IN HAEC VERBA: MEET GRAY ROBINSON, COUNSEL FOR FSDB IN DEMAND FOR EMINENT DOMAIN AFFECTING TWO HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS

GrayRobinson is a full-service corporate law firm with over 250 attorneys throughout 10 offices across Florida. We provide legal services for Fortune 500 companies, emerging businesses, lending institutions, local and state governments, developers, entrepreneurs and individuals across Florida, the nation and the world.

At GrayRobinson, we offer not only breadth across a great many legal specialties, but depth and proficiency in each one as well. We have invented a better brand of law firm, counting creativity as a hallmark characteristic and insisting on ingenuity and innovation. At GrayRobinson, there is no such thing as "business as usual." We are one of Florida's fastest-growing law firms and are proud to be on the forefront of emerging legal issues.

Our strength is built upon the collective histories of our offices across the state. Our roots run deep in each community we serve. As we have expanded across Florida, we have added to the foundations laid by prestigious law firms in Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Key West, Lakeland, Melbourne, Miami, Naples, Tallahassee and Tampa.

We have forged our own path, creating a firm that best serves our clients and our communities. As we have grown, we have remained committed to keeping small-firm qualities, including the ability to work expeditiously on behalf of our clients and respond quickly to their needs. In addition, we have promised to work with conviction and compassion and to embrace our community as a matter of mission as well as passion.
History


In 1970, Richard Adams, Charles Gray, Gordon Harris and Richard Robinson join their practices to become Gray, Adams, Harris & Robinson P.A.

In January 1990, the firm expands its presence on Florida's Space Coast by merging with Kirschenbaum and Peeples, an established Brevard County firm.

In January 1996, GrayRobinson merges with the Melbourne firm of Nohrr & Nohrr. A few months later, the firm moves its Brevard County headquarters to Melbourne.

In February 1996, the firm continues its statewide expansion, establishing an office in Tallahassee to create a permanent presence in the state capital and further expand the firm's state governmental practice.

In August 2000, the firm adds more depth to the firm's capabilities and expertise in the state's capital by adding six additional attorneys to the Tallahassee office.

Expanding into the Tampa market in September 2000, the firm merges with Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, a firm with nearly a century of history in Tampa. The merger solidifies the combined firm's presence along the "Interstate 4 Corridor" - a magnet for a number of new companies and industries.

In January 2001, GrayRobinson merges with Lane, Trohn, Bertrand & Vreeland. Formed in 1926, it is one of the largest firms in Lakeland.

In December 2003, GrayRobinson establishes an alliance with Ed Scales, P.A. in the opening of its Key West office.

In August 2004, GrayRobinson opens its office in Naples.

In November 2004, GrayRobinson opens its Jacksonville office.

In June 2005, the firm opens its office in Fort Lauderdale.

In October 2007, the firm continued its strategic expansion across Florida, with the opening of its Miami office.

By continuing to add key personnel and enhance services in each of its locations, GrayRobinson has stayed well ahead of the curve in meeting the needs of business and government users of legal services. Today - with its foundation firmly grounded in the community and its vision focused on the future - GrayRobinson continues to be a major player in the state's dynamic growth.

Diversity Mission Statement

GrayRobinson is committed to excellence and we recognize diversity of ideas and experiences is critical to fulfilling our commitment. That commitment is demonstrated in many ways: by our employment practices and policies which ensure equal opportunity and foster a discrimination and harassment free workplace; opportunities for advancement to shareholder for women and minority lawyers; and our active recruiting efforts at law schools. GrayRobinson continuously reviews its recruiting, hiring, mentoring and training practices and initiatives.

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 2003 LEGAL OPINION SAID FSDB DID NOT HAVE EMINENT DOMAIN

Advisory Legal Opinion - AGO 2003-02

Print Version

Number: AGO 2003-02
Date: January 3, 2003
Subject: School for the Deaf and the Blind, land development

Mr. James P. Wilson
St. Augustine City Attorney
75 King Street
St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Mr. Sidney E. Ansbacher
General Counsel
Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind
780 North Ponce de Leon Boulevard
St. Augustine, Florida 32084

RE: FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND–EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES–DEVELOPMENT–COMPREHENSIVE PLANS–INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS–ZONING–EMINENT DOMAIN–applicability of land development regulations to Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind. ss. 163.3177, Fla. Stat. Chap. 1013, Fla. Stat.

Dear Mr. Wilson and Mr. Ansbacher:

The City of St. Augustine and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind have jointly requested my opinion on substantially the following questions:

1. Is the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind a "board" for purposes of section 1013.33(2)-(9), Florida Statutes, requiring the coordination of planning between boards and local governing bodies?

2. Does section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes, preclude the City of St. Augustine from regulating demolition or relocation and replacement of buildings on the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind facility site?

3. What impact does City of Temple Terrace v. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens[1] have on the authority of the City of St. Augustine to regulate those land use activities of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind that are not exempt from local government review or approval pursuant to section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes?

4. Does the Board of Directors of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind have the authority to condemn real property for the use of the school?

In sum:

1. The Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is a "board" as that term is used in section 1013.33(2)-(9), Florida Statutes, and must comply with the interlocal agreement requirement of that statute to the same extent and in the same manner as any other board.

2. Demolition and relocation of buildings does not appear to fall within the scope of either "renovation" or "construction" as contemplated by section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes. However, to the extent that replacement of buildings falls within the scope of the term "construction," that activity would not require local government review or approval pursuant to section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes.

3. Section 1013.33, Florida Statutes, specifically requires that the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind coordinate planning with local governing bodies. Thus, this statutory scheme for such coordination and cooperation controls over the more general judicial approach set forth in City of Temple Terrace v. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens.

4. The Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind may not condemn property or exercise the power of eminent domain.

Initially, I would note that a number of your questions require resolution of specific fact situations representing mixed questions of law and fact, which are outside the scope of authority of this office. Questions requiring an interpretation of federal law are also outside this office's statutory mandate and must be addressed by the federal agencies charged with interpreting these laws. Your questions requiring interpretation of Florida statutory law have been answered herein.

The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind was established in 1885 and is located within the City of St. Augustine. The school is a state-supported residential school for hearing-impaired and visually-impaired students in preschool through twelfth grade. The mission of the school is "to utilize all available talent, energy, and resources to provide free appropriate public education for eligible sensory-impaired students of Florida."[2] Pursuant to section 1002.36(1), Florida Statutes, "[t]he school is a part of the state system of public education and shall be funded through the Department of Education." Administrative control of the school is vested in a seven-member board of trustees with four-year terms of office.[3] The board of trustees is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.[4]

The Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is required by section 1002.36(4)(f)3., Florida Statutes, to adopt a master plan setting forth the mission and objectives of the school. Pursuant to the statute:

"The plan shall include, but not be limited to, procedures for systematically measuring the school's progress toward meeting its objectives, analyzing changes in the student population, and modifying school programs and services to respond to such changes. The plan shall be for a period of 5 years and shall be reviewed for needed modifications every 2 years. The board of trustees shall submit the initial plan and subsequent modifications to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate."

