1. that what the City did at the time was contract zoning (this is ILLEGAL). The P&Z and certain Staff members continue to ignore this fact.
2. that a rezoning of property is in the police power of the City.
3. that the Amendment is not effective.
4. the owner has not done any further application for site plan approval or any other approvals for that matter.
5. there is no substantial investment of time and money by the owner.
6. and that the Sunset parcel was totally different than the Largo situation in that Sunset did not wait to purchase the property contingent on the rezoning but purchased the property BEFORE it was granted any approvals, including annexation approval.
This entire article was written without the facts. Laurence McNamara, in his letter to the Editor, suggested that the LW Herald should change its focus away from writing about the possibility of every Commission's decision ending up in a lawsuit that is frivolous at best. I suggest that a news reporter be just that, not relying on gossip for supposed news articles.
The presentation by Richard Grosso, an authority in land-use and zoning, would also totally dispute the Herald's scare article regarding the Sunset case and the “probability of a Bert J. Harris law suit.” Anyone can threaten to file a law suit.
When you have two attorneys telling you that your chances of a Bert J. Harris law suit are slim to none, particularly when you have just paid one of them over $3,500 to prove the opposite, I would think that would be fairly compelling.