Local Government Law Symposium
| VOLUME
25 |
Spring 1996
|
NUMBER
3 |
|
Executive Decisionmaking by Local Legislatures in Florida: Justice, Judicial Review and the Need for Legislative Reform
|
Robert Lincoln |
| This Article evaluates the limits currently placed on local commissions' use of administrative power, including the use of quasi-judicial functions. Professor Lincoln submits that these limits are insufficient to protect applicants coming before local commissions from unfair treatment and suggests reforms that would improve the fairness of such proceedings. In the aftermath of the Snyder and Jennings cases, local procedures are being looked at again. Professor Lincoln suggests that a harder and more fundamental look is necessary. |
|
|
|
A Practical Perspective About Annexation in Florida
|
Alison Yurko |
| The basics of voluntary annexation, involuntary annexation, annexation by special act, and annexation by charter under Florida law, with an emphasis on the annexation experience in Orange County, Florida are presented by this former Assistant County Attorney. Annexation issues as seen from a county's perspective, a city's perspective and a landowner's perspective are discussed and analyzed. How to handle and avoid annexation challenges is demonstrated in two case studies from Orange County. Also, a checklist for model joint planning area agreements is offered. |
|
|
|
Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence of Environmental Contamination in an Eminent Domain Valuation Trial
|
Robert N. Sechen |
| The Finkelstein opinion is significant because it illustrates the problems which condemning authorities now face when they seek to acquire contaminated property. This Note discusses these problems and examines the reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court's majority and Judge Anstead's special concurrence. The Note demonstrates that the supreme court's interpretation of the EDI program and programs like it, which may function as exclusive remedies, is erroneous and will cause future difficulties. Also, the Note suggests an alternative approach to valuation of contaminated property which incorporates uncontaminated value, remediation costs, and a current definition of "stigma." |
|
|
|
In the Best Interests of the Child: The Uniform Adoption Act
|
Mishannock Robbins Arzt |
| In the context of the plight of adopted children whose futures hang in the balance during custody wars, Ms. Arzt presents an overview of the recently proposed Uniform Adoption Act. In the areas of consent, notice, and finality, those which present the greatest potential for preventing an adoption from being contested, Ms. Arzt compares current Florida adoption laws to the provisions of the Uniform Adoption Act. Finally, Ms. Arzt analyzes the adoption of Baby Emily as it might have occurred under the provisions of the Uniform Adoption Act and concludes that the proposed legislation will benefit adopted children. |
|
|
|
Sharing Home Sweet Home with Federally Protected Wildlife
|
Andrew J. Doyle |
| In this Note, Mr. Doyle examines the recent Supreme Court decision of Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. In Sweet Home, the Court sustained a regulation that interprets "harm" under the Endangered Species Act's "taking" prohibition. The Sweet Home Court held that the "harm" regulation permissibly prohibits private and public entities from significantly and injuriously changing the habits of federally protected fish and wildlife. First, Mr. Doyle commends the Supreme Court for upholding the "harm" regulation because, had the Court ruled otherwise, it would have completely frustrated Congress' express intent to preserve troubled animals and their habitats. However, although applauding the Court's decision, Mr. Doyle argues that erroneously narrowed most of the elements of "harm" - perhaps out of concern for private property rights. In conclusion, Mr. Doyle recommends that environmental litigators and courts treat Sweet Home merely as a statutory construction case and follow pre-Sweet Home case law when interpreting the "harm" regulation. |
|
|
Stetson Law Review • 1401 61st Street South • Gulfport, Florida 33707
phone: (727) 562-7800 ext. 7955 • fax: (727) 347-4873 • lrmarked@law.stetson.edu
|
Gulfport, Florida 33707-3299