Featured Case

Contact:     R.S. Radford

Status:  Parties are undergoing discovery.

Summary:
Acquiring, owning, and making reasonably beneficial or productive use of private property are not mere privileges government can grant or deny at its discretion—they are fundamental rights.  That’s why federal and state Constitutions limit the ability of government agents to control private property.  When government regulations and actions become so excessive as to constitute a public use of private property, or when regulation of a portion of land removes any essential attribute of private ownership, PLF goes to court seeking equitable compensation for the deprived landowner.  In this case, Atlantic Center attorneys are representing the owner of property in Marathon, Florida, in a takings claim against the City of Marathon for its application of a land use ordinance that renders his property essentially unusable.

In 2004, Rodney Shands, a Chancery Court judge in Mississippi, began to move ahead with plans to build a home on Little Fat Deer Key, an island he owns in Marathon, Florida.  Neighboring islands had long since been developed.  Upon seeking a site conditions review from the City, Judge Shands was informed that he would not be permitted to build his proposed home.  The Marathon Planning Department claimed the island is an environmentally sensitive area comprised of “high quality hammock,” and that a City ordinance prohibits all development in areas fitting this description.

City officials also stated the island is a habitat for the white crowned pigeon, a state-listed threatened species.  The City’s review further indicated that even if the hammock moratorium and threatened species limitation did not exist, development of the island would be precluded anyway by Marathon’s rate of growth ordinance.  This ordinance mandates that only 24 building permits will be approved each year.  Permits are allocated according to a priority system, with environmentally sensitive areas afforded virtually last priority.  The review thus concludes that the only permitted use of the property is to sell its transferable development rights.