In re: Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules

The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans (Fiscal Impact Statement)

SC06-521

>> PLEASE RISE.
HEAR HEAR.
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IS NOW IN SESSION.
ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA,
DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION,
AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES,
THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA
AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS AND
WELCOME TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT
CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 9th,
2007.
FOR ALL OF OUR UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA COLLEAGUES AND
FRIENDS WHAT A WONDERFUL
DAY.
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY FOR ALL
OF US IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA TO COME HOME WITH A
CHAMPIONSHIP LAST NIGHT.
SO WITH THOSE INFORMAL
REMARKS OUT OF THE WAY LET'S
PROCEED WITH OUR CALENDAR.
FIRST ON THE DOCKET IS THE
ADVISORY OPINION WITH REGARD
TO THE REVEREND ON THE
ADOPTION LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COME PRE -- COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN.
THAT IS.
>> THAT IS.
>> THANK YOU.
LOUIS HUBENER ON BEHALF OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THE PRIMARY ISSUE WE HAVE
BEEN ASKED TO ADDRESS BY THE
COURT IS WHETHER THE
COURSE -- COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUEST
FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION ON
WHETHER THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT COMPLIES WITH
SECTION 100.371 OF THE
FLORIDA STATUTE.
MR. BURNAMAN'S BRIEF FOR THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION IS
PROBLEMATIC.
SO I WILL TRY TO POINT OUT
WHAT MIGHT SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
THE COURT'S JURISDICTION.
OVER THIS MATTER.
THERE ARE THREE PROVISIONS
OF THE L FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION THAT WHEN READ
IN FURNISH A BASIS WITH THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION.
THOSE ARE ARTICLE IV SECTION
10.
ARTICLE V, SECTION 3-B 10
AND ARTICLE 11 SECTION 5-C.
AND BEGINNING WITH THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN SMITH
VERSUS COALITION TO REDUCE
CLASS SIZE, THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS HAVE UNIFORMALLY
AND CONSISTENTLY
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ARTICLE 11,
SECTION 5-C AUTHORIZED
PLACEMENT OF THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE
BALLOT.
SMITH HELD THAT A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS
NECESSARY TO PLACE THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE BALLOT AND THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WHICH IS
NOW ARTICLE 11, SECTION 5-C
SERVED THAT PURPOSE AND THE
COURT SAID SO SPECIFICALLY
IN FOOTNOTE ONE THAT OF THE
SMITH DECISION.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN -- AT
LEAST SOME OF US HAD -- WAS
SEEMS THAT THE COURT HAS
AUTHORITY TO RENDER AN
ADVISORY OPINION IF PROVIDED
BY GENERAL LAW.
GENERAL LAW IS AMBIGUOUS
RATHER THAN DIRECT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WAS
THE INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATORS TO HAVE THIS
COURT REVIEW THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AS A FILTER
MECHANISM, BUT YOU REALLY
HAVE TO DO A LOT OF READING
TO GET THERE.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING.
I WAS SPEAKING THOUGH TO THE
POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL
BASIS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
NOW IF YOU ACCEPT THAT THE
CONSTITUTION DOES PROVIDE
FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS,
THEN YOU GO TO THE STATUTES
TO SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS DONE.
AND THAT'S WHERE IT DOES
GIBB TO GET SOMEWHAT
PROBLEMATIC.
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE AS
AMENDED 100.31 AND IT ALSO
AMENDED SECTION 16.061.
WHICH IS I THINK THE MOST
PROBLEMATIC AMENDMENT
BECAUSE THEY ARE -- THERE
THE LEGISLATURE DELETED
LANGUAGE, THIS WAS IN 2004.
I DELETED THE LANGUAGE THAT
AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S REQUEST FOR AN
ADVISORY OPINION TO INCLUDE
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COMPLIES WITH SECTION
100.371.
>> DOES THIS COURT
JURISDICTION IN -- INVOLVE
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES OR
WAS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION?
>> IT HINGES ON BOTH.
>> COULD -- IS THERE
ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION
THAT EXPRESSLY GIVES THIS
BOARD THE POWER TO REVIEW
THESE PROVISIONS?
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENTS?
>> WELL, THERE ARE THE THREE
PROVISIONS I HAVE CITED, BY
THE COURT HAS INTERPRETED
OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS TO
AUTHORIZE YOUR CONSIDERATION
OF A FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT THAT MAY OR MAY
GOT GO ON THE BALLOT.
>> THAT'S MY REASON AS THE
FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION
SAYS THAT THE IT'S TO BE
DONE BY GENERAL LAW.
>> RIGHT.
RIGHT.
AND YOU'RE -- THE GENERAL
LAW AS APPLY KABL TO THIS IS
FOUND IN 16.1061 AND
100.371.
AND THE PROBLEM IS AS I WAS
SAYING IS AN AMENDMENT IN
2004 REMOVED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S AUTHORITY TO
REQUEST THAT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME IN
SUBSECTION 3 OF 16.061,
WHICH INCLUDED A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT IN 2004 STILL
PROVIDES THAT ANY PHYSICAL
IMPACT STATEMENT THAT THE
COURT, THAT MEANS THE
SRAOEPL COURT GOING BACK TO
SUBPARAGRAPH 1 FINDS NOT BE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
100.371 SHALL BE REMANDED
SOLELY TO THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT ESTIMATING
CONFERENCE.
SO WHILE THEY REMOVE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY
WHICH I THINK WAS AN
INADVERTENT
AMENDMENT -- AMENDMENT, THEY
LEFT IN THAT SECTION THIS
AUTHORITY TO REMAND.
>> WELL, WITHOUT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVING THE
AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THIS
COURT'S ADVISORY OPINION ON
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, THEN WHO DOES?
WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY, THEN
TO ASK THE COURT TO DO IT?
>> NO ONE WOULD HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO DO ASK THIS
COURT TO DO IT.
>> BY A DECLARATORY JUDGMENTION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHERE
SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO GET
STARTED, I THINK.
THAT -- GIVEN THE TIME
CONSTRAINTS THAT FREQUENTLY
APPLY TO THESE, THAT MIGHT
OR MIGHT NOT BE AN EFFECTIVE
WAY TO CHALLENGE A PROPOSED
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
>> I GUESS I'M CONCERNED
WITH -- WITHOUT IT BEING A
PART OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE -- ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S AUTHORITY AND IF,
IN FACT THERE ARE TIME COME
STRAEUPBT -- CONSTRAINTS AND
YOU DON'T HAVE AN THE UNDER
TO FILE A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACTION HOW DOES IT
GET TO THIS COURT?
>> IT PROBABLY COULDN'T GET
TO THIS COURT UNLESS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE -- SENT
IT OVER HERE.
NOW YOU HAVE TO, I THINK,
CONSIDER --
>> AGAIN I WANT TO MAKE
SURE.
BECAUSE YOU'RE CONTENDING
THAT OUR AUTHORITY LIES IN
OUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
AMEND OR ADVISORY OPINION
PETITIONED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS PROVIDED BY
GENERAL LAW.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO IF BY -- WHETHER IT
WAS INADVERTENT,
THERE'S -- THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL NO LONGER
HAS -- ISN'T DIRECTED BY
GENERAL LAW TO DO SO THERE'S
THIS MISSING.
>> THERE'S THE GAP.
>> GAP.
I MEAN IT'S SO CLEAR READING
THE STATUTE THAT IT
CONTEMPLATES THAT THE
SUPREME COURT ISSUE AN
ADVISORY OPINION, BECAUSE IT
GIVES -- BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE
75th DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION
THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT
ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION
THEN IT WILL GO ON THE
BALLOT.
AND I'M SORT OF GOING TO BE
INTERESTED TO HEAR THE
PROPONENT OF THE AMENDMENTS
IDEA THAT WE DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ME THAT
WOULD MEAN IT WILL GO ON THE
BALLOT.
>> WITHOUT REVIEW.
>> WITHOUT REVIEW.
>> YES.
AND I GUESS YOU'RE TASK HERE
IS JUST TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE
INTENDED TO DO AND WHAT IT
MIGHT NOT HAVE INTENDED TO
DO.
BECAUSE WITH THIS IN THIS
2000 LAW INTO FAIRLY
COMPREHENSIVE, TWO -- 2033
IN THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION
100.371, THERE ARE FOUR
REFERENCES TO THE SUPREME
COURT.
THERE ARE TWO
SEUFRPBS -- REFERENCES TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ONE BEING THAT THE SECRETARY
OF STATE AS SOON AS AN
INITIATIVE IS RECEIVED SENDS
IT TO BOTH THE ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY AND THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT ESTIMATING
CONFERENCE.
AND THEN WHEN THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT ESTIMATING CONFERENCE
PREPARES THE PROPOSED
STATEMENT IT SENDS IT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
NOW WHAT WOULD BE THE
PURPOSE OF BOTH THOSE
PROVISIONS IF WE'RE NOT FOR
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SEND
THEM OUT OVER TO THE COURT.
>> IS ANYBODY TRYING TO GET
THIS MATTER BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE IN 2005?
>> PARTON.
>> DID ANYBODY ATTEMPT TO
YOUR KNOWLEDGE, OR WAS THERE
A BILL INTRODUCED
TO -- STEREO -- TO
STRAIGHTEN THIS OUT?
>> TO DEAL WITH IT.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF IT.
>> AND SINCE YOU'RE BEING
SOMEWHAT CANDID, WAS
THE -- BEFORE THE COURT
POINTED OUT OR QUESTIONED
THIS, WAS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CONCERNED ABOUT THE
REMOVAL OF THAT LANGUAGE
FROM THE LEGISLATION?
>> I THINK WE SUBMITTED
COMMENTS TO THE LEGISLATURE
OVER AS TO THE PROPOSED BILL
BEFORE IT WAS ENACTED.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE PROCESS.
WE -- YOU'VE NOT BEEN OUT
YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED A
BRIEF FROM THE.
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK -- OUR
CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE
ALWAYS LOOKED TO ARTICLE V
AS PROVIDING IN VERIFY
UNITED TERMS THIS COURT'S
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN
THAT IF WE DO NOT FOLLOW
THAT PRESCRIPTION IN THIS
INSTANCE, WHERE ELSE ARE WE
GOING TO BE CONFRONTED WITH
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WHICH
REALLY ISN'T SOMETHING THAT
WE DEAL WITH VERY EASILY
HERE?
>> RIGHT.
>> ARTICLE V GIVES YOU
JURISDICTION OVER ADVISORY
OPINIONS AS PROVIDED
BY -- WELL IT'S PURSUANT TO
SECTION 10 OF ARTICLE IV AND
SECTION 10 OF ARTICLE IV
PERTAINS TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND AUTHORIZES HIM
TO REQUEST ADVISORY OPINIONS
AS DIRECTED BY GENERAL LAW.
SO THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE
GENERAL LAW AND THE
AMENDMENTS THAT CAME OUT IN
2004 READING THAT 2004
LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE IT
SEEMS TO ME IT'S STILL
CONTEMPLATES THAT THIS COURT
IS GOING TO REVIEW IT.
GOING TO REVIEW FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS AND THE
DELETION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S AUTHORIZATION IN
SECTION 16.061 WAS VERY
LIKELY INADVERTENT.
