Has the Tide Turned?

Since 1986, the Florida Keys' confiscatory land use regulations have been imposed only on owners of undeveloped land. Two-thirds of those landowners reside outside the Florida Keys. They have no right to vote on the "got-miners" choices for the County Commission. Since the got-miners' "rate-of-growth" ordinance was imposed on the Keys in 1992, vacant landowners have been selling their property to the government at rock-bottom prices that rarely reached 15% of Fair Market Value.

In 1996, Andy Tobin and I sent Voice of Reason newsletters to just over 10,000 owners of undeveloped Keys' properties. Today there are only 4,000 such owners. The Keys' rate-of-growth ordinances have limited development to under 250 building permits/year since 1992 -- or less than 3,750 dwelling units in 17 years. This suggests about 2,250 parcels have been sold to government at unfair prices.

Now that the Florida DEP v. West, et al., decision has been released by the 3d District Court of Appeal, perhaps the remaining 4,000 owners of undeveloped Keys' land will realize that the State has been acquiring Keys' property -- for 17 years -- for about 10% of Fair Market Value. The 3d District Court of Appeal will issue its "mandate" on the West decision in two days (November 5th), and we assume the State is not dumb enough to lose another half-million dollars in interest on a high-risk petition for "discretionary review" by the Florida Supreme Court (only 11% are accepted for "review;" substantially fewer actually result in a reversal).

[This post replaces an earlier post.]

Landowners' Condemnation Blight Judgments Affirmed

Today, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgments in Florida DEP v. West, et al, awarding nearly ten times the State's "good-faith" deposits when it condemned two North Key Largo properties in 2004. The trial (and chief) judge, Luis Garcia, should be pleased with his decision to require the jury to consider the "highest and best use" of these properties as of February 8, 1982 -- the last day they were "buildable" -- but valued in the 2004 real estate market.

Judge Garcia found, on the testimony of two former County Commissioners from the early 1980's, and from the voluminous paper trail, that Monroe County was made an "offer it couldn't refuse" in 1982, and again in 1986, and so on until the present day. Former Governor Bob Graham got his conservation land back in '82 ... but these landowners have yet to be paid, in 2009. Though the State DEP could seek "discretionary review" from the Florida Supreme Court, the odds of getting such a review are slim, and the State is running up interest to the tune of $1,468 per day. As of this date, the State's appeal has added $556,247 to the Landowners' compensation (at 11%/year, they should appeal forever).

All in all, this was a good day for those Florida Keys' landowners who have rebuffed the governments' 10-cents-on-the-dollar offers for all these years. For more details, see the West-Freeman section of my website.

(Edited 10/22/2009 to include interest information.)

It Could Be a Busy 4th Quarter

After three weeks away from the pressure of brief-writing -- not to mention the stress of moving our pending regulatory taking and due process lawsuits -- it is a bit easier to cope. I did spend some of that downtime (at least an hour) thinking about what can be done to bring the Keys' land use regulations in line with those of a civilized society. Like the South of France. Not likely, that.

That raises a question: what civilized society would we like to emulate? California? There's a basket case, where affordable housing exactions are killing potential housing projects, and the state budget is a joke. How about Miami, Naples, or Fort Lauderdale? They have too much of everything, and the high vacancy rates to go with it.

Has anyone else noticed that Florida local governments (including the Keys) spent taxpayers' money like drunken sailors in the 2001-06 run-up? And now they're stuck with overpaid administrators and pension obligations that they will never be able to meet. OK, there's a goal.

First, fire half the County staff, starting with those who draw the largest paychecks. I challenge anyone to explain why we need a County Administrator when we have a County Commission that consists of five geniuses, all of whom are former (or future, because they are so smart) Nobel Prize winners. We could also do away with the County Attorney position, as all five Commissioners are more versed in the law than any attorney could possibly be. And the entire planning department could be let go, as there is nothing left to plan.

In the Keys, the City of Marathon cannot give away its building permits. The "village" of Islamorada was (correctly, I might add) deemed "charm-less" by United States District Judge James Lawrence King, and it is being sued by its former mayor, and a bunch of other people, over its sewer impact fees. Key West is, well, Key West. Monroe County may well be the only county in Florida where the population decreased over the 2000-2010 decade. Trust me, we will not get a merit badge for that statistic.

So ... are things good in the Keys? No. We have had several years of over-building, in large part because the State and County superseded the market, so every person who could, built a house. We now have a queue as long as my arm, of people who definitely do NOT want to build here. (The reason people wanted to build here was that "it was difficult.") We have had an artificial market here for 17 years, and it finally folded. Do we have a problem? Yes.

Do we need to change the regulatory climate in the Keys? Yes.

On Vacation

Just a note to let you know Rana and I have been traveling in Italy and France since September 17th. We spent our first week in Venice, Italy, where Rana attended an oceanographic conference. At the moment, we are visiting with an former colleague from graduate school days, Stanley Pons, in the Italian Maritime Alps. We are in a perched, very old, village (Corte) about an hour from the Mediteranean coast, and about two hours from Nice, France. (Our hosts also have dsl internet access and a WiFi network in their ancient, stone, summer home.) We expect to be home on October 2nd, and will be back to work by October 5th. Ciao!

Nollan-Dolan Exactions May See More Play

Since 1976, the State of Florida and the Monroe County (Florida Keys) Commission have imposed ever-increasing restrictions on the use of Florida Keys property -- using regulatory authority to confiscate private property without paying Just Compensation -- on the fuzzy theory that this will somehow better the universe (at no cost to the State and County taxpayers). The major shift took place on September 15, 1986, when the State "approved" a confiscatory comprehensive plan (that was written by the State) that prohibited the development of thousands of legally-platted lots within the Florida Keys, and downzoned thousands more.

