The Palm Coast City Council on Tuesday came to a consensus not to join a lawsuit challenging SB 180, a law passed by the Florida legislature limiting what local governments can do to restrict development. The Council agreed that the legislation was burdensome and that they may join the lawsuit at a later date, but that the timing was not right to do so now.
Mayor Mike Norris broached the idea of joining the lawsuit in Tuesday’s meeting. He echoed a sentiment felt by city and county governments across Florida, some of whom are uniting to sue the state. “We can’t continue to allow for our home rule rights to be eroded by the legislature,” Norris said. “We are a prime example of when development has been too much for a community.”
Background on SB 180
Signed into law in June, SB 180 was passed with the intention of allowing rebuilding after disasters such as hurricanes free of the burdens from locally-imposed building moratoriums. Critics of the bill have said that it’s constructed to go past that innocuous intention, and instead allows developers to profit at the detriment of local communities.
The bill passed unanimously in committee, and received only one no vote from the entire Florida legislature (Tracie Davis, a Democrat from Jacksonville). Among those who voted in favor were state Senator Tom Leek and state Representative Sam Greco, the two Republicans representing Flagler County in the legislature.
No one on the City Council expressed disagreement with Mayor Norris’ sentiment. Vice Mayor Theresa Carli Pontieri was especially against the effects of the bill, with her and Norris having been the two friendliest Council members to the suggestion of potential building moratoriums. “Every single politician in Tallahassee signed SB 180,” she said, mostly correct. “It’s a disgrace, it’s an absolute disgrace, but they did it.”
Why Palm Coast Will Wait
Where Pontieri objected to joining the lawsuit was the timing. As she pointed out, a legislative session is coming up in March, at which point the bill may be amended significantly. Pontieri reported hearing large contingencies of push-back from lobbyists against the perceived vagueness of SB 180 at a Florida League of Cities conference she attended this past weekend. This, she says, will almost certainly bring about the changes needed to the law without casting Palm Coast in a bad light with the legislators who decide what appropriations the city gets in the state budget.
“They understand and agree that the ‘unduly burdensome’ language is vague and ambiguous,” Pontieri said. “If there aren’t [changes to SB 180], I will admit that I was wrong and I’ll say let’s take it to the helm. But I don’t think with everything else that’s going on, with all the other cities that have jumped on this thing, I just don’t think that’s where we put our political capital as a city.”
Also relevant is the cost to taxpayers of joining the lawsuit. The firm representing the 25 cities and counties who’ve signed on is asking $10,000 to join, as well as $5,000 at each of two subsequent stages of appeal, according to City Attorney Marcus Duffy. That means up to $20,000 could be taken from residents for an initiative which could be made redundant by effective lobbying, or even cost Palm Coast critical funding from an antagonized state legislature.
Looking Forward
Norris, often willing to push uncompromisingly for checks on development, agreed to the consensus of holding off for the present moment. But he still encouraged his colleagues to prepare for a moment when joining the lawsuit could become reality.
The nearest local government to Palm Coast which has signed on to the suit is Edgewater, who sued to retain their power to enforce an already-passed building moratorium. Deltona, another city in Volusia County, previously voted to join in but then reversed course after one of their City Commission seats flipped over to a new member with a different stance.
Pontieri was in favor of a building moratorium before she was opposed to a building moratorium once there was actually enough votes to pass a moratorium, which now she is in favor of again, but doesn’t want to take any legal action at the moment and spend valuable political capital, but instead promises to admit she’s wrong in case this legislation isn’t changed by lobbyists in Tallahassee. Talk about a Kamala word salad! Again, she speaks out of both sides of her mouth effortlessly, and we all know she will never ever admit she was ever wrong about anything!