HOW DO YOU INADVERTENTLY
DELETE LANGUAGE SKWRAOPL
THERE WAS A REASON DEBATING
THAT LANGUAGE.
I SUSPECT THEY WERE GOING TO
PATCH IT UP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE
WITH THE LANGUAGE BACK THEN
WAS THAT IN 16.061 THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD 30 DAYS
FROM THE TIME HE RECEIVED
THE INITIATIVE FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE TO
REQUEST AN ADVISORY OPINION
FROM THIS COURT ON THE
BALLOT SUMMARY SINGLE
SUBJECT AND THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
BUT UNDER 100.371, THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTIMATING
CONFERENCE HAD 45 DAYS TO
PREPARE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.
SO THOSE TIME FRAMES DIDN'T
WORK.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD TO
MAKE A REQUEST AS A
LAWYER -- LAWS WRITTEN
POSSIBLY BEFORE HE EVEN
RECEIVED THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THE
INTENT WAS TO REMOVE THAT
LANGUAGE ABOUT THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND GIVE
HIM SOME OTHER AUTHORIZATION,
BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
>> I MEAN THE BOTTOM LINE
FOR ME AND -- IS THAT THE
WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE
STATUTE CONTEMPLATES THE
SUPREME COURT ISSUING AN
ADVISORY OPINION AND THAT,
THAT WHOLE STATUTE REALLY
BECOMES ALMOST A NULLITY
WITHOUT THAT REVIEW.
BECAUSE IF THE SUPREME COURT
REJECTS THE IMPACT STATEMENT
AND THERE'S NO NEW IMPACT
STATEMENT SUBMITTED, THEN IT
GOES ON THE BALLOT WITH A
STATEMENT THAT THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT CANNOT BE REASONABLY
DETERMINED.
SO ALL OF THAT GOES -- THAT
WHOLE STATUTORY SCHEME IS
RENDER INEFFECTIVE WITHOUT
IT.
I GUESS -- YOU KNOW, YOU AND
I SEEM TO -- WE SEEM TO
AGREE I GUESS THE QUESTION
IS YOU KNOW WHETHER OUR
GRANT OF JURISDICTION
THROUGH THE STATUTE NEEDS TO
BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND
WHETHER WE CAN INFER THE
INTENT FROM THE WHOLE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE.
>> RIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE
HERE.
>> NONE OF THAT LANGUAGE
THAT JUSTICE PARIENTE WAS
QUOTING WAS DELETED FROM THE
STATUTE; WAS IT?
>> NO THE ONLY PROBLEMATIC
LANGUAGE IS IF THREE HRAOEGS
OF -- TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO REQUEST IT.
BUT.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME -- HOW ARE
WE GOING TO MAKE THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE
STATUTE PROVIDES HRUPB WEST
WE HAVE JURISDICTION?
>> UNLESS YOU HAVE IT.
AND WE SEND IT OVER.
>> RIGHT.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO COMMENT
AT ALL ON THE ACTUAL
VALIDITY -- ASSUMING WE
REACH THE ISSUE OR CAN REACH
THE ISSUE OF THE IMPACT
STATEMENT THAT WAS
SUBMITTED?
>> YES, DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS ON THAT.
I HAVE READ IT AND IT SEEMS
TO ME IT FITS WITHIN THE
PARAMETERS OF ARTICLE 11
SECTION 5-C WHICH REQUIRES
THE STATEMENT TO ADDRESS THE
PROBABLE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
>> WELL, WITH REGARD TO,
THAT WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE
SENTENCE THAT TALKS IN TERMS
OF THESE MILLION AND
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THE
QUESTION THAT -- WHETHER
THAT SENTENCE IS EXPRESSED
IN PROBABILITIES BECAUSE.
THAT'S DEPENDENT UPON, IS IT
NOT, THE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS
TO ALTER THE PLAN?
OR AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN?
SO THAT IF ONE DIDN'T HAVE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN, I
WOULDN'T COST A DOLLAR,
WOULD IT?
>> THAT'S TRUE.
THAT'S THE THING -- THIS
SUPPOSES THAT THIS
THERE'S -- THAT YOU HAVE
DAILY CHANGES TO A COME
HENCESIVE PLAN WHEN IT SEEMS
ALMOST THAT THE INTENT OF
THIS IS THAT WE NOT HAVE
THESE DAILY CHANGES TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BECAUSE
IT RENDERS A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN NONCOMPREHENSIVE.
>> RIGHT.
SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE A REAL
PROBLEM WITH IT, THAT SECOND
SENTENCE.
TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE A SCARE
TACTIC TO SKIP THE CITIZENS
FROM TAKING A LOOK AT THE
CONTROL OF GROWTH PATTERNS
AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE
COMMUNITIES.
I HAVE A REAL CONCERN WITH
THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S A
GOOD POINT.
BUT IF THE CITIZEN REALIZES
THAT THESE AMENDMENTS THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DO OCCUR
WITH YOU KNOW REGULARITY,
ACROSS THE STATE, THEN IT
WILL BE I DON'T THINK IT'S
MISLEADING TO SUGGEST THAT
EVERY TIME THERE'S AN
ELECTION THERE'S GOING TO BE,
YOU KNOW A SIGNIFICANT
STATEWIDE EXPENSE.
BUT THAT'S TALKING ON TERMS
OF PROBABILITY RGS THAT'S
WHAT I HAVE A CONCERN WITH.
IS THAT REALLY
EM -- EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF
PROBABILITIES OR THIS IS
JUST A WHERE SPECULATION
TAKES US.
THAT'S -- AND I SEE A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO
CONCEPTS.
