Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2015 9:16:27 GMT -5
This is from Florida's Administrative Code which "trumps" Polk County:
(10) It is the intent of the Legislature that all governmental entities in this state recognize and respect judicially acknowledged or constitutionally protected private property rights. It is the intent of the Legislature that all rules, ordinances, regulations, comprehensive plans and amendments thereto, and programs adopted under the authority of this act must be developed, promulgated, implemented, and applied with sensitivity for private property rights and not be unduly restrictive, and property owners must be free from actions by others which would harm their property or which would constitute an inordinate burden on property rights as those terms are defined in s. 70.001(3)(e) and (f). Full and just compensation or other appropriate relief must be provided to any property owner for a governmental action that is determined to be an invalid exercise of the police power which constitutes a taking, as provided by law. Any such relief must ultimately be determined in a judicial action.
AGO Advisory Opinion 70.001
Clearly, SLohA is a governmental entity...
... is attempting to restrict and limit the use of real property (exclusive use of common property for towers/supports/enclosures)....
... the owner of property (SLohA's 787 parcels) is bearing a disproportionate share of the burden (maintenance and replacement of towers, insurance on towers, legal fees/professional fees related to presence of towers, attempt to mandate fees for use of private internet operator etc) and..
...inordinately burdening SLohA owners for the good of the public (KCNetwork/Private Investors)
(10) It is the intent of the Legislature that all governmental entities in this state recognize and respect judicially acknowledged or constitutionally protected private property rights. It is the intent of the Legislature that all rules, ordinances, regulations, comprehensive plans and amendments thereto, and programs adopted under the authority of this act must be developed, promulgated, implemented, and applied with sensitivity for private property rights and not be unduly restrictive, and property owners must be free from actions by others which would harm their property or which would constitute an inordinate burden on property rights as those terms are defined in s. 70.001(3)(e) and (f). Full and just compensation or other appropriate relief must be provided to any property owner for a governmental action that is determined to be an invalid exercise of the police power which constitutes a taking, as provided by law. Any such relief must ultimately be determined in a judicial action.
AGO Advisory Opinion 70.001
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
"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 term "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" is defined in section 3(e) of the act to 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."
... is attempting to restrict and limit the use of real property (exclusive use of common property for towers/supports/enclosures)....
... the owner of property (SLohA's 787 parcels) is bearing a disproportionate share of the burden (maintenance and replacement of towers, insurance on towers, legal fees/professional fees related to presence of towers, attempt to mandate fees for use of private internet operator etc) and..
...inordinately burdening SLohA owners for the good of the public (KCNetwork/Private Investors)
