April 10, 2020
Dear Governor DeSantis,
I am the Commissioner for Orange County District 5. First, I would like to thank you for your leadership during these unprecedented times. I am writing to you to express my opposition to CS/CS/SB 410 – Growth Management (SB 410)/and companion bill HB 203 for the reasons specified in this letter, and I respectfully request that you veto SB 410.
I understand the decision to approve or veto a bill is one of the fundamental duties of the Governor under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida. I do not make this request lightly, as I am aware a Governor’s veto power should be used sparingly. Typically, bills transmitted by the Legislature get approved because the process generally produces ideas which embody the ideals of a representative government. Unfortunately, that is not the case with SB 410 because the bill: (1) duplicates existing state law and fails to add additional protection to property owners while creating undue costs and expenses to local government; (2) exposes local government to expansive and unnecessary litigation; (3) divests local governments from proper authority within their jurisdiction.
(1) SB 410 duplicates existing state law and fails to add additional protection to property owners creating additional costs and expenses to local government.
SB 410 would require 412 cities and 67 counties to amend local comprehensive plans by July 1, 2023 to include a new property rights element. This requirement duplicates existing state law and fails to add additional protection to property owners. These rights are thoroughly covered by a state law known as the Bert Harris Act, which requires local governments to compensate private property owners when their land is “adversely” affected by growth-management decisions. Furthermore, the process of amending comprehensive plans is costly and will require public meetings, staff time, and for many small cities and counties, the hiring of outside consultants and lawyers. The potential cost statewide of this unfunded mandate to local governments could be in the millions of dollars. Such an overhaul creates an undue burden on smaller municipalities that don’t have the resources to create their own comprehensive plan amendments.
(2) SB 410 exposes local government to expansive and unnecessary litigation.
The process indicated above will create more local expense and opens the door for litigation under the guise of property rights. In addition, companion bill HB 203 will allow the prevailing party in a challenge to local ordinances for local land use or growth management ordinances to seek attorney fees and costs. The potential to recover attorney fees will likely encourage challenges to local government environmental protections that implement a local government comprehensive plan’s natural resources and conservation elements. This will directly impact pending and future litigation. As a result, SB 410 unnecessarily exposes local government to expansive and unnecessary litigation.
(3) SB 410 divests local governments from proper authority within their jurisdiction.
The amendments serve to essentially preempt the land use policy decisions made by counties. A county’s infrastructure restraints and capacity are vastly different than what might exist within a more urbanized municipality within its jurisdiction. If the county adopts a land use ordinance that creates a transitional density buffer around the urban service area of a municipality in order to phase and lessen the infrastructure demands, under SB 410, the city must now affirmatively act to accept such an ordinance. This cumbersome process creates bureaucratic red tape for the local governments and divests local governments from proper authority within their jurisdictions. Furthermore, I have serious concern local governments will feel pressure to approve development projects by placing private property rights above other criteria, which may result in harm to the neighboring property owners, the community at large, and the environment and wildlife habitats.
As you continue to balance the challenge of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic while still adhering to your required duties as Governor, I ask that you thoroughly consider the information I have placed before you in this letter, and veto SB 410.
Very Truly Yours,
Emily Bonilla
Orange County Commissioner – District 5