>> WELL, STATUTORILY, THE
STATEMENT MAY ADDRESS THE
RANGE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT IF
YOU CONSIDER THAT, THAT IS
WITHIN THE RANGE OF
POTENTIAL IMPACTS, THEN IT
WOULD PROBABLY --
>> BUT IT SAYS LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CUMULATIVELY WILL
INCUR SIGNIFICANT OF COSTS
MILLIONS OF DOLLAR
STATEWIDE.
I READ THAT AND I'M FAMILIAR
WITH THE PLAN.
IF I WERE TO READ THAT IN A
VACUUM IR5*| GO OH, MY GOD
TH|99Q BULLET
TRAIN ALL OVER AGAIN.
YOU KNOW IT DOESN'T SAY YOU
KNOW THAT THESE ARE RELATED
EVEN THAT IT'S RELATED TO
THE APPROVAL OF PLAN IN THE
AMENDMENT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S RUNNING
COUNTER TO WHAT THE PURPOSE
OF THE AMENDMENT WAS WHICH
WAS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF
PLANNED AMENDMENTS TO
DISCOURAGE THEM.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS TO
DISCOURAGE THEM OR JUST TO
GIVE THE ELECTORATE SOME
CONTROL OVER THE PROCESS.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S
CONCERN.
BUT YOU KNOW THINK IF THERE
ARE ACROSS THE STATE A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE GOING TO BE ON THE
BALLOT THAT'S IT'S
REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE TRAY
GOING TO HAVE SOME COST.
IT DOESN'T SAY TENS OF
MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS.
IT DON'T THINK THERE'S AN
INTENT TO EXAGGERATE THERE.
BUT THE WAY --
>> THE WAY I WAS READING IT
BECAUSE IT TALKS IN TERMS OF
OVER EACH TWO-YEAR CYCLE
THERE MAY BE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT THAT DECIDE THAT
EACH TIME THERE'S
SOMEBODY -- SOMEBODY REQUEST
A PLANNED AMENDMENT THEY
WILL HAVE AN ELECTION RATHER
THAN GO THROUGH WAIT UNTIL
EACH TWO-YEAR CYCLE.
SOMETIMES AMENDMENTS CAN'T
WAIT TO BE APPROVED.
TWO YEARS, HENCE THEY HAVE
TO BE APPROVED OR
DISAPPROVED NOW SO PEOPLE
CAN GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES
EITHER THEY NEED TO BUILD
SOMETHING A SHOPPING CENTER
OR WHATEVER.
THEY CAN'T WAIT TWO YEARS
FOR APPROVAL.
AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DECIDES WE WILL HAVE AN
ELECTION IN THREE MONTHS.
TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE.
AND THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR
SIGNIFICANT -- THAT'S GOING
TO INCUR SIGNIFICANT COST
BECAUSE YOU DO AN ELECTION
OUT OF CYCLE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THEY WERE
TALKING ALSO ABOUT THE FACT
THAT SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MAY CHOOSE EVERY TIME OR
SOMETIMES TO HAVE AN
ELECTION ON THESE ISSUES OUT
OF THE NORMAL CYCLE.
>> I THINK THAT'S AN
EXCELLENT POINT.
THEY DO THAT, THEN OBVIOUSLY
YOU'RE GOING -- THESE COSTS
ARE GOING --
>> WOULDN'T A MORE HONEST
THING -- SAY COST, WHICH
WILL BE BORN BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, WOULD VARY
DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF
PLAN AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED TO
THE ELECTORATE IN ANY GIVEN
YEAR.
THAT WAY YOU HAVE THE TRUE
COST WHICH IS COST OF AN
ELECTION IF YOU NEED TO HAVE
A SPECIAL ELECTION, BUT IT
MAY BE THAT -- BUT TO SAY
THAT IT'S GOING TO BE
LIKE -- IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERY
DAY THERE WILL BE AN
ELECTION AND THERE WILL BE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN COST
EXPENDED AS IF THAT'S THE
PROBABILITY AS OPPOSED TO
THAT IT'S VERY VARIABLE WILL
DEPEND ON HOW OFTEN AND
THAT'S NOT EVEN IN HERE HOW
OFTEN IT'S SUBMITTED.
GOOD POINT THERE.
>> DO YOU HAVE -- EXCEEDED
WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR
FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE AS WE TRY TO WORK
THROUGH THESE PROBLEMATIC
ISSUE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR IN
DISCUSSING THESE WITH THE
COURT.
SO THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
ROSS BURNAMAN ON BEHALF OF
FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY
INCORPORATED.
WE'RE THE SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT THAT IS THE
SUBJECT OF THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE COURT
REQUIRING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO SUBMIT A
JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF AS YOU
SAW IN MY SUPPLEMENTAL AND
ANSWER BRIEF.
I'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION
AFTER CONSIDERABLE
REFLECTION THAT THIS COURT
DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
TO CONSIDER THESE MATTERS
AND MOREOVER, I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT OF
THE CITIZENS WHO VOTED ON
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED
FOR THESE TO APPEAR ON THE
BALLOT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE -- IF WE
DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION, HOW
DO WE IMPLEMENT THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT
THE COURT CONDUCT THIS
REVIEW?
>> YOU SHOULDN'T.
YOU SHOULD INVALIDATE THE
STATUTE BECAUSE IT'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>> YOU MEAN RIGHT NOW?
>> WOULD THIS BE THE PROPER
PROCEDURE, THOUGH?
TO ADDRESS THAT?
BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY
NARROW KIND OF ISSUE THAT'S
BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S ONE
THAT REALLY DEFINES THE
ISSUE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
BOUNDARIES.
>> I CERTAINLY WOULD CONCUR
WITH MR. HUBENER'S COMMENT
THAT THE WHOLE THING THE
PROBLEMATICAL.
CLEARLY THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS
JURISDICTION.
