Lost: Motion for rehearing was denied.

In 1996, the Florida Legislature enacted the Bert J. Harris Act to provide a remedy to landowners unfairly affected by government regulation of their property. The law says, “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.”

P.I.E. worked with the county to select a proposed excavation site, and conducted all the necessary engineering and surveying studies necessary for a permit. The county staff confirmed that P.I.E. had done all that was necessary to obtain an excavation permit. But when neighbors complained, the county rejected the permit application, citing generalized concerns about the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Several weeks later, the county revised the excavation ordinance to ensure that P.I.E. could not resubmit its application; any proposal would be dead on arrival. The government’s actions diminished the value of the site by over $2 million.

PLF represents P.I.E. in its appeal of an adverse ruling in the trial court. We argue that the Harris Act requires that the property owner be compensated for its losses when the government improperly denies a permit and then re-writes the law to eliminate any opportunity for the owner to use the property as it intended and the law allowed. On February 7, 2018, the appellate court denied a rehearing and a written opinion.

What’s At Stake?

  • The Florida Legislature created the Harris Act in order to ensure that property owners could recover for their losses caused by government actions that inordinately burden their property. The county pulled the rug out from under P.I.E.’s excavation plans, costing them more than $2 million.
  • When individual property owners are denied the ability to use their land as intended for the benefit of the larger community, the community must bear the cost by compensating the owners for their lost use and value.

Case Timeline