The school is currently involved in construction and expansion of its facilities in accordance with the school's five-year plan. Your questions relate to whether the school must operate in compliance with the city's land development regulations in undertaking construction and expansion to accomplish these goals.

Question One

You have asked whether the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is subject to the requirements of section 1013.33, Florida Statutes, requiring boards and local governmental entities to coordinate planning and development of public education facilities.

Section 1013.33(1), Florida Statutes, provides:

"It is the policy of this state to require the coordination of planning between boards and local governing bodies to ensure that plans for the construction and opening of public educational facilities are facilitated and coordinated in time and place with plans for residential development, concurrently with other necessary services. Such planning shall include the integration of the educational facilities plan and applicable policies and procedures of a board with the local comprehensive plan and land development regulations of local governments."

The section uses the terms "board," "school board," and "district school board" interchangeably throughout.[5]

Section 1013.33(2)-(9), Florida Statutes, requires school boards, counties, and certain municipalities[6] to enter into an interlocal agreement "that jointly establishes the specific ways in which the plans and processes of the district school board and the local governments are to be coordinated."[7] Interlocal agreements between local governments and school boards that were previously adopted under the provisions of section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, must be updated and executed pursuant to the requirements of subsections (2) through (9), if necessary.[8]

While the term "board" or "school board" is not specifically defined for purposes of section 1013.33, Florida Statutes, the definitional section of Chapter 1013, section 1013.01, Florida Statutes, does provide such a definition. Section 1013.01(3), Florida Statutes, states:

"Board," unless otherwise specified, means a district school board, a community college board of trustees, a university board of trustees, and the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind. The term "board" does not include the State Board of Education. (e.s.)

Thus, the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is clearly within the scope of the term "board" as it is used in section 1013.33(2)-(9), Florida Statutes, and must comply with the requirements for coordination of planning with local governmental agencies.

Question Two

You have asked whether section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes, precludes the City of St. Augustine from regulating demolition or relocation and replacement of structures on the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind facility site.

Section 1013.33(15), Florida Statutes, requires that existing schools shall be considered to be consistent with the applicable local government comprehensive plan adopted under Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The statute provides that local government review or approval is not required for

"[p]roposed renovation or construction on existing school sites, with the exception of construction that changes the primary use of a facility, includes stadiums, or results in greater than 5 percent increase in student capacity, or as mutually agreed upon, pursuant to an interlocal agreement adopted in accordance with subsections (2)-(8)."[9]

Section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes, specifically addresses "renovation or construction on existing school sites." The term "[r]enovation" is defined for purposes of Chapter 1013, Florida Statutes, to mean, in part:

"[T]he rejuvenating or upgrading of existing facilities by installation or replacement of materials and equipment and includes, but is not limited to, interior or exterior reconditioning of facilities and spaces; air-conditioning, heating, or ventilating equipment; fire alarm systems; emergency lighting; electrical systems; and complete roofing or roof replacement, including replacement of membrane or structure."[10]

While the term "construction" is not defined, the ordinary meaning[11] of the word "construct" is: "to make or form by combining parts: build";[12] and "[t]o build; erect; make."[13] (e.s.)

Demolition and relocation of buildings does not appear to fall within the scope of either "renovation" or "construction" as contemplated by section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes. You have also asked about "replacement." To the extent "replacement" falls within the scope of "construction," that activity may not require local government review or approval pursuant to section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes.

Question Three

You ask what impact the case of City of Temple Terrace v. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens,[14] may have on the authority of the City of St. Augustine to regulate those land use activities of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind that are not exempt from local government review or approval pursuant to section 1013.33(15)(b), Florida Statutes.

In the Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens case the Florida Supreme Court determined that a balancing of interests test must be applied in order to decide the consequences resulting from the exercise of a governmental function by one governmental unit within the geographic limits of a different governmental unit.[15] The case involved a suit brought by the City of Temple Terrace and several city residents to enjoin operation of a home for the mentally retarded on the grounds that the home was a nuisance and in violation of city zoning ordinances. The Second District Court of Appeal held that a determination of whether a governmental agency is immune from a zoning ordinance should be made by applying a balancing of interests test, under which the governmental unit seeking to use land contrary to applicable zoning regulations has the burden of proving that the public interests favoring the proposed use outweigh those mitigating against uses not sanctioned by zoning regulations of the host government. The Florida Supreme Court adopted this view.[16]

However, I would note that the District Court of Appeal in Hillsborough County Association for Retarded Citizens recognized that "[i]f there was a law which required the Division of Retardation to respect municipal zoning in its selection of sites for respite centers, this . . . would be decisive."[17] In this case no such statute existed and the court was forced to weigh the merits of a number of different tests to determine which would provide the most fair outcome when governmental entities are unable to resolve disagreements over land-use matters.

As discussed above, section 1013.33, Florida Statutes, specifically requires that the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind coordinate planning with local governing bodies. Thus, this statutory scheme for such coordination and cooperation controls over the judicial test in Hillsborough County Association for Retarded Citizens.

Question Four

You ask whether the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind may condemn real property for the use of the school.

The Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is created in section 1002.36(4), Florida Statutes. As discussed above, the board consists of seven members appointed by the Governor.[18] The board operates as a body corporate.[19]

Among the powers of the board is the authority to adopt administrative rules[20] and the authority to accept gifts, donations, or bequests.[21] In addition, the board may sell or convey any property received as a gift, donation or bequest upon terms it deems to be in the best interest of the school and its students.[22] The board of trustees exercises complete jurisdiction over the management of the school and may appoint a president, faculty, teachers, and other employees and may also remove them.[23]

The board has authority to procure professional services, such as medical, mental health, architectural, engineering, and legal services.[24] It is the responsibility of the board "to provide for the students of the school necessary bedding, clothing, food, and medical attendance and such other things as may be proper for the health and comfort of the students without cost to their parents[.]"[25] The board must provide for the proper keeping of accounts and records and for the budgeting of funds.[26] Contractual authority is vested in the board; it may sue and be sued and secure public liability insurance.[27] The board of trustees is responsible for preparing and submitting legislative budget requests, including fixed capital outlay requests,[28] and is empowered to invest in securities and administer and maintain personnel programs for its employees.

