{"id":90509,"date":"2025-12-20T14:28:08","date_gmt":"2025-12-20T14:28:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/90509\/"},"modified":"2025-12-20T14:28:08","modified_gmt":"2025-12-20T14:28:08","slug":"judge-refuses-to-halt-growth-law-tallahassee-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/90509\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Refuses to Halt Growth Law \u2013 Tallahassee Reports"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"fb-share-icon\"<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Tweet\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

By Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida<\/p>\n

TALLAHASSEE \u2014 A Leon County circuit judge on Friday refused to block a new law that stops cities and counties from approving \u201cmore restrictive or burdensome\u201d changes to growth plans but allowed a legal challenge to the wide-ranging measure to proceed.<\/p>\n

The prohibition on growth-plan changes was included this spring in a bill (SB 180) that lawmakers said would help the state recover from the 2024 hurricanes. The law, signed in June by Gov. Ron DeSantis, effectively freezes local land-development regulations and comprehensive plans through Oct. 1, 2027, and was made retroactive to Aug. 1, 2024.<\/p>\n

Judge Angela Dempsey held a hearing Friday in a lawsuit filed by 25 cities and counties, who are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the law. The local governments\u2019 case was consolidated with a lawsuit filed by 1000 Friends of Florida and Orange County resident Rachel Hildebrand.<\/p>\n

Defendants in the cases are Department of Commerce Secretary J. Alex Kelly, Division of Emergency Management Executive Director Kevin Guthrie, Department of Revenue Executive Director Jim Zingale and state Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia. The lawsuits said those state officials have roles in carrying out the law or in local-government money.<\/p>\n

The Florida Home Builders Association and one of its members, Northwest Florida builder Alton Lister, this week joined the legal battle to help defend the state law.<\/p>\n

During Friday\u2019s hearing, lawyers for the state officials and the home builders asked Dempsey to dismiss the case and to reject the request for a preliminary injunction, arguing in part that the plaintiffs lack \u201cstanding\u201d to challenge the law.<\/p>\n

Jason Gonzalez, who represents the state, argued that a concept known as the \u201cpublic official standing doctrine\u201d barred the cities and counties from challenging the constitutionality of the law.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not allow executive branch agencies or local governments to come in and challenge legislation that affects their duties because they would be dipping into their deep well of taxpayer money and tying up the legislation that the people have their elected representatives enact,\u201d Gonzalez, an attorney with the Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC firm, said.<\/p>\n

But Jamie Cole, who represents the local governments, maintained that the 2025 law violates \u201cvery specific limitations\u201d in the state Constitution requiring laws to adhere to a single subject.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are here today asking you to exercise your role as a member of the judicial branch to ensure that the legislature abides by certain limitations that the people of Florida have placed in the Constitution on the legislature,\u201d Cole argued.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit focuses on a section of the bill that prohibits local governments from proposing or adopting \u201cmore restrictive or burdensome\u201d amendments to comprehensive plans or land development regulations. Any resident or business owner may file suit to enforce the section. The section applies to governments that were placed under federal disaster declarations from hurricanes Debbie, Helene or Milton in 2024. All 67 of Florida\u2019s counties were listed in at least one of the three declarations.<\/p>\n

The growth-management restriction was added on the last day of the legislative session to the emergency-management bill, Cole told the judge. He called the addition an example of unlawful \u201clogrolling,\u201d in which legislators attached a \u201cpolitically charged\u201d issue to a more popular measure dealing with hurricane recovery.<\/p>\n

Cole said the restriction is causing confusion for counties and cities, in part, because the law applies retroactively.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe state is basically going back in time. They\u2019re going back to August 2024 and saying, yes, city, you had the power to enact this at the time under your home rule powers because there was no conflicting legislation, but we\u2019re going to go back in time and pretend that you didn\u2019t have the power to do it then,\u201d Cole argued. \u201cIt\u2019s unclear what the impact of that is.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dempsey sided with the state and the home builders and refused to block the law.<\/p>\n

\u201cObviously, the temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should be sparingly granted \u2026,\u201d Dempsey said. \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s appropriate for me to grant a temporary injunction in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge, however, allowed the case to advance \u2014 at least for now. Dempsey asked attorneys to submit proposed orders by Jan. 16 addressing the request to dismiss the lawsuit. Dempsey also is considering whether to allow 1000 Friends of Florida to join the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

In the motion to intervene filed Tuesday, the home builders argued that the attempt to block the bill \u201cwould greatly (and negatively) affect ongoing work of the association\u2019s members and affiliates throughout the state.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIncreased red tape, costs and delays are just some of the cascading effects of the relief plaintiffs seek (and to which they\u2019re not entitled),\u201d the motion said.<\/p>\n

Speaking to The News Service of Florida following the hearing, Cole said he remained optimistic that Dempsey would allow the case to proceed and that \u201cthe constitutional infirmities will be properly addressed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lawyers for the counties and cities also contend that the section of the law prohibiting \u201cmore restrictive or burdensome\u201d regulations is unclear.<\/p>\n

\u201cMore restrictive or burdensome for who? The law doesn\u2019t actually say,\u201d Cole said.<\/p>\n

As an example, Cole said, a local regulation that eases the ability to build high-density apartment complexes would be less restrictive for developers.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut isn\u2019t it more burdensome for residents who now have to deal with higher density, more traffic, more taxes on public resources. More restrictive or burdensome than what, and for who?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Local governments also are unsure if they have to repeal ordinances on the books that could conflict with the law, according to Cole.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople are bringing claims and filing lawsuits against them under unclear legal obligations,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

\"fb-share-icon\"<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Tweet\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t