Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-14-2006‎(workshop)‎ — reading text

Fax: ( 850) 244- 8929 The contents of this message may be attorney- client privileged. Do not disseminate to any other person and please ask if you are uncertain. 11/ 14/ 2006  Page 1 of9 305 So. 2d 764 Page 1 305 So. 2d 764 Cite as: 305 So. 2d 764) C 233 Landlord and Tenant City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., Fla. 233VIII Rent and Advances 1974. 233VIII( A) Rights and Liabilities Supreme Court of Florida. 233k200. 11 k. Validity of Regulations. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal Most Cited Cases corporation, Appellant, Statute, which provides that municipalities shall v. have governmental, corporate, and proprietary FORTE TOWERS, INC.,a Florida corporation, powers to enable them to conduct municipal Appellee. government, perform municipal functions, and No. 44936. rendermunicipal services and which enables them any power for municipal services except to exercise Oct. 9, 1974. where expressly prohibited by law, is not Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1975. unconstitutional, even as it relates to rent control. West's F. S. A. 9 166. 021. The Circuit Court, Dade County, James W. Kehoe, J., held city' s rent control ordinance to be 121 Municipal Corporations 268 ~ 122. 1( 4) unconstitutional and also held statute relating to municipal home rule to be unconstitutional and city 268 Municipal Corporations 2681V Proceedings of Councilor Other appealed. The Supreme Court held that home rule statute, even insofar as it authorized rent control Governing Body measures, was not unconstitutional; and that 268IV( B) Ordinances and By- Laws in evidence presented at trial was insufficient to General overcome city council's finding that an emergency 268k 122. 1 Evidence 268kI22. 1( 4) k. Weight and existed requiring adoption of rent control measures: but that the rent control measures constituted an Sufficiency. Most Cited Cases unconstitutional delegation of council' s powers to Formerly 268k 1 22( 4)) the rent control administrator. Evidence presented was insufficient to overcome city council's finding that an emergency existed at Affirmed in part and reversed in part. time that rent control ordinance was passed pursuant to city' s home rule powers. West' s F. S. A. 9 Dekle, 1., concurred specially and filed an opinion 166. 021. in which Overton, J., concurred. 31 Municipal Corporations 268 ~ 591 Overton, 1., concurred specially and filed an 268 Municipal Corporations opinion. 268X Police Power and Regulations Roberts, J., concurred in part and dissented in part 268X( A) Delegation, Extent, and Exercise of and filed an opinion in which Boyd, J., concurred. Power 268k591 k. Delegation of Power by Ervin, 1., concurred in part and dissented in part and Municipality. Most Cited Cases filed an opinion in which Adkins, C.J., and McCain, Rent control ordinance was constitutionally 1., concurred. defective in its attempted delegation of legislative administrator West Headnotes powers of the city to rent control II Landlord and Tenant 233 ~ 200. 11 without prescribing sufficient objective guidelines. @ 2006 Thomson/ West. No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works. HTMLE& destination= atp& sv= Split& rs=... 11/ 14/ 2006 https:// web2. westlaw .comlprintlprintstream. aspx?prft=  Page 2 of9 305 So.2d 764 Page 2 305 So.2d 764 Cite as: 305 So. 2d 764) 764 Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., J. Robert Olian, Affinned in part; reversed in part. Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph A. Wanick, City Yale Atty. Freeman, Asst. City Atty., Tobias Simon of Tobias DEKLE, J., concurring specially with opinion with Simon and Elizabeth duFresne, Miami, and Jack which OVERTON, 1., concurs. Sobell, for appellant. OVERTON, J., concurring specially with opinion. Wm. Snow Frates, Ray H. Pearson, James D. Little ROBERTS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in and Andrew C. Hall of Frates, Floyd, Pearson, part with opinion with which BOYD, J., concurs. Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, for appellee. ERVIN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 765 Ralph A. Marsicano, Tampa, and Burton M. with opinion with which ADKINS, C. J., and Michaels, Tallahassee, for Fla. League of Cities, McCAIN, J., concur. DEKLE, Justice ( concurring Inc., as amicus curiae. specially): Marion E. Sibley of Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Following the enactment of Ch. 73- 129, also known Ward, Miami Beach, for amicus curiae. as the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, the City PER CURIAM. of Miami Beach ( hereafter referred to as ' the city') Jurisdiction of this direct appeal from the Circuit adopted a rent control ordinance which included a Court of Dade County vests under Art. V, s 3( b)( I), finding of public emergency due to a housing Fla. Const., the trial court having expressly held shortage and abnonnal rent increases. Thereafter, unconstitutional F. S. s 166. 021 relating to the instant suit was filed seeking a declaratory municipal home rule ( a portion of Ch. 73- 129, Laws judgment and injunctive relief on the ground that of Florida, 1973). the rent control ordinance was invalid for numerous reasons. Following trial, the circuit court held F. S. 1][ 2] It is the unanimous opinion of this Court that s 166. 021 invalid to the extent that it authorized F. S. s166. 021 is constitutionally valid, as more municipal rent control laws, and struck down the fully set forth in the special concurring opinion of ordinance on the basis that it conflicted with certain the Mr. justice Dekle. A majority of this Court also general laws of the state and that it unlawfully concurs in the trial court' s holding that insufficient delegated the city' s legislative authority without evidence was presented at trial to overcome the city establishing sufficient guidelines. The able trial council's finding that an emergency existed ( at the judge also effectively settled certain issues when he time it was passed) to support enactment of the rent specifically ruled that insufficient evidence had control ordinance at that time, although Justices been presented, ( I) to overcome the city council's Roberts and Boyd expressly dissent on this point. finding that an emergency existed, ( 2) to established that the ordinance was improperly enacted, ( 3) to 3] However, a majority of this Court holds that this establish that the ordinance was ambiguous, and ( 4) particular rent control ordinance is constitutionally to establish that the ordinance was discriminatory. defective in its attempted delegation of the legislative powers of the city