Florida courts have established that an administrative agency or officer possesses no inherent power and may exercise only such authority as expressly or by necessary implication is conferred by law.[29] In addition, if any reasonable doubt exists as to the lawful existence of a particular power, it should not be exercised.[30] Nothing in section 1002.36, Florida Statutes, specifically authorizes the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind to exercise the power of condemnation, nor is that power one that may be necessarily or reasonably implied from the powers specifically granted in the act.[31]

Further, condemnation proceedings are statutory proceedings allowed and required to be taken in the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Condemnation is not a common-law action and the method by which the power of eminent domain is to be exercised is dependent upon the constitutional or statutory provisions involved.[32]

Therefore, in the absence of any specific statutory authorization, the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind may not condemn property or exercise the power of eminent domain, nor does the board possess any implied authority to exercise such powers.

I would note that section 1013.24, Florida Statutes, provides:

"There is conferred upon the district school boards in the state the authority and right to take private property for any public school purpose or use when, in the opinion of the school board, such property is needed in the operation of any or all of the public schools within the district, including property needed for any school purpose or use in any school district or districts within the county. The absolute fee simple title to all property so taken and acquired shall vest in the district school board, unless the school board seeks to appropriate a particular right or estate in such property."

Thus, district school boards do have the right of eminent domain. Unlike section 1013.33, Florida Statutes, in which the terms "board," "school board," and "district school board" are used interchangeably, section 1013.24, Florida Statutes, appears to apply specifically to district school boards. In the absence of any reference to the "board" as that term is defined in section 1013.01(3), Florida Statutes, I cannot say that the right of eminent domain is extended by section 1013.24, Florida Statutes, to the Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind.

Sincerely,

Richard E. Doran
Attorney General

RED/tgh

---------------------------------------------------------

[1] 322 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), affirmed, 332 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1976).

[2] Section 1002.36(2), Fla. Stat.

[3] See, s. 1002.36(4), Fla. Stat.

[4] Section 1002.36(4)(a), Fla. Stat.

[5] See, e.g., s. 1013.33(1), Fla. Stat., requiring planning between "boards" and local governing bodies, and s. 1013.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat., referring to "[t]he school board" and requiring the school board, the county, and nonexempt municipalities to enter into an interlocal agreement; and s. 1013.33(3)(e),Fla. Stat., referring to both the "school board" and the "district school board"; and s. 1013.33(9), Fla. Stat., requiring that the "board" and the local governing body must share and coordinate certain information.

[6] Section 1013.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat., requires nonexempt municipalities located within the geographic area of a school district to enter into an interlocal agreement.

[7] Section 1013.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat.

[8] Section 1013.33(2)(d), Fla. Stat.

[9] Section 1013.33(15)(b), Fla. Stat.

[10] Section 1013.01(18), Fla. Stat.

[11] It is a general rule of statutory construction that, in the absence of a statutory definition, the plain and ordinary meaning of words can be ascertained if necessary by reference to a dictionary. See, Green v. State, 604 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1992); Plante v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 685 So. 2d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

[12] Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 243 (1975).

[13] The American Heritage Dictionary 151 (office ed. 1983).

[14] 322 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), affirmed, 332 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1976).

[15] 322 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

[16] And see, Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 93-15 (1993), in which this office concluded that, applying the Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens test, property of the St. Johns County Airport Authority was subject to zoning regulations adopted by St. Johns County.

[17] Id. at 578.

[18] Section 1002.36(4)(a), Fla. Stat.

[19] Section 1002.36(4)(d), Fla. Stat.

[20] Section 1002.36(4)(c), Fla. Stat.

[21] Section 1002.36(4)(e)1., Fla. Stat.

[22] Section 1002.36(4)(e)4., Fla. Stat.

[23] Section 1002.36(4)(d), Fla. Stat.

[24] Id.

[25] Supra n. 23

[26] Supra n. 23

[27] Supra n. 23.

[28] Section 1002.36(4)(f), Fla. Stat.

[29] See, e.g., State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 297 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1974).

[30] See, White v. Crandon, 156 So. 303, 305 (Fla. 1934).

[31] Compare, e.g., s. 127.01(a), Fla. Stat., delegating the power of eminent domain to counties; s. 166.411, Fla. Stat., authorizing municipalities to exercise the power of eminent domain for certain, specified purposes; and s. 298.22(6) and (7), Fla. Stat., empowering boards of supervisors of water control districts to condemn land or property within or without the district.

[32] See, generally, 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain s. 209, pp. 931-932 (1965), Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, 183 So. 145 (Fla. 1938); Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 87-53 (1987), concluding that without specific, express statutory authority for the exercise of the condemnation power, a land authority possesses no power to condemn property.

FSDB's toolbox -- Another great Stevens (New Yorker) cartoon from former Mayor George Gardner's St. Augustine Report, reprinted by permission

FSDB states that it has no plans for expansion in its five year plan, but demands the legislature grant it eminent domain. Why? For its "toolbox." That's some toolbox. That's some arrogant bunch of tools, led by Reprobate WILLIAM L. PROCTOR - meanest man in St. Augustine -- abusing nearly $29,000 in our money to fight two Historic Register neighborhoods in an effort to throw its weight around.

GRAY ROBINSON FLORIDA EMINENT DOMAIN AND CONDEMNATION PRACTICE -- FSDB Lawyers' website

SIDNEY F. ANSBACHER

















Rachael M. Crews
Earl M. Crittenden, Jr.
V. Nicholas Dancaescu
Terence J. "Terry" Delahunty, Jr.
Kristie Hatcher-Bolin
Kent L. Hipp
Jack A. Kirschenbaum
Tracy A. Marshall
W. Campbell McLean
Mark N. Miller
Menelaos K. Papalas
Joel E. Roberts
Brian E. Smith

REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS
Our team's energies are focused on two issues: first, we coordinate with the condemning authority to lessen the impact of the taking on our client's property and business. Second, where that is not possible, we work diligently to secure the highest amount allowable under the law to compensate our clients for the damages they are suffering.

REPRESENTING CONDEMNING AUTHORITIES
While we primarily represent property owners, our experience "on the other side of the fence" (representing condemning authorities) gives our team insight into the issues and concerns that are considered by a taking authority in compensating our clients. As a result, in many instances we are able to present the property owner's case in a manner that the taking authority better understands, appreciates and can justify. This is particularly true in providing the justification necessary for substantial settlements for property owners.

THE DEPTH TO HANDLE THE ISSUES
As one of Florida's largest law firms, engaging GrayRobinson affords our clients another unique advantage - namely immediate access to lawyers who concentrate in any one of a number of practice areas. GrayRobinson's lawyers, particularly those that practice in Government Relations, Land Use, Tax, Real Estate and Environmental Law are an invaluable resource for both the Eminent Domain team in preparing a case and the client in mitigating impacts of the taking. Beyond the GrayRobinson team, we engage and work closely with eminent domain appraisers and engineering experts throughout the state and nation and can assemble the best team of experts for our clients.