HAVING SAID THAT THEN
PRESUMABLY THE JURISDICTION
COULD COME INTO PLAY AND THE
COURT COULD GRANT THE
APPROPRIATE RELIEF.
>> ARE YOU
SEEKING -- BECAUSE I WAS A
LITTLE BIT CONFUSED, NOT
CONFUSED OR INTERESTED IN,
IN YOUR VIEW THAT BE DIDN'T
HAVE JURISDICTION.
TO ME THAT WOULD SAY, THEN
THAT THIS GOS ON THE BALLOT
WITHOUT REVIEW UNLESS
SOMEBODY SEEKS REVIEW
THROUGH A DIFFERENT MEANS
SUCH AS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACTION.
>> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.
BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO
BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTALS
JUSTICE PARIENTE, AND
MR. HUBENER BEGAN HIS
ARGUEMENT WITH THE CITATION
FOR THREE CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS FOR THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION.
TWO OF THE CITATIONS THAT HE
PROVIDED ARE SIMPLY
IRRELEVANT.
THOSE ARE THE CITATIONS,
PARTICULARLY WE'LL START OFF
WITH THE ARTICLE V
JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF
JUSTICE WELLS COMMENTS.
THE COURT --
>> WHAT ISSUE ARE YOU
ADDRESSING NOW?
BECAUSE YOU REALLY HAVE
DROPPED -- HE'S STATE TO
CALL IT A BOMB, BUT RATHER
DRAMATIC STATEMENT ON US NOW
IN TERMS OF ATTEMPTING TO
UTILIZE THIS PROCEEDING TO
CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ENTIRE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT SCHEME.
IN OTHER WORDS THAT -- AND
SO I THINK WE NEED TO GET
OUR DUCKS IN A ROW AND IF
THAT'S THE CLAIM THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO MAKE HERE I THINK
YOU HAVE A LOT OF PREDICATES
TO SET IN TERMS OF THIS
BEING THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDING TO MAKE SUCH A
CHALLENGE ALL ASIDE FROM THE
SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY.
AND SO I FOR ONE, WANT TO
KNOW WHERE YOU'RE HEADED
WITH THIS AND YOU KNOW AND
WHAT POSITIONS THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO TAKE FIRST.
BECAUSE THIS REALLY NOW AS
IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT
ON ITS OWN SIMPLY REQUIRED
INTO THAT WE WANT RESPONSES
OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE
GREATEST INTEREST IN THIS AS
TO OUR JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THESE.
YOU'RE REALLY ON TO
SOMETHING ELSE NOW TO -- IS
THAT -- ARE YOU ASSERTING
THAT, THAT THIS PROCEEDING
IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO
CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ENTIRE FINANCIAL IMPACT
SCHEME?
>> WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT AN
EXPERT ON THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION.
JUSTICE ANSTEAD, BUT I DID
CITE TO THE COURT THE LAW
REVIEW ARTICLE THAT WAS IN
THE LAW REVIEW TO DISCUSS
THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE
ABOUT THE ADVISORY OPINIONS
ON THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENTS.
BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO
WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION
IS TO FIRST ADDRESS THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN
RESPOND TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S ARGUMENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR
THIS JURISDICTION.
AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN SEE
WHERE THAT TAKES US.
>> ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WILL DO
THAT IN THE CONTEXT, HOWEVER
OF THE FACT THAT THE THIS
COURT DOESN'T HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS THE
PROPRIETY OR LANGUAGE OR
THE -- WHAT IS IN THIS
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
THAT IT THEN AT LEAST WOULD
APPEAR ON ITS FACE THAT WE
WOULD HAVE SOMETHING GOING
ON THE BALLOT WITH THIS
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, THAT THIS COURT
WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED ON.
SO IN A SENSE I SEE IT SORT
OF PARAPHRASED AS SORT OF AN
EXCEPTION NOW THAT YOU COULD
DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH AS FAR
AS THE KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT
COULD GO ON THE BALLOT ALONG
WITH THE PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
WHICH SEEMS TO BE A VERY
DANGEROUS ROUTE, YOU KNOW TO
TAKE.
SO YOU GO AHEAD.
I THINK JUSTICE PAEUFRPBT
OBSERVED I'M DARNED IF I DO
AND -- JUSTICE PARIENTE
OBSERVED I'M DARNED IF I DO,
AND DARNED IF I DON'T.
IF THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE
JURISDICTION ESSENTIALLY THE
FINANCIAL ESTIMATING IMPACT
CONFERENCE CAN PUT WHATEVER
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IT WANTS ON THE BALLOT.
AND THERE WILL BE NO REVIEW
WHATSOEVER.
THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT
FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY
WANTS.
ON THE OTHER HAND WE HAVEN'T
YET ATTAINED THE REQUISITE
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES TO
QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT AND
SO PRESUMABLY WERE WE TO
BRING A CHAPTER 86
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION
THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD SIGH
THAT IT WAS PREMATURE AND
THEY DIDN'T HAVE
JURISDICTION TO RENDER ONE
BECAUSE WE HADN'T QUALIFIED
FOR THE BALLOT SO WE WERE IN
THE POSITION TO COMPLAIN.
SO THAT'S A DYNAMIC THAT
WE'RE WORKING WITH.
BUT LET ME GO BACK TO THE
MERITS IF I COULD.
AND TO -- AGAIN THERE WERE
THREE CITATIONS OF
AUTHORITY.
I THINK JUSTICE WELLS HIT
THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
THE COURT'S JURISDICTION IS
PROVIDED IN ARTICLE V
SECTION 3-B.
IT SAYS "SUPREME COURT
JURISDICTION."
