Rodney Shands V City Of Marathon

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The case, No. 3D21-1987 (Lower Tribunal No. 07-99-M), involves appellants Rodney Shands and others challenging the City of Marathon's land use regulations. The appeal arises from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Judge Mark H. Jones. The central issue is whether transferable development rights (TDRs) and the property's recreational use value should be considered in determining a regulatory taking under Penn Central and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. The en banc majority denied certification, but two justices dissented, arguing the question is of great public importance.

Issues

  • When deciding if a regulation that limits a property to recreational uses constitutes a 'categorical' taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), what consideration, if any, should be afforded to (1) the value of the property's transferable development rights, and (2) the value of the property marketed for recreational uses, where the record establishes an active, private market for both, either of which meets the owner's investment-backed expectations?
  • Is the value attributable to a property's transferable development rights relevant to the determination of whether a government's regulatory scheme has deprived a property owner of all economic use of the property for the purposes of a categorical, as-applied regulatory taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)?

Holdings

The Third District Court of Appeal denied the City of Marathon's motion for certification, concluding the case does not present a question of great public importance. The en banc majority opinion declined to certify the issue regarding the relevance of transferable development rights and recreational market value in takings analysis under Lucas and Penn Central.

Legal Principles

The court reinterpreted two U.S. Supreme Court decisions—Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978) and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)—to shift takings analysis away from property value considerations. The en banc majority opinion excluded transferable development rights from value analysis under Penn Central and disregarded recreational market value under Lucas, despite prior judicial interpretations and active private markets for such rights.

Precedent Name

  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Cited Statute

  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York

Judge Name

  • Bokor, J.
  • Logue, C.J.
  • Gooden, J.
  • Miller, J.
  • Lindsey, J.
  • Gordo, J.
  • Scales, J.
  • Fernandez, J.
  • Emas, J.
  • LÖBree, J.

Passage Text

  • No other court has adopted this view where the record reflected an active private market for recreational uses.
  • Every other court across the United States that has considered this issue has reached the opposite result.
  • Is the value attributable to a property's transferable development rights relevant to the determination of whether a government's regulatory scheme has deprived a property owner of all economic use of the property for the purposes of a categorical, as-applied regulatory taking under Lucas?