Also, in Florida if your business has been in existence at that location for more than five years you may be entitled to business damages for this type of taking. To fully analyze a claim for business damages, GrayRobinson works closely with an experienced team of forensic accountants who can examine and testify regarding the anticipated damages caused by the changes.

Where can I get updates relating to projects and eminent domain news and law?

Visit our blog at http://florida-eminentdomain.com/ for the latest news on eminent domain projects around the state, updates on state and national cases of interest and other topics of interest relating to property rights.

If you have any additional questions or would like to speak to a member of our team, please contact us here.



FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS



• What is eminent domain?

• Can the government really take my private land?

• Is it possible to stop the government from taking my land?

• How does the eminent domain process work in Florida ?

• Who can condemn property?

• What type of property can be taken?

• What is "full compensation"?

• What is fair market value?

• I received a letter from the Government saying they want to buy my land or condemn it. What should I do?

• The government's project has been planned for years and still appears to be years away. What is the point of retaining an attorney now?

• Do I have to accept the government's offer for my land?

• What if the Condemning Authority's offer is close to what I feel my property is worth?

• How do I know if the Condemning Authority's offer is too low? Aren't they required to treat me fairly and pay fair market value?

• Why should I have GrayRobinson represent my rights in an Eminent Domain lawsuit?

• A friend recently hired an attorney for a car accident and the attorney kept 30% of the award. If I hire GrayRobinson, will a portion of my award go towards the fee?

• I cannot afford/I do not want to pay an attorney to defend my rights. Does that mean I should accept the government's offer?

• The government is only taking part of my land. How is this valued?

• I have a mortgage on my property. How does that change a condemnation?

• Aren't appraisals all the same? Can't I just use the appraisal done for my mortgage to show the value of my property?

• What are the penalties for refusing to take the government's offer?

• What if the taking causes my property to become nonconforming with zoning, setbacks and the like?

• I am/there is a tenant at the property. Does this matter?

• The government is only taking a few parking spaces from the front of my business. What's the big deal?

• Where can I get updates relating to projects and eminent domain news and law?


What is eminent domain?

Eminent domain is the ability of the government to take your private property provided the government pays full compensation and the property is necessary for a public purpose. Florida and the United States Constitution provide that the compensation owed is the value of the property taken plus the diminution in value to the remaining property, if any.
Can the government really take my private land?

For the vast majority of cases, the answer is yes. All land is held subject to the power of the government to take it if the land becomes necessary for a public purpose. However, this power comes with a price: the condemning authority is required to pay you full compensation for your property.
Is it possible to stop the government from taking my land?

There are limited instances where it is possible to stop a project from going forward. For example, the Florida Legislature has prohibited the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private companies. However, the vast majority of cases are for well recognized public purposes (roads, transportation, schools, etc.) and are much more difficult to defeat. In these instances we focus on helping our clients receive the maximum compensation possible. These issues must be raised at the Order of Taking Hearing (see below) as that is the one and only time a property owner will have to challenge the government's right to take property.
How does the eminent domain process work in Florida?

While the first contact a property owner will usually have with a condemning authority is the first offer, the condemning authority has been working on the project for months or even years prior to this offer. The condemning authority is required to base the first offer on an appraisal and have plans in a relatively final format before proceeding. In the typical eminent domain case, if the property owner does not accept the first offer, the condemning authority will file suit and the owner would be required to appear before a judge to have what is known as an Order of Taking Hearing. At this hearing, the condemning authority will argue that the compensation offered is fair and will work to convince the judge that they should be allowed to deposit that amount with the Court and take immediate possession of the property in question. If the Judge grants the Order of Taking, that is precisely what happens: the property is transferred to the condemning authority and value is left for a later date. If after mediation and negotiation a settlement still cannot be reached, the property will be valued by 12 jurors with the property owner and the condemning authority both presenting valuation experts who present the jury with their opinion of value. The jury is then allowed, within certain boundaries, to have the final say on what should constitute full compensation.
Who can condemn property?

While the majority of condemnation in Florida is done by the Florida Department of Transportation, counties, cities and other entities have been granted the power of eminent domain. Examples include the Florida Turnpike Authority, various local expressway authorities, water management districts, canal authorities, port and airport authorities, and school boards. Additionally, the Florida Legislature has granted certain private corporations the right to use eminent domain, including power companies, railroads, pipeline companies, and other utilities.
What type of property can be taken?

The majority of eminent domain cases are filed for raw land and the structures on that land. However, any property subject to ownership is potentially subject to the power of eminent domain. Notable examples brought before the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts include vehicles, water rights, bald eagle feathers, cedar trees, citrus nursery stock, and interest from certain types of bank accounts.
What does "full compensation" mean?

The Florida Constitution requires that a taking authority provide a property owner with "full compensation." Subsequent courts have held that this constitutional right includes the fair market value of the property taken, any damages to the remaining property, attorneys' fees for the eminent domain case and reasonable expert fees in preparing that case.
What is fair market value?

Fair market value is generally understood as the price a willing seller will pay a willing buyer, neither under any duress, for the property in question. In each eminent domain matter we handle, a well-qualified appraiser is retained to assist our team in determining the fair market value of the property being taken.
I received a letter from the government saying they want to buy my land or condemn it. What should I do?

If you accept their offer, it is the end of your case. As stated elsewhere, rarely is the government's first offer their best offer. Once you have received a letter of this type, the condemnation lawsuit is not far behind if you do not accept their offer. This is a good time select an attorney and expert team. As the next answer explains more fully, hiring a team sooner rather than later gives landowners great advantages over those who wait. Remember: it costs you nothing to retain GrayRobinson to assist in your eminent domain case, so why not put the GrayRobinson team to work for you as early as possible?
The government's project has been planned for years and still appears to be years away. What is the point of retaining an attorney now?

The earlier an attorney is retained in an eminent domain suit, the better for the property owner. GrayRobinson attorneys monitor the projects from inception to construction and update our clients on the latest news and schedule for the project set to impact their property. Further, an attorney can assist the property owner in "precondemnation planning" which includes ensuring the property and documentation maximize the potential value of the property. Finally, attorneys may be able to assist owners who have unique circumstances in negotiating early acquisition, modifying a proposed taking to lessen the impact or gaining other non-monetary concessions from the taking authority which benefit the property owner.
Do I have to accept the condemning authority's offer for my land?

Absolutely not. It is your legal right to challenge the valuation the condemning authority places on your property. But in order to be successful, you need expert testimony relating to the true value of your property. This is where the experience and ability of veteran eminent domain professionals is most important. In our pursuit of full compensation, we work with a group of tried and true eminent domain experts who have been to trial and dealt with many aspects of eminent domain valuation and law.
What if the condemning authority's offer is close to what I feel my property is worth?

