Advising the Client Regarding Protection of Property Rights: Harris Act and Inverse Condemnation Claims

This article talks about the challenges that real estate practitioners face when advising clients on protecting their property rights. It covers two aspects of property rights: compensation for a government taking property, and rights under Florida’s Harris Act. These are complex issues and the law is still evolving, so it’s important to consult with a special land use lawyer. In many cases, it’s not easy to win a claim for inverse condemnation and it can be expensive and time-consuming. The Harris Act provides broader relief, but it’s also uncertain and hasn’t been clarified much by previous cases. So, it’s important to carefully consider the potential gains and costs of going to court before advising a client to pursue either claim. In most cases, regulations that limit property use are not considered a violation of property rights, even if they hurt the property value. In order to make a claim, property owners need to go through administrative processes and show that they’ve exhausted all options. It can be very difficult to prove that a regulation is unfair and violates property rights. It’s unlikely that a property owner will get much relief from a claim unless their situation is very extreme. The Harris Act is a movement to protect private property rights through state laws. More than 20 states, including Florida, have passed laws to limit government regulations on land use and increase compensation for landowners. This is in response to concerns that property owners are burdened by regulations without fair compensation. The movement was sparked by a feeling that federal laws didn’t do enough to protect property owners, and the U.S. Supreme Court was reluctant to hear cases about property rights. The government responded to concerns about private property rights by making laws that require the government to consider the impact of land use and environmental regulations on property rights before making decisions. Some states also have laws that require the government to compensate landowners if a regulation reduces the value of their property. Florida has a law called the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act that does this. There are also other laws in Florida that help resolve disputes about property rights. Overall, there isn’t a lot of legal precedent for these laws, so it’s not clear how they will work in practice. The Harris Act is a law in Florida that allows people to sue the government if their property rights are affected by government actions. There have been a few court cases about the Harris Act, but none from the Florida Supreme Court. One court said that you have to get an appraisal and wait 180 days before suing under the Harris Act. Another court said that you can’t sue for certain zoning and permit issues because of something called sovereign immunity. Some people think this ruling goes against what the law was meant for, but others say it only limits certain types of government actions that can be challenged. Overall, the Harris Act is still effective in helping people protect their property rights. The Harris Act was passed to clarify the rules around property rights and regulations, but it has led to a lot of confusion and legal battles. Some cases are still being fought in court and could set important precedents for future cases. The act has also caused problems because it uses the same terms as federal law but says they shouldn’t be interpreted the same way. It also includes future uses of property in its definition of “existing use,” which causes more confusion. Overall, the Harris Act was meant to simplify things, but it has made them more complicated in some ways. The Harris Act is a law that has caused a lot of confusion because it’s hard to understand and predict how it will be applied in court. Both regulators and property owners have been hesitant to go to court because the outcome is so uncertain, and there are a lot of questions about how the law should be interpreted. Lawmakers have tried to make the law clearer, but they haven’t been very successful. This means that when a property is taken by the government, the rules for how much compensation the owner should get are not very clear. This can be frustrating for people involved in the case, but it also means that the court can consider all the unique details of each situation when making a decision. While it may seem like a new law has fixed the ripeness issue, the old concerns still exist. One issue is whether the government can change the requirement for a concrete dispute to go to court. Another issue is how to measure the impact of a regulation on a property. For example, a height restriction is easy to measure, but an environmental rule might be harder to figure out without expert help. Also, a property might not be able to reach its maximum potential under the law because of other requirements like setbacks and parking. So, the financial impact of a zoning change might not be as big as it seems at first. The actual density of a property can only be determined by applying regulations to it. If a property owner claims they are affected by density limitations, the government shouldn’t have to figure out the property’s development potential for them. The term “existing use” in the law also raises questions about the property’s history, zoning, and development efforts. The Harris Act has a lot of uncertainty and confusion when it comes to filing claims for property value loss due to government regulations. It’s hard to figure out when the one-year time limit starts and what counts as “first application” of a regulation to a property. There’s also confusion about which regulations are exempt from the law and when a regulation amendment can lead to a claim. This uncertainty has led to a lot of settlements in court cases because it’s hard to figure out what the law actually means. So basically, the law has made it harder for the government to regulate property and has led to a lot of settlements in court. The Harris Act allows local governments to settle claims even if it means breaking the law. This has been important in settling disputes over development projects. However, some people are concerned that these settlements may not always protect the public interest. There are also no clear rules for how these settlements should be reviewed and approved by the courts. This can be frustrating for third parties who are not involved in the settlement process. During the 2003 session, the Florida Legislature considered making changes to the Harris Act. They wanted to clarify some rules and make it easier for property owners to challenge government regulations. But the proposed changes didn’t become law because the bill didn’t pass. It might come up again in the future. In 2004, a new law called the Harris Act was passed, which allows landowners to sue counties for changing agricultural land use or zoning designations. This law might not have a big impact right away, but it could affect future development projects and land use decisions. It’s still too early to tell how it will be used in the future. Susan L. Trevarthen is a lawyer who specializes in helping local governments with legal issues related to land use and the environment. This article was written on behalf of the City, County and Local Government Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/advising-the-client-regarding-protection-of-property-rights-harris-act-and-inverse-condemnation-claims/