In 1987 and 1994, the Supreme Court issued two regulatory taking opinions that did little more than muddy the waters. The 1987 decision, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, stemmed from a request for a building permit to rebuild the Nollans' oceanfront property with a larger residence. The California Coastal Commission acquiesced on the condition that the Nollans dedicate a portion of their property as a "viewing easement," that would allow passers-by to see the ocean from the street in front of the Nollans' home. Though many landowners had caved in to the Coastal Commission's demands, the Nollans sued, claiming the easement was an unconstitutional exaction. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining that a permit "condition" must be related to the "impact" of the development approved by said permit. In Nollan, the Supreme Court could not see a connection between the enlargement of the Nollan's home, and the need for passers-by to see the ocean.

In their 1994 decision. Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, the Supreme Court supplemented the Nollan "connection," with a Dolan "proportionality" requirement for exactions imposed on private property owners. The Dolan decision has always been difficult to articulate. However, the 2006-2008 Utah Supreme Court has done a nice job explaining Dolan.

In B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County (I), 128 P. 3d 1161 (Utah 2006), and B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County (II), 196 P. 3d 601 (Utah 2008), the Utah Supreme Court reduced the Dolan "proportionality" requirement to dollars. In short, if the cost to the taxpayer exceeds the costs of its improvements (to the public), the taxpayer has been impermissibly overcharged. The difference is a Fifth Amendment taking.

The Key Deer Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is Invalid for Non-compliance with the Information Quality Act.

The Florida Key deer were listed as an endangered species in 1967. Since then, the herd has increased in numbers and the individual deer have become heavier and healthier today than they were in 1970. See Harveson, et al., "Impacts of urbanization on Florida Key deer behavior and population dynamics," 134 Biological Conservation 321-331 (2007), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com. Harveson, et al., concluded Key deer prefer urbanized habitat on Big Pine Key, and that, in 2003, they were 10% heavier than those living in 1973.

On July 9, 2006, the State of Florida and Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys, obtained an "incidental take permit" (ITP) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS), ostensibly to protect the Key deer and the Playboy bunny (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) from the ravages of human civilization. The only "scientific" basis for the ITP is an April 2006 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), prepared by Monroe County and the State of Florida.

The HCP relies solely on a chapter on population viability analysis (PVA), that the HCP's authors apparently lifted directly from Dr. Roel Lopez's 2001 Ph.D. dissertation, "Population Ecology of Florida Key Deer," Texas A&M University 2001. PVA calculations have become popular with conservation biologists, in part because there are at least five "canned" computer programs that will spit out apparent "results" without any regard for their accuracy -- or lack thereof.

The consensus amongst the mathematically capable is that one cannot obtain reliable extinction probabilities unless one has collected 5 to 10 years of data for every year to be projected; i.e., to project survival probabilities 50 years in the future, one would need 250 to 500 years of field data on the species in question. (The answer is "no," he did not have adequate data to calculate a PVA.) Dr. Lopez's 50- and 100-year PVA projections are subject to such huge error ranges that the means (or medians, as in the dissertation) are meaningless. Ergo, we have a classic nonsensical theory, "garbage in, garbage out," and a herd of bureaucrats depriving thousands of humans of their land and fortune (though the Key deer thrive in a developed environment).

Fortunately, an obscure federal statute prohibits the use of "garbage in, garbage out" theories in federal programs. Sec. 515(a) of Pub. L. 106-554 (2001), requires all Federal agencies to develop policies and procedures for "ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information" produced by said agencies.

Sec. 515(a) is known as the "Information Quality Act (IQA)," or by some agencies, the "Data Quality Act (DQA)." As OMB stated in its Federal Register Notice on the IQA regulations, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452-60 (Feb 22, 2002), when scientific information (data and analytical results) is relied on by a federal agency, "the original and supporting data shall be generated, and the analytical results shall be developed, using sound statistical and research methods."

Data and analytical results must be subjected to "peer review." In the scientific community, peer review involves submitting one's research to a respected scientific journal, where a scientist-editor will select (usually three) reviewers who regularly publish papers in the same field as the paper to be reviewed, to critically review and comment on the submission. Comments flow back and forth among the author, the editor, and the reviewers, and the paper is ultimately either published, published as modified, or rejected.

By now you have figured out that Ph.D. dissertations (including mine, in 1969) are not "peer reviewed," and do not qualify as "good science" under the 2001 Information Quality Act. Dr. Lopez purposely broke his dissertation into discrete chapters, each of which could stand on its own. He submitted individual chapters to scientific journals for peer review and, hopefully, publication. From 2002 through 2006, according to his curriculum vitae, Dr. Lopez was the senior author on five peer reviewed papers on Key deer, and a co-author on eight more. To his credit, NOT ONE of these 13 peer-reviewed papers (that's a lot!) mentions the PVA in his dissertation. I assume Dr. Lopez recognized the weaknesses in his computer-driven PVA, and published his strength, rather than canned PVA numbers.

So what's next? A reasonable move would be a petition to the USF&WS to rescind the 2006 Incidental Take Permit. The Service's IQA rules require it to respond to such a petition within 90 days after receipt of a petition from an "affected person." The rules also provide for an internal appeal, submitted within 21 days of the initial decision, if petitioner is not satisfied with the Service's response. The appeal must be completed within 60 days. If a petitioner is not satisfied with that decision, he or she may bring an action, against the Service, in federal court.