Most landowners have a good feeling for what they believe their property is worth. However, it is very important to engage practitioners who focus on eminent domain matters (lawyers, appraisers and planners, among others) to examine your property. Often, minor issues or issues which the owner overlooked cause the property to be valued well above what the owner thought it was worth. Remember, as this is your only chance to receive compensation for the taking of your property, it is very important to take every opportunity to ensure you receive the maximum value for your property.
How do I know if the condemning authority's offer is too low? Aren't they required to treat me fairly and pay fair market value?

Just as you wouldn't sell a piece of property to a buyer if a buyer were allowed to set the price himself, accepting the condemning authority's first offer could be selling yourself short. Fair market value can vary wildly depending on what the appraiser views as the highest and best use of the property and what other properties the appraiser feels are comparable. Because of this, to avoid being taken advantage of, it is vital to retain experienced experts who can tell you what they would testify to before a jury and also give insight into what type of award a jury would likely make. Other issues often emerge in eminent domain cases which are easily overlooked, both by property owners and attorneys not familiar with eminent domain cases. These include:

- Compensation issues relating to business damages

- Compensation issues relating to fixtures and improvements

- Severance damages and damages to remaining property

- Possible entitlement to relocation benefits

- Unforeseen or unrealized highest and best uses of the property (e.g. it may be valued much higher if an expert believes it is reasonably probable the property could be used for commercial use instead of the current residential use)

- Is the cure proposed by the government actually going to work? Can it be permitted? Is a different cure necessary?

- Did the condemning authority's experts miss hidden issues of access, drainage, use, engineering, etc. which impact value?

Only experienced eminent domain practitioners have the insight to identify, value and present these damages to the condemning authority in the manner most likely to yield maximum compensation.

Why should I have GrayRobinson represent my rights in an eminent domain lawsuit?

The difficulty with eminent domain matters is that the property owner starts every case at a huge disadvantage. In order to provide you with an offer, the condemning authority has already had a combination of lawyers, right-of-way agents, appraisers and experts scrutinize your property and the taking and formed opinions regarding the value and potential uses of your property. Fortunately Florida, unlike most other states, has given the property owner the opportunity to make the fight fair by mandating that the condemning authority must pay all of the property owner's reasonable expert costs and attorneys' fees. What this means is, in nearly all contexts where your property is taken and you hire GrayRobinson to represent your eminent domain case you pay no out of pocket fees.

A friend recently hired an attorney for a car accident and the attorney kept 30% of the award. If I hire GrayRobinson, will a portion of my compensation go towards the fee?

No. While we have heard of other eminent domain groups keeping a portion of the compensation you receive for your property; this is not something we do. Thus we do not keep any amount you are awarded (or settle for) for your property.
I cannot afford/I do not want to pay an attorney to defend my property rights. Does that mean I should accept the condemning authority's offer?

Absolutely not. In Florida, the condemning authority is required to pay your reasonable expert costs and attorneys' fees. What this means is that, in the vast majority of cases, the property owner pays no fees or costs.
The government is only taking part of my land. How is this valued?

This is known as a "partial taking." Here, the appraiser must focus on two things: first, what is the value of the property taken; and second, what is the loss in value to the remaining property as a result of the taking and project. For example, a piece of property being impacted by a new expressway would be entitled to the value of the acres taken to build the expressway and the damages caused to the rest of the property as a result of being smaller in total size, being next to an expressway, and having more difficult access.
I have a mortgage on my property. How does that change a condemnation?

Most mortgages have provisions dealing with the possibility of eminent domain and it will depend on the terms in that mortgage. However, as part of negotiations and case preparation, GrayRobinson attorneys frequently negotiate agreements between the mortgage company and the property owner on behalf of our clients.
Aren't all appraisals the same? Can't I just use the appraisal done for my mortgage to show the value of my property?

No, all appraisals are not the same! This is one of the most common mistakes we see property owners make on their own accord. A mortgage company appraisal is a completely different animal than an eminent domain appraisal. Most mortgage appraisals are performed quickly and focus on the potential downside to the bank. Eminent domain appraisals have a specific legal interest they seek to value: namely the fair market value as influenced by the guidance provided by Florida 's eminent domain case law.

An eminent domain appraiser needs to meet the following criteria: (1) experience and a thorough understanding of eminent domain valuation rules and laws; (2) experience appraising the type of property in question; (3) experience testifying before a jury; and (4) ability to write a comprehensive report explaining the findings.
What are the penalties for refusing to take the condemning authority's offer?

By forcing the condemning authority to exercise its power of eminent domain, an owner is simply exercising his/her constitutional rights. Courts generally recognize this fact as well. However, it is possible for the government to withdraw the first offer which can create very difficult circumstances for an owner attempting to represent him or herself.
What if the taking causes my property to become nonconforming with zoning, setbacks and the like?

This is a specific type of damage that, unfortunately, occurs all too often. When it comes to takings and zoning, different governmental units are pursuing their unique interests which can cause unforeseen and sometimes catastrophic consequences. For example, certain cities will not waive their requirements for building setbacks, even where the property has been impacted by a department of transportation road project. The result is that a formerly buildable lot could become nonconforming, unbuildable and have only nominal value.

When these issues arise, GrayRobinson's team of outside experts work closely with the municipality's planning and zoning departments so the property that remains after the taking is useful. When necessary, these experts will also work through final approval with the city to permit the anticipated cure.
I am/there is a tenant at the property. Does this matter?

Tenants are often overlooked in eminent domain actions. However, the Florida courts have repeatedly held that a tenant is entitled to compensation from an eminent domain action. Many leases address how compensation in an eminent domain case should be apportioned between a landlord and a tenant. Additionally, leaseholders who meet certain statutory criteria may be entitled to business damages even where they will continue to operate after the taking. We have worked with landlords and tenants in a variety of contexts regarding eminent domain matters and would be happy to discuss the particulars of your lease and business.
The condemning authority is only taking a few parking spaces from the front of my business. What's the big deal?

Parking spaces are frequently impacted in eminent domain matters and, unfortunately, the actual impact of loss of parking is often overlooked. We have seen cases where the loss of just a few spaces led to the ultimate shut down of a business. Remember: if fewer customers, clients and staff are able park at your business there is a good chance your business may not operate as efficiently and profitably as before the taking.
GrayRobinson's Eminent Domain team has handled thousands of eminent domain cases on behalf of our public and private clients. Our team has earned a reputation for being innovative and tenacious while remaining frank and reasonable. The team has grown to include 13 attorneys located in our offices across Florida. Our team focuses on unique qualities of the property being taken in order to maximize the compensation our clients receive for the value of their property and minimize any damage the taking causes. We are resolute in protecting our clients' interests.

