Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 18, 2006; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves Citizens for Responsible Growth, a political committee, appealing against the City of St. Pete Beach regarding proposed amendments to the city’s charter that would require voter approval for changes to land use and community development plans. After collecting the necessary signatures, the committee submitted four petitions for referenda, which the City refused to place on the ballot, claiming that state law preempted the amendments. The circuit court ruled that three of the petitions were unconstitutional due to preemption, while allowing one to be placed on the ballot.
The appellate court reversed the circuit court's decision concerning the three petitions, affirming that all four proposals should be presented to voters. The court emphasized that political power resides with the people, advocating for a constitutional interpretation that favors voter participation. It established that a petition should only be excluded from the ballot if it is unconstitutional in its entirety; if parts are potentially valid, they must be submitted for public vote to avoid wasting public resources.
The court may address the constitutionality of a proposed ordinance before an election if the opponent raises valid concerns in good faith. Municipal ordinances are subordinate to state law, and any conflicting local legislation is invalid. The circuit court has the authority to assess the facial constitutionality of proposed amendments prior to election, as supported by case law. The Citizens contended that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the City's declaratory action, but this was dismissed as the court properly evaluated jurisdictional issues. Additionally, the parties acknowledged the legitimacy of the defendants in the declaratory judgment process.
Four proposed amendments to the City Charter were submitted for voter consideration, summarized as follows:
1. **Petition I (Section 3.15)**: Requires voter approval for adopting comprehensive land use plans or amendments, effective immediately upon a majority referendum vote, with exceptions for plans affecting five or fewer parcels.
2. **Petition II (Section 3.16)**: Mandates unanimous City Commission approval for comprehensive land use plans or amendments affecting five or fewer parcels, also effective upon majority voter approval.
3. **Petition III (Section 3.17)**: Requires voter approval for community redevelopment plans before adoption by the City Commission, with effectiveness contingent on a majority referendum vote.
Voter approval is mandated for any amendments to the City's Land Development Code that increase the allowable height of structures, necessitating a referendum as per Florida Statute S. 166.031 or the City Charter. Such amendments take effect immediately upon majority approval by voters. The City argues the circuit court wrongly allowed Petition II on the ballot, which requires a unanimous City Commission vote for changes affecting five or fewer parcels. The City cites section 163.3167(12), stating that initiatives related to development orders or local comprehensive plan amendments affecting five or fewer parcels are prohibited. However, the proposed amendment merely establishes an internal procedural rule, not conflicting with chapter 163. The court agrees that this procedural requirement does not constitute a prohibited referendum and finds no merit in claims that the amendment is vague or misleading, affirming the cross-appeal. Petitions I, III, and IV also necessitate voter referendums for the adoption of the comprehensive land use plan, community development code, and building height restrictions. Chapter 163 outlines specific legislative processes for these plans, emphasizing that local governments cannot independently regulate areas preempted by state law, as established in precedent cases.
Citizens argue that the proposed amendments align with existing statutory frameworks and are constitutional. They reference Hillsborough County v. Florida Restaurant Ass'n, which determined that local ordinances can coexist with state statutes, and Phantom of Clearwater, which upheld a county ordinance on fireworks regulation. This reasoning applies to the City charter amendments concerning land use plans, suggesting they can coexist with regulations on land use and redevelopment codes. The court concludes that the amendments are not unconstitutional as they are permitted by section 163.3167(12), which prohibits initiatives or referenda for development affecting five or fewer parcels, thereby inferentially allowing such processes for six or more parcels. This interpretation follows the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, indicating that the omission of certain situations implies their allowance. Supporting this view, a Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion states that local governments may utilize referenda for amendments affecting more than five parcels. The proposed City charter amendments enhance rather than conflict with the statutory framework, and there are safeguards in place to prevent local governments from hindering statewide policies. The Administration Commission can impose sanctions on non-compliant local governments, ensuring adherence to planning requirements.
It is deemed inappropriate for the court to evaluate the merits of the proposed amendment. However, citizens of St. Pete Beach have the right to express their opinions on land use issues, despite existing statewide growth policies. The court affirms the decision regarding Petition II, reverses the decisions on Petitions I, II, and IV, and instructs the circuit court to enter judgment favoring the Citizens, mandating the City to place all proposed amendments on the ballot. The court's decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with specific instructions. Notably, while the wisdom of the amendments is not assessed, Petitions III and IV appear to seek only advisory opinions, unlike Petition I, which requires voter approval for any land use plan changes. The 2006 Land Use Plans opinion by the supreme court indicated that proposed amendments must undergo a public referendum following the appropriate planning and notice procedures.
