Condemnation Blight Under Florida Law: A Rule of Appropriation or the Scope of the Project Rule in D

Condemnation blight is a concept in eminent domain law that refers to the negative impact on property when the government announces it might take the property for public use. It can cause problems for property owners because it can lower the property’s value. Different states have different rules about how to deal with condemnation blight. In Florida, the law is not totally clear, but there are some basic guidelines for lawyers to follow when dealing with this issue. In most places, planning for a public improvement project, known as condemnation blight, is not considered a taking of property. This is because it doesn’t actually prevent the owner from using the property, and the project may never even happen. However, in a few places, extreme actions by the government or severe depreciation of the property may be considered a taking. Courts have made different decisions on whether these exceptional circumstances apply, even when the facts are very similar. For example, in a case in Illinois, the court ruled that planning and negotiations for a public improvement project did not constitute a taking, while in a case in California, the court ruled that the government’s actions did interfere with property rights and thus constituted a taking. An appellate court in Florida also found that planning actions did not amount to a taking. Some court decisions in Florida have been reluctant to recognize condemnation blight as a legitimate basis for seeking compensation. In one case, the court denied a claim for damages due to a property being included in a redevelopment area. In another case, the court reversed a finding that the Department of Transportation had unlawfully taken property. However, in a lesser-known case in Palm Beach County, a court did rule in favor of property owners who claimed that they had suffered damages from oppressive precondemnation conduct by the South Florida Water Management District. The plaintiffs accused the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) of trying to force them to sell their property for less than it’s worth. They claimed that SFWMD did things like telling the public they were going to buy the property, offering to buy it for less than its true value, and pressuring the plaintiffs to agree to unfair conditions. They asked the court to order SFWMD to use its power of eminent domain to buy the property. The court ruled that if a government agency unfairly interferes with property rights and significantly lowers the property’s value before condemning it, the property owner should be compensated. This ruling combines different opinions from other states. So, in this case, the property owner may have a valid claim for damages. The decision in the James Doyne case was unusual and wasn’t challenged in court. It didn’t consider important past cases and didn’t follow the usual rules for cases where the government takes property without physically invading it. In simple terms, the ruling was questionable and didn’t follow established legal precedents. Condemnation blight is when the value of property goes down because the government threatens to take it for public use. In some cases, the property owner can argue that the value should be based on its worth before the threat, rather than after. This is not the same as the government actually taking the property, but it affects how much compensation the owner should receive. In Florida, the law says that if the government is going to take your property for a public project, they have to pay you based on the value of your property before they announced the project. This is to make sure you don’t lose money because people know the government is going to take the land. But this only applies if the threat of condemnation is very real, like if the government has already said they’re going to take your land. If it’s just rumors or potential plans, it doesn’t count. In a legal process called de jure proceeding, a landowner can get compensation for their property if it’s at risk of being taken by the government for public use. The courts will consider the potential loss in value of the land due to this threat when deciding on compensation. But the landowner has to prove that the threat of being taken is real. In short, the idea of condemnation blight as evidence in court may not help landowners whose property is affected by the threat of condemnation that never happens. But there are good reasons why things like a decrease in property value due to planning functions shouldn’t count as a taking. The Supreme Court has said that changes in property value due to things like new projects are just part of owning property, not a taking. Courts are worried about the slippery slope of letting condemnation blight count as a taking. This could have a big impact on planning and be a big problem. Robert Alfert, Jr. is a lawyer at the law firm of Broad and Cassel, where he specializes in eminent domain, construction, and commercial litigation. He wants to thank his colleagues at Broad and Cassel, C. Ken Bishop, Richard N. Milian, and Steven J. Hewitson, for their support and helpful feedback. This column was written on behalf of the Trial Lawyers Section, and the Florida Bar’s main goal is to encourage its members to serve the public and improve the justice system.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/condemnation-blight-under-florida-law-a-rule-of-appropriation-or-the-scope-of-the-project-rule-in-d/