KNOW YOUR LOBBYISTS: MEET FSDB Eminent Domain Lobbyist Sidney Ansbacher

SIDNEY F. ANSBACHER

EXPERIENCE

Sid is a Jacksonville native. He practices principally in administrative land use and environmental law. He holds an LL.M. in Agricultural Law from the University of Arkansas.

Sid practiced in the Division of State Lands for the Florida Department of Natural Resources, working on such purchases as Guana River, Kingsley Plantation, Ft. Clinch, the Truman Little White House in Key West, and the Big Bend. Additionally, he acted as General Counsel to the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind from 2005 through 2008.

In private practice, Sid has a wide ranging administrative, environmental and land use practice. He also helped write the environmental lending policy manuals for multiple statewide banks.

EDUCATION

University of Florida, B.A. (1981)
Hamline University, J.D. (1985)
University of Arkansas, LL.M. (1989)

PROFESSIONAL

The Florida Bar (1986)
Environmental and Land Use Law Section (ELULS), Past Chair
Environmental and Land Use Law Section (ELULS), Executive Council, Ex-Officio Member
Council of Sections, Member, 2000-2002
Environmental and Land Use Law Treatise, Managing Editor, 2001-Present
Judy Florence Outstanding Service Award, 1992, 2000
The Jacksonville Bar
Environmental and Land Use Law Section, Chair, 1993-1995
American Bar Association
Environment, Energy and Resources Section
Constitutional Law Committee, Programs Vice Chair, 2011-2012
U. S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (1988)
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1994)
United States Supreme Court (2009)
"AV" Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
Who's Who in American Law
Recognized by Jacksonville Magazine as one of the "250 Best Lawyers of 2010" in Jacksonville in Energy Law and ADM Law
Florida Super Lawyers, 2008-2011
Selected as Best Lawyers in America, Administrative Law and Energy Law, 2009-2012
Listed in Leading Florida Attorneys: Real Estate and Environmental Law (Top 1 percent of specialty)
Florida Trend Magazine, Twice selected among Florida's "Legal Elite" (Top 1.7 percent of Florida lawyers)
Florida High School Mock Trial Competition, Scoring Judge, 2006
Stetson University College of Law International Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, Presiding and Scoring Judge, 2006 and 2010
Florida Coastal School of Law, Adjunct Professor in Water Law

CIVIC

St. Johns County Weed and Seed Committee, Member, 2002-2007
West Augustine Community Redevelopment Agency, Counsel, 2002-2007, 2010-present
Regional Community Institute of Northeast Florida, Affordable Housing Committee, Member, 2010
Northeast Florida Regional Council, Leadership Academy, 2010

REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS

Breaching the Trust Fund, published in The Florida Bar Environmental and Land Use Law Section Reporter, Volume XXXI, No. 1, September 2009
What did you Expect from Swamp Sales, a Happy Ending?, ABA Constitutional Law Committee Newsletter, September 2010 Edition
Trends in Disclosure of Environmental Conditions, The Florida Bar Environmental and Land Use Section Reporter, Vol. XXXII, No. 1, October 2010
Stop the Beach Renourishment Stops Private Beachowners' Right to Exclude the Public, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Fall 2010
Stop the Beach Renourishment: A Case of MacGuffins and Legal Fictions, Nova Law Review, Summer 2011

Author or Co-Author of the following Florida Bar Journal articles:

Strictly Speaking, Does F.S.§376.313(3) Create Duty to Everybody, Everywhere?, Part I,September/October, 2010 Volume 84, No. 8
Strictly Speaking, Does F.S.§376.313(3) Create Duty to Everybody, Everywhere?, Part II, November, 2010 Vol. 84, No. 9
The Delicate Tax Ramifications of Donating Environmentally Sensitive Lands, May, 1993 Vol. LXVII, No. 5
Local Government Riparian Rights and Authority, June, 1996 Vol. LXX, No. 6
What Is a Bad Faith Administrative Petition, June, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 6
The Evolution of Declaratory Statements, November, 2003 Vol. LXXVII, No. 10
What's a Local Government Got to Do to Get Reviewed Around Here? - Review of Local Administrative Actions by Common Law Certiorari after Pleasures II v. City of Sarasota, May, 2003 Volume LXXVII, No. 5
We Thought We Were Safe: Federal Court Holds RCRA Preempts State Petroleum Cleanup Bar Statute, April, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 4
Environmental and Land Use Section Treatise: Antitrust Implications of Environmental and Land Use Law; Nonconforming Uses and Structures; and Spot Zoning

Author or co-author of various Law Review articles
Various speaking engagements

IN HAEC VERBA: FSDB Has FOur Registered Lobbyists Working to Adopt Eminent Domain Legislation Threatening Two Historic Neighborhoods

In the David v. Goliath battle over eminent domain, the controversial Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind has four (4) registered lobbyists, while our City of St. Augustine and two National Register historic neighborhoods have none.

FSDB's registered lobbyists are:

Ansbacher, Sidney F (Gray Robinson shareholder, Jacksonville, Florida)

Eccles, Patsy (FSDB Legislative Specialist, Lobbyist at Patsy Eccles and Associates and former Chief Legislative Director, Senate Appropriations Committee at The Florida Senate)


Hutto, L. Daniel (FSDB President)
Wiseman, Terri R. (FSDB Business Manager)


Here's Sid Ansbacher's bio:

ONCE-DOMINANT WHETSTONE FAMILY LOSES YET ANOTHER ROUND ON THEIR MISBEGOTTEN DEMAND TO BUILD A DOCK ON CITY BOTTOMLANDS

James 1:8
He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.



Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
City: We own the property
By PETER GUINTA
St. Augustine Record
peter.guinta@staugustine.com

Whetstone dock application tabled

A dispute between St. Augustine city officials and an attorney representing Virginia Whetstone caused the Planning and Zoning Board on Tuesday to again table the Whetstone family’s application for a Matanzas River dock.

The family’s application has been tabled several times already.

Whetstone and her husband, former St. Johns County Commission Chairman Bruce Maguire, contend they have evidence going back to 1795 that backs their claim to ownership of the property east of the Bayfront Inn at Bridge Street and Avenida Menendez.

That property consists of the roadbed of Avenida Menendez and a speck of land where the present seawall stands.

However, Assistant City Attorney Isabel Lopez said that the Whetstone letter they claim is their evidence of ownership was presented to her one hour before the hearing and that she hasn’t had time to read or examine it.

“You have to have a complete application to have a hearing,” Lopez said. “The public has a right to see the supporting documents.”

That statement was backed by PZA Chairman James McClure.

Whetstone’s attorney, George McClure of St. Augustine, said he anticipated the city disagreeing with the letter.

“(But) I believe you have the responsibility to hear the application just like any other dock application in the city,” he told the PZA. “I simply want to be treated the same as everyone else.”

Mark Knight, director of planning and building for the city, told McClure that he was being treated like anyone else.

