share of the burden] should be borne by the public at large." Likewise, the regulations, ordinances or rules adopted by the town to implement the charter amendment, would constitute "action of a governmental entity" that may implicate the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act if these regulations impose an "inordinate burden" on real property.
In sum, it is my opinion that an amendment to a town charter proposed and approved pursuant to section 166.031(1), Florida Statutes, does constitute "action of a governmental entity" as that term is defined and used in the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. In addition, any new rules, regulations, or ordinances adopted by the town to effectuate the terms of the amendment to the charter would also constitute "action of a governmental entity" as that term is defined and used in the act. I note that the authority to determine whether such action gives rise to a claim under the act is expressly vested in the judicial branch.[8]
(1) This act may be cited as the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act." The Legislature recognizes that some laws, regulations, and ordinances of the state and political entities in the state, as applied, may inordinately burden, restrict, or limit private property rights without amounting to a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. The Legislature determines that there is an important state interest in protecting the interests of private property owners from such inordinate burdens. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that, as a separate and distinct cause of action from the law of takings, the Legislature herein provides for relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property.
(2) When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government, as provided in this section.
(3) For purposes of this section:
(a) The existence of a "vested right" is to be determined by applying the principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process under the common law or by applying the statutory law of this state.
(b) The term "existing use" means an actual, present use or activity on the real property, including periods of inactivity which are normally associated with, or are incidental to, the nature or type of use or activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land uses which are suitable for the subject real property and compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the actual, present use or activity on the real property.
(c) The term "governmental entity" includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority. The term does not include the United States or any of its agencies, or an agency of the state, a regional or a local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority, when exercising the powers of the United States or any of its agencies through a formal delegation of federal authority.
(d) The term "action of a governmental entity" means a specific action of a governmental entity which affects real property, including action on an application or permit.
(e) The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" mean that an action of one or more governmental entities has directly restricted or limited the use of real property such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the public at large. The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" do not include temporary impacts to real property; impacts to real property occasioned by governmental abatement, prohibition, prevention, or remediation of a public nuisance at common law or a noxious use of private property; or impacts to real property caused by an action of a governmental entity taken to grant relief to a property owner under this section.
(f) The term "property owner" means the person who holds legal title to the real property at issue. The term does not include a governmental entity.
(g) The term "real property" means land and includes any appurtenances and improvements to the land, including any other relevant real property in which the property owner had a relevant interest.
(4)(a) Not less than 180 days prior to filing an action under this section against a governmental entity, a property owner who seeks compensation under this section must present the claim in writing to the head of the governmental entity. The property owner must submit, along with the claim, a bona fide, valid appraisal that supports the claim and demonstrates the loss in fair market value to the real property. If the action of government is the culmination of a process that involves more than one governmental entity, or if a complete resolution of all relevant issues, in the view of the property owner or in the view of a governmental entity to whom a claim is presented, requires the active participation of more than one governmental entity, the property owner shall present the claim as provided in this section to each of the governmental entities.
(b) The governmental entity shall provide written notice of the claim to all parties to any administrative action that gave rise to the claim, and to owners of real property contiguous to the owner's property at the addresses listed on the most recent county tax rolls. Within 15 days after the claim being presented, the governmental entity shall report the claim in writing to the Department of Legal Affairs, and shall provide the department with the name, address, and telephone number of the employee of the governmental entity from whom additional information may be obtained about the claim during the pendency of the claim and any subsequent judicial action.
(c) During the 180-day-notice period, unless extended by agreement of the parties, the governmental entity shall make a written settlement offer to effectuate:
1. An adjustment of land development or permit standards or other provisions controlling the development or use of land.
2. Increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development.
3. The transfer of developmental rights.
4. Land swaps or exchanges.
5. Mitigation, including payments in lieu of onsite mitigation.
6. Location on the least sensitive portion of the property.
7. Conditioning the amount of development or use permitted.
8. A requirement that issues be addressed on a more comprehensive basis than a single proposed use or development.
9. Issuance of the development order, a variance, special exception, or other extraordinary relief.
10. Purchase of the real property, or an interest therein, by an appropriate governmental entity.
11. No changes to the action of the governmental entity.
Thank you Macguy for responding, If your lawers got around two million, would that mean that someone you sued had to pay it? That someone who paid it was your target and the reason for suing. It looks like you gotem good. I myself have lowered my lot prices from 30k to 16k as a result of the scrubjay thing. I am keeping the paperwork (for evidence)from the last sale that was blown out of the title co because of the rezoning toward the end of the sale. I was curious about the outcome of the OTHER class action suit you were involved with. All I know is if I dont at least try, I get nothing
It was a long distance provider and they paid around five million. What I didn't realize was at the time, it is a con by the lawyers. They get a percent of every bodies money and there were thousands of us. They know going in they are the only ones who will make any money.
You see the ads on TV all the time, "If you have had such and such drug prescribed to you, call so and so law firm and you may be eligible for a cash recovery". Yea, like six bucks. It's a con, if they win you get like one fifty thousandth of 60% while they get like 40% of the whole amount plus costs.
Boy, Sunrico, that was a mouthful of law. I have read it before, however I didnt have the stamina to write the whole thing down as you did. Macguy, I found that back in my drinking days I have represented myself in various drunk charges (including DUI,) and found that my sentence was absolutely nooo worse than the other offeneders who paid a lawer $2k to $4 K to be represented. I dont know how this would work in civil court, but Id really have no problem laying it out to a commisioner of judge, and the best thing is that you can always object alot whereas an attorney only will object on the most important cases (important to him that is,and not to you) because an objection to an attryney is like ammunition-he only has so much ammo for each trial or he will be sort of blackballed by the judges and his peers whereas
a little guy like me probably wont see the judge ever again, and I can object every other statement til the cows come home. I like to take disadvantages and turn them into advantages
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im trying to find out facts
Its the sweet taste of revenge