AND THE ONLY PROVISION THAT
EVEN REMOTELY RELATES TO AN
ADVISORY OPINION FROM THIS
COURT IS SUBSECTION 10 AND
THAT ONLY PROVIDES THAT YOU
LOOK AT ARTICLE IV, SECTION
10 FOR THE ADVISORY OPINION.
WELL, WHEN YOU --
>> LET'S MAKE SURE.
THAT'S THE ARTICLE THAT SAYS
THAT WE CAN RENDER ADVISORY
OPINIONS IN LIMITED
SITUATIONS.
AND WHAT -- ARTICLE V
SECTION 10.
>> ARTICLE V SECTION 10
PROVIDES THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SHALL AS DIRECTED BY
GENERAL LAW REQUEST THE
OPINION OF THE JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF ANY INITIATIVE
PETITIONS CIRCULATED
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III,
SECTION 11.
AND FRANKLY, WE'RE NOT HERE
TO TALK ABOUT THE VALIDITY
OF THE INITIATIVE PETITION.
THIS COURT IS ALREADY
UNANIMOUS PASSED ON THAT
ISSUE.
HAS STATED THAT THE FLORIDA
HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY SPONSORED
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT
QUALIFIES FOR THE BALLOT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN SECTION
10 THAT TALKS ABOUT THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, ALSO.
ARTICLE 5: -- ARTICLE V
SEC00 10 SAY WHEN REQUESTED
BY THE PROVISION 10 OF
ARTICLE IV THAT PHRASE WHEN
REQUESTED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE DELETED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY
TO PETITION THE COURT, WAS
IT INTENDING AT THAT TIME,
THEN TO REMOVE JURISDICTION
FROM THE COURT TO REVIEW
SINCE OUR JURISDICTION IS
BASED ON AN ATTORNEY GENERAL
REQUESTING US TO REVIEW
SOMETHING?
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
JUSTICE CANTERO, I DON'T
THINK WE NEED TO GET TO THE
STATUTE YET.
I THINK WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SKRURGS.
>> I AM TALKING THAT
CONSTITUTION.
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE
IS THE PROVISION THAT SAYS
THAT THE COURT SHALL WHEN
REQUESTED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
SO IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AND
DETERMINE -- AND RENDER AN
ADVISORY OPINION, WE NEED TO
HAVE A REQUEST.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
JUSTICE CANTERO IT SAID
"PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV
SECTION 10.
ARTICLE IV SECTION 10 SOLELY
DEALS WITH THE SINGLE
SUBJECT AND BALLOT TITLE AND
SUMMARY PROS.
THE VALIDITY OF THE
INITIATIVE PETITION IT
DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING
WHATSOEVER ABOUT FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS.
IT ONLY TALKS ABOUT THE
VALIDITY OF THE INITIATIVE
PETITION.
THIS COURT HAS ALREADY
DISPOSED OF THAT MATTER
FAVORABLY FROM OUR CLIENT.
>> IS IT BECAUSE OF THE
PROCEDURAL NATURE OR POSTURE
OF THIS CASE IS WHY WE'RE
SORT OF SEGREGATING THIS
FINANCIAL IMPACT?
BECAUSE MOST OF THE OTHERS
COME JOINTLY.
IT COMES WITH THE LANGUAGE
ITSELF.
SO DOES THAT MAKE A
DIFFERENCE ON HOW IT'S DONE?
>> WELL, CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS,
THE COURT HAS APPROACHED
THIS TWO WAYS.
THEY'VE PACKAGED THEM AND
BUNDLED THEM TOGETHER IF,
CAN YOU WILL AND THEY'VE
CONSIDERED THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
SEPARATELY.
WHERE THE COURT HAS
CONSIDERED THEM SEPARATELY
THE COURT HAS NOT PROVIDED
FOR WHAT ITS JURISDICTION
WAS AS THE TYPICALLY THE
CASE IN THE PHEUPB -- OPINION.
BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER
THAT PROPOSITION 2 THAT WAS
APPROVED IN 2004 HAS CHANGED
THE RULES OF THE GAME
VIS-A-VIS THIS COURT'S
REVIEW PREVIOUSLY THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRED AN
EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW AND
ALLOWED THE SPONSOR OF A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
QUALIFY TORE THE BALLOT UP
TO I BELIEVE 91 DAYS BEFORE
THE DATE OF THE GENERAL
ELECTION.
NOW THAT HAS BEEN ROLLED
BACK CONSIDERABLY AND SO YOU
HAVE TO MEET THE
QUALIFICATION BY FEBRUARY
1st OF THE YEAR IN BY THE
GENERAL ELECTION WAS HELD.
NOW THE COURT HAS UNTIL I
BELIEVE APRIL OF THAT YEAR
TO RENDER AN ADVISORY
OPINION AS TO THE MERITS OF
THE AMENDMENT.
SO ARGUEABLY THE COURT COULD
SIT BACK AND WAIT WHEN IT
RECEIVES THE PETITION FROM
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV
SECTION 10E ON THE MERIT AND
SAY, WELL, THEY -- THEY ONLY
HAVE THE 8% OF THE 10% OF
THE SIGNATURES.
SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE
THE COURT'S LIMITED
RESOURCES TO ISSUE AN
ADVISORY OPINION.
WE'RE GOING TO WAIT AND SEE
IF THEY GET ENOUGH
SIGNATURES FOR THE BALLOT.
>> ONE CLARIFICATION
CONSIST -- THESE ARGUMENTS
ARE CERTAINLY BROADCAST THAT
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
ARTICLE V SECTION 10 AND
IT'S REALLY ARTICLE V
SECTION 10.
3-B, JUST BECAUSE I THINK
SOMEONE IS LOOKING THEY WILL
GET TO JUDICIAL
QUALIFICATION COMMISSION
WONDERING WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
THEY STILL MAY BE WONDERING
WHEN THEY HEAR THIS.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE ABOUT HOW WE CONSTRUE
BOTH THE COURT'S AUTHORITY
AS WELL AS STATUTES.
SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TO
GET TO SECTION 3-B, 10 BEING
THE ANCHOR, WE HAVE TO
CONSTRUE THAT THE ARTICLE X,
SECTION 4 WHICH TALKS ABOUT
THE VALIDITY OF THE PETITION
TO INCLUDE THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT ASPECT OF IT.
AND WHY ISN'T THAT A
REASONABLE READING SEEING
THAT THE VOTERS CONSIDERED
THAT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF
THE INITIATIVE PETITION WAS
PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT THE
VOTERS NEEDED TO LOOK AT SO
THAT YOU HAVE BOTH SINGLE
SUBJECT AS WELL AS PROBABLE
FINANCIAL IMPACT AS BEING
TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE PETITION.
>> WELL, I REFULLY DISAGREE
THAT JUSTICE PARIENTE THAT'S
WHAT THE VOTERS DID.
AND MORE OVER, YOU HAVE A
BEAUTY TO CONSTRUE THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE PLAIN LANGUAGE TALKS
ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE
INITIATIVE PETITION.
THAT WAS A FREE-STANDING
PETITION.
THE LANGUAGE WE REALLY NEED
TO FOCUS ON HERE THIS
MORNING IS IN ARTICLE 1UR
SECTION 5 AND PROVIDES THE
LEGISLATURE SHALD PROVIDE
BYEN GENERAL LAW PRIOR TO
HOLDING OF ELECTION PURSUANT
TO THIS SECTION FOR THE
PROVISION OF A STATEMENT TO
THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE
PROBABLE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF
ANY AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY
INITIATIVE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 3.
WELL, AS ARGUED IN OUR BRIEF,
THIS -- LET'S LOOK AT PLAIN
GAIN -- LANGUAGE.
BE PLAIN LANGUAGE IS
PROVISION OF A STATEMENT TO
BE TAMPA BAY.
THAT'S FAR DIFFERENT THAN
PLACING A MATTER ON THE
BALLOT IN THE PUBLIC IS NOT
THE ELECTORATE.
THE PUBLIC IS A BROADER
CONSTITUENCY THAN THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED TO
VOTE.
FIRST OF ALL, SECOND OF ALL.
--
>> IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE
NOW THEN ATTACKING THE
ENTIRE STATUTE IN BY THE
LEGISLATURE HAS SET UP THIS
FINANCIAL ESTIMATING -- AND
THIS IS SO FAR BEYOND WHAT
THIS COURT COULD DO IN THIS
PROCEEDING.
WE CAN DECIDE IF WE DON'T
HAVE JURISDICTION, THEN
YOU'RE LEFT TO YOUR OWN
DEVICES OF WHAT YOU
ARE -- WILL DO NEXT.
AS FAR AS DECIDING WHETHER
THE LEGISLATURE EXCEEDED ITS
AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 11,
SECTION 5-C IN TERMS OF
HAVING THESE ACTUALLY
INTENDED TO GO ON THE BALLOT,
I THINK THAT'S WAY BEYOND
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
DECIDING TODAY.
>> YES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I WILL TAKE IT YOU ARE!!!!!!
ARE -- THAT THECAL SEQUENCE
OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT
BECAUSE SECTION 16.061 NOW
ONLY PROVIDES THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PA EUGS
THIS SUPREME COURT
REQUESTING THE ADVISORY
OPINION REGARDING THE
COMPLIANCE OF THE TEXT
WHICH -- WITH SECTION 3,
ARTICLE 11 DOESN'T MENTION
ARTICLE V.
THAT, THAT -- THAT WOULD NOT
BE A CORRECT STATEMENT.
JUSTICE WELLS.
AGAIN I'M ONLY CONCERNING
MYSELF WITH THE
CONSTITUTION.
I THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS
CLEAR THAT THE COURT DOES
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER
ARTICLE V TO PASS ON THESE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.
THAT'S JUST SIMPLY THE
BOTTOM LINE.
>> SO IS YOUR POSITION IF BY
GENERAL LAW THE LEGISLATURE
EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL SEEK
AN OPINION OF THIS COURT
THAT IF THAT WAS DONE YOUR
OPINION WOULD STILL NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION.
>> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT
JUSTICE BELL.
THAT'S CORRECT.
>> BECAUSE THIS COURT'S
JURISDICTION IS AS EXPRESSLY
SET OUT IN ARTICLE V.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT -- IF YOU
LOOK AT THE JUST THE BASIC
TENANTS OF INTERPRETING THE
CONSTITUTION, WE'RE THE
CITIZENS OF THE STATE HAVE
DONE IT ONE A.
HERE THEY SAID IN ARTICLE V
SECTION 3, THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN REQUEST AN
ADVISORY OPINION IF IT'S IN
THAT RELATES BACK TO ARTICLE
IV SECTION 10.
ARTICLE IV SECTION 10 LIMITS
THAT ADVISORY OPINION
REQUEST AUTHORITY TO QUOTE
THE VALIDITY OF ANY
INITIATIVE PETITION AND.
>> AND IF A FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT IS CONSIDERED A
PART OF A AN INITIATIVE
PETITION, YOU DON'T ACCEPT
THAT ARGUE EQUIPMENT.
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
THE VALIDITY OF ANY
INITIATIVE PETITION.
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT HAS NOTHING
WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE
VALIDITY OF THE PETITION.
WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH IS
THE POLITICAL PALATABILITY
OF THE PETITION ASSUMING
THAT THE STATEMENT IS PLACED
ON THE BALLOT, WHICH OF
COURSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THE STATEMENT BELONG ON THE
BALLOT.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU
ARE -- BECAUSE IT'S A VERY
INTERESTING ARGUMENT THAT IS
THAT THESE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENTS WERE NEVER
INTENDED TO GO ON THE BALLOT,
WHICH THEY'VE BEEN GOING
THEY'VE BEEN CERTAINLY DOING
THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> TO BRING THAT AS AN
ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT.