“It would be an administrative nightmare if everyone applied for a dock but had no evidence of ownership to the water,” he said.

The Whetstones have applied to build a low-profile dock just east of the Bayfront Inn so their motel’s patrons can lounge right on the water and enjoy the city’s riverfront vista.

But the city contends that the property east of the inn is theirs and that the Whetstones have not documented their ownership claims.

George McClure said the ownership questions is separate from the dock question.

“That (issue) is not for this body to decide,” he said, explaining that he would send both deed and title of that property to the city.

Lopez said, “It’s not so much if the city owns the property. It’s whether (the Whetstones) own the property to the waterfront.”

PZA member Carl Blow made the motion to table the application. It passed unanimously.

Attorney McClure said, “I just don’t want the city to play games with me and waste our time.”

Whetstone told the board that she has previously applied for docks at the Edgewater and Anchorage inns, which she owns, and has never had to prove she owned the property before.

PZA member John Valdes said, “There’s never been an ownership dispute before.”

Most applications include a survey delineating the boundaries of the property, he added.

After the hearing, Maguire said that their search of the property records found that Avenida Menendez sits on an easement that crosses people’s property, including theirs.

“All the property under the road belongs to all the property owners down the street,” he said. “We can prove our chain of title.”

IN HAEC VERBA: Text of Chrysler – It’s Halftime In America – Clint Eastwood – Super Bowl 2012 Commercial.”

It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half.
It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game.
The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.
I’ve seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead.
But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.
All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?
Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.
This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines.
Yeah! It’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.

Perry v. Brown, a Victory for Equality for GLBTQ Citizens

This morning, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. It is a great day to be an American.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s opinion is as persuasive as United States District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in this case, which held that voters don’t get to take people’s rights away.
The array of legal talent in this case is extraordinary.
Kudos to lead plaintiff’s civil rights lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen, for assembling a winning team, with winning arguments.
The case of Perry v. Brown is now headed for the Supreme Court, where David Boies and Ted Olsen were on opposite sides in 2000 (Bush v. Gore), with Boies representing Gore and Olsen representing Bush.
Thurgood Marshall would be proud.
I am prouder still. I wrote the first article on Gay marriage for an American Bar Association publication in 1991, some 21 years ago. Like many legal articles, it was an intellectual exercise, rooted in the inspiration of winning Rinde v. Woodward & Lothrop, where a Gay clothing salesman won equal discount benefits at the Woodies department stores for his Gay partner, a Steptoe & Johnson associate. Our victory inspired hundreds of corporations to treat GLBTQ employees equally with married couples.
Equality is the law of the land. Now, Gays and Lesbians are marrying in ten nations, the District of Columbia and six states.
That’s progress!

WHETSTONES BACK BEFORE ST. AUGUSTINE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AT 2 O'CLOCK, DEMANDING TO BUILD A DOCK

First item on PZB agenda this afternoon:
Conservation Zone Development
(a) 2011-0114 Virginia Whetstone – Applicant
(Previously Tabled) Bayfront Inn, Inc.
Esther Whetstone Revocable Living Trust –
Owner
138 Avenida Menendez
To construct a dock.


PZB needs to deny the proposal. See Peter Guinta's article, below:

Whetstone dock proposal tabled until February
Posted: December 6, 2011 - 10:16pm
Advertisement
From staff

The St. Augustine Planning & Zoning Board voted to table an application from the Whetstone family for a 270-foot dock into the Matanzas River.

The proposed structure would attach to the east side of the Bayfront Motel, which they own, just to the south of the Santa Maria Restaurant.

City officials have said the city owns the seawall and river bottom there, and that the Whetstones own no contiguous upland property where a dock could be attached.

However, the family claims that they do own property to the east of their motel.

Their application has been tabled until the P&ZB’s February meeting.

Comment
2

Follow This Article
0
Comments (5)
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The St. Augustine Record or StAugustine.com. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
me
Easily proven
By me | 12/07/11 - 06:43 am

Go to the county offices and look at the plat maps and written description. Either she owns the land or she does not.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

Login or register to post comments

yathink
the only land east of her motel is avenida menendez, the side-
By yathink | 12/07/11 - 07:23 am

walk, seawall and the bay itself !!! so in effect they are claiming they own the sidewalks and street,seawall, and bay bottom ??? i'm certain the city will have an opinion re: that !!! as for attaching it to her motel,, the only way that might be accomplished would involve building an overhead walkway, over the street,, and would present an eyesore to one and all,, not to mention other bayfront owners views blocked by such a monstosity !!! virginia should stick to what she knows,, which is ??? making candy ...>>>yathink

Login or register to post comments

pitcher
parcel
By pitcher | 12/07/11 - 12:32 pm

This is the parcel no of the owner 196200 0000

Login or register to post comments

USDOJ Press Release: Attorney General Sues Lee County, Florida for Discrimination Against Three Hispanic Employees

Justice News Banner
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, February 6, 2012
Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Lee County, Florida, for Race and National Origin Discrimination

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today the filing of a lawsuit against Lee County, Fla., alleging that the county discriminated against three Hispanic employees on the basis of race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Title VII is a federal statute which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin or religion.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, Fla., alleges that Lee County discriminated against tradesworkers Marco Ferreira, Eduardo Rivera and Leonides Sepulveda by subjecting them to racial and ethnic harassment over a period of approximately two years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009. According to the complaint, these employees were subjected to the discriminatory actions of several of their co-workers who regularly used racial and ethnic slurs, repeatedly mocked Ferreira’s and Rivera’s accents, refused to perform work assigned by Rivera and made false accusations against Ferreira and Rivera to Lee County’s Office of Equal Opportunity in an effort to have the county terminate the two employees.

The United States alleges that despite timely complaints about the harassment by the workers to their supervisors, as well as direct observation of the harassment on several occasions by county supervisory employees, Lee County failed to take any meaningful steps to stop the harassment or discipline the harassers until January 2009, when the harassers were terminated. Through this lawsuit, the United States is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Lee County to develop and implement policies that would prevent its employees from being subjected to harassment based on race or national origin as well as monetary damages for the victims of the county’s discriminatory actions.

“No one should have to endure harassment because of his or her race or national origin in the workplace,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to enforcing this nation’s employment discrimination laws.”

Ferreira, Rivera and Sepulveda initially filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigated the matter, determined there was reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred and referred the matter to the Justice Department.

The continued enforcement of Title VII has been a priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt/ and www.justice.gov/crt/about/emp/.

Last night, another victory for preservation of our nature and beauty in St. Augustine, Florida

Last night, St. Augustine Beach Mayor Gary Snodgrass announced at the Commission meeting the end of REGENCY's ill-advised proposal to purchase a 6.1 acre city-county park to build a shopping center.

That's great news.

Washington Post: Evildoer Karl Rove Is "Offended" by Clint Eastwood's Superbowl TV Commercial for Chrysler -- Watch It Here!

Karl Rove ‘offended’ by Clint Eastwood’s Chrysler ad
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 12:52 PM ET, 02/06/2012

A Chrysler ad aired during the Super Bowl Sunday night has inspired ire among some Republicans and admiration among some Democrats — with both sides seeing a political message that boosts President Obama.

In an ad touting the resurgence of the American auto industry, Clint Eastwood declared that it’s “halftime in America and our second half’s about to begin,” which could be interpreted as a reference to Obama’s second term. 

The ad’s themes seem to echo Obama’s own argument that his administration brought the auto industry back from the brink of disaster.

“They almost lost everything,” Eastwood says of Detroit. “But we all pulled together. Now Motor City is fighting again.”

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. “I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

(Most — but not all, if you include the loan made under the Bush Administration — of the money loaned to Chrysler has been paid back.)

“Agh. WTH?” tweeted conservative commentator Michelle Malkin. “Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad???”

Scenes from union protests in Wisconsin were used in the ad, but the messages on the signs were blurred out, perhaps to avoid the very politicization some Republicans see.

Both David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, and Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, tweeted praise for the spot.

Eastwood’s own politics are ambiguous. He was the nonpartisan mayor of Carmel, Calif., for two years. George H.W. Bush considered asking Eastwood to be his running mate in 1988. While he has supported some Democrats in California; Eastwood said in 2011 that he couldn’t recall ever voting for a Democratic presidential candidate. In 2008, he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

About the same time, he told GQ that he no longer identified with the GOP: “[O]ver the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it.”

He went on to explain that he’s liberal on social views but economically conservative. In fact, Eastwood opposed the auto bailout.

“We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies,” he told the L.A. Times last year. “If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.”

Read more on PostPolitics.com

Great TV Ad WIth Clint Eastwood During Yesterday's Superbowl 46

See above. So evildoer Karl Rove is offended with former Republican Clint Eastwood's TV commercial for Chrysler, which speaks eloquently about how we're all in this together. I've always suspected that Rover was a divider, not a uniter. Now we know.

Guest column: Robin Nadeau worked for a more sustainable world

We moved to St. Augustine in 1999. I was first contacted, encouraged and empowered by Robin Nadeau in 2000, after Robin read my December 3, 2000 St. Augustine Record column, “Democracy under pressure,” about the strange case of Bush v. Gore (Florida election recount lawsuit). Below is my 600 word guest column about Robin Nadeau, from yesterday's St. Augustine Record (coincidentally, I saw my first butterfly of 2012 while walking that morning):


Guest column: Robin Nadeau worked for a more sustainable world
Posted: February 5, 2012 - 12:32am

By ED SLAVIN
St. Augustine

Hundreds of Robin Nadeau’s friends joined her family, celebrating her life on Jan. 23.

“Thinking globally, acting locally,” always young at heart, Robin knew “freedom is never free.” “Speaking truth to power,” she worked for positive change and a more sustainable world.

Citizen Robin Nadeau (1926-2012) was a zealous environmentalist, peace activist, government reformer and free speech defender. Robin won the Daughters of the American Revolution National Conservation Award for work planting/saving thousands of trees (where greed once endangered them all).

Robin supported “Medicare for All,” Solar/Wind energy, Progressive Taxation and Environmental Justice. She opposed polluters’ promiscuously weakening our environmental laws. She exposed the horrors of nuclear power plants, offshore oil, and dirty money in politics.

She succeeded in convincing governments to buy park land, including a now-threatened 6.1 acres at St. Augustine Beach.

Robin was kind, logical, thoughtful, winning progressive victories with information, research, diplomacy and tact. Robin had what Ambassador Andrew Young calls “soul force.”

Few said “no” to Robin Nadeau.

A faithful convert to Roman Catholicism, she supported Occupy St. Augustine, Grandmothers for Peace, NAACP, League of Women Voters and Sierra Club. She championed equality for gays and lesbians.

Robin encouraged and nurtured so many people.

Robin knew that “decisions are made by those who show up,” showing up for decades. Her work was a tale of two cities (St. Augustine and St. Augustine Beach) and St. Johns County, persuading all to adopt tree protections, serving for decades on city and county boards and as TREES VP for 13 years.

In December 2006, Robin persuaded me to help investigate our Mosquito Control District’s luxury jet helicopter purchase and organophosphate spraying. Together, we helped kill the $1.8 million, no-bid helicopter, winning a refund. It took us nine months, enduring AMCD’s then-chair’s insults and arrest threats. The people won. Robin wrote in her autobiographical note, “I contributed to an ultimately successful effort to replace use of organophosphates to control mosquitoes in St. Johns County with environmentally friendly techniques.”

In 2007-08, Robin and I sought ballot-petition signatures for Democratic Congressional candidate Faye Armitage in local parks. Someone threatened to have us arrested, exclaiming, “I know the law!” Gently, Robin and I stood our ground. First Amendment rights prevailed.

Robin believed in hope, forgiveness, democracy and Democrats: as precinct committeeperson, Robin worked hardest of all.

Robin Nadeau lived with joy, wit and style, getting things done (often working until 3 a.m.). Like Thomas Jefferson, she loved beauty and she designed her own home. She had an infectious laugh, threw wonderful Twelfth Night parties, and made the best orange marmalade.

The Record printed a cognitive miser’s 2004 letter, attacking “the Robin Nadeaus of the world.” I responded, “thanking the Robin Nadeaus of this world,” who bring us moral strength.

“Robin Nadeau family values” are based on love, reality and kindness — the opposite of “faux FOX-TV family values,” based on prejudice, ignorance and hatred.

With all of her beautiful heart, soul and “PBS mind,” Robin Nadeau avidly supported the St. Augustine National Historical Park and National Seashore since 2006. St. Augustine Beach Mayor Gary Snodgrass remembers Robin telephoning him about the proposal two months ago — he was in the shower, but took her call.

Robin’s inner strength showed on Nov. 1, as park supporters were called “Nazis” and “Communists” by angry, misguided “Tea Partiers,” who momentarily scared off our County Commissioners from supporting the Historical Park and Seashore. Enough. errant nonsense!

Give Robin Nadeau the last word. She wrote, “I think my greatest achievement lay in my contribution to enactment of the St. Augustine National Historical Park and National Seashore Act of 2012.” Let’s do it for Robin! www.staugustgreen.com


■

Ed Slavin has a bachelor of science in foreign service from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor from Memphis State University (now University of Memphis).

Wonderful cartoon satirizing eminent domain legislation demand by Florida School for Deaf and Blind, from George Gardner's St. Augustine Report

Mick Stevens, cartoonist, The New Yorker Magazine
Reprinted with permission, the St. Augustine Report gardner@aug.com