THAT WOULD BE BEYOND WHETHER
WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER
ADVISORY OPINIONS TO LOOK AT
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.
YOU'RE CHALLENGE IN THE
ENTIRE STATUTORY STRUCTURE
THEN THAT HAS AND IT'S AN
INTERESTING ARGUMENT.
I MEAN --
>> ONE THAT UNFORTUNATELY
THAT SHOULD WE FILE AGAINST
IN CIRCUIT COURT I EXPECT
THAT WE WOULD MEET WITH A
MOTION TO DISMIST FOR LACK
OF STANDING.
SO HERE WE ARE.
I THINK THAT THE BEST COURSE
OF ACTION FOR THIS COURT TO
CONSERVE ITS HREUPBLTED REAR
SOURCES INVALIDATE THE
STATUTE.
>> WISH YOU TOLD US ABOUT
THAT 2 1/2 YEARS AGO WHEN WE
WERE CONSIDERING ABOUT 20
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
IN A TWO-MONTH PERIOD.
LET ME ASK YOU A SUBSTANTIVEZZ|
QUESTION ON THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT ITSELF.
WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AS THE
NECESSARY UNDER YOUR
PROPOSAL AS FOR
THE -- CHANGES TO THE PLAN?
WOULD A ZONING CHANGE HAVE
TO RECEIVE PUBLIC APPROVAL?
>> NO, JUSTICE BELL.
THE FLORIDA HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY SPONSORED
AMENDMENT ONLY RELATES TO
THE ADOPTION OF A NEW PLAN
BY STAY A NEWLY INCORPORATED
MUNICIPALITY OR THE
AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A
REZONING DECISIONS OR
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS OR
ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
I THINK CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS'
POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT
PRESUMABLY IF THERE'S A
HIGHER COST ASSOCIATED WITH
AMENDING AN EXISTING PLAN
BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT
TO PLACE THE MATTER ON THE
BALLOT, THEN THE NUMBER OF
PLANNED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE
REDUCED.
AND THAT --
>> HOW MANY AMENDED PLANS
ARE ADOPTED CURRENTLY ON THE
BIANNUAL BASIS?
MAYBE TWO YEARS IN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA.
>> DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY THAT
IS?
>> THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD,
YOUR HONOR.
THAT GO BACK TO THE WHOLE
PROBLEM WITH THE COURT'S
REVIEW IS THAT THERE'S NO
RECORD ON APPEAL.
THERE'S NO STANDARD EVIDENCE
TEST.
HERE'S THERE'S A PROVISION
IN THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
STATEMENT, WHICH IS THE
LONGER ITERATI O N WHICH WAS
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO THE COURT IF THE
AMENDMENT PASSES THE
FREQUENCY OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN
ECONOMICS.
BUT I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE HIGHER THE COST OF
SOMETHING THE DEMAND GOES
DOWN.
SO PRESUMABLY ONE WOULD
EXPECT IN CERTAINLY THE
SPONSOR OF THE HOMETOWN
DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT HOPES
THAT THE FREQUENCY WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS WILL BE
REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OF
THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT BY THE STATE.
>> IF WE ACCEPT YOUR
ARGUMENT THEN THAT WE DON'T
HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENTS, THEN ASSUMING
YOU GET THE NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES YOU NEED SINCE
WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT IT'S
PERMISSIBLE TO PUT IT ON THE
BALLOT, THEN THE BALLOT WILL
APPEAR WITH YOUR
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND
THIS FINANCIAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AS IT NOW EXISTS.
IS THAT --
>> IS THAT A QUESTION?
>> THAT'S WHAT'S GOING
HAPPEN TO YOU CORRECT.
>> DARNED IF I DO AND DARNED
IF I DON'T ABSENT SOME SORT
OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION OR
MAYBE THE LEGISLATURE WILL
CHANGE THE STATUTE.
YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED YOUR
TIME.
JUSTICE CANTERO HAS A LAST
QUESTION.
AS I WAS ASKING MR. HUBENER,
THERE WOULD STILL BE THE
ALTERNATIVE OF FILING A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR
INJUNCTION ACTION IN CIRCUIT
COURT.
ASSUMING YOU HAVE TO DO IT
WITH ENOUGH LEAD TIME.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
JUST -- WELL, AGAIN, I THINK
THAT WOULD SEEMINGLY BE THE
ONLY REMEDY.
JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK
POINTS.
I KNOW I'M RUNNING OUT OF
TIME.
I REALLY NEED TO GET AND THE
FACT THAT IN 2006-119 LAWS
OF FLORIDA THE LEGISLATURE
HAS AMENDED 100.371 AND IT
STATES IN PART THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
JOINTLY SHALL BE THE SOLE
JUDGE FOR THE INTERPRETATION,
IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THIS
SUBSECTION.
SO IF I WERE ARGUING AGAINST
THE CIRCUIT COURT ACTION, I
WOULD POINT TO THIS STATUTE
AND SAY, HEY THE LEGISLATURE
IS PREEMPTED THE COURT FROM
REVIEWING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU HAVE WELL EXCEEDED YOUR
TIME.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE RED LIGHT FLASHING.
>> THAT MEANS YOU'VE
EXCEEDED YOUR TIME.
>> YES, THAT MEANS IT'S
OVER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR CANDOR IN ADDRESS THING
ISSUE.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PEOPLE
OF FLORIDA AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF FLORIDA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE WILL TAKE IT UNDER
ADVISEMENT.