The case was filed on August 5, 2013 after the city attorney, Glen Torcivia, gave a legal opinion agreeing with the majority commission that wanted higher buildings in our downtown. He determined that our heights referendum election held on March 12, 2013 was null and void due to HB 537 signed by Governor Rick Scott three months after the election. The case will be heard by Judge Joseph Marx on December 16th at 2pm.
Laurel Decker, Petitioner, was the Chair of Respectful Planning Political Action Committee who organized the volunteers for the referendum, acquired the necessary signatures that were certified and got the heights issue on the ballot. The city commission certified the results of the election that the PAC won by 55.86% that were never moved forward to Tallahassee by the City Clerk.
The fact of the matter is the election results of 45 feet in our downtown east of Dixie and 35 feet west, stand per Florida Statutes Section 166.031(2) and was effective on the date it was certified, March 19, 2013. According to the Inspector General's office, the date that the revised charter was filed with the Department of State, or whether it was filed at all, has no legal effect on whether or when the charter amendment is effective.
The Pac's argument:
- It was NOT an initiative or referendum for any development order
- It was NOT an initiative or referendum for any local comprehensive plan
- It was NOT an initiative or referendum for any map amendment.
- It WAS an initiative and referendum to amend our Charter.
Case Description
| Case ID: | 502013CA012420XXXXMB | |
| Case Caption: | LAUREL DECKER V CITY OF LAKE WORTH | |
| Division: | AJ - MARX | |
| Filing Date: | Monday , August 05th, 2013 | |
| Court: | CA - CIRCUIT CIVIL | |
| Location: | MB - MAIN BRANCH | |
| Jury: | N-Non Jury |
23 comments:
No I am not a no voter, am not friends of any commissioner, do not know any developers and do not attack or call people liars. I am just an ordinary Joe who pays taxes and maintains my property. I think it is a shame that Ms. Decker feels the need to sue a near bankrupt city. I thought the American way was, if you do not like our leaders decisions, vote them out. I donot think this suit will be looked upon favorably by citizens concerned with blight, crime, and the cities shrinking reserves.
Do you ever stand up for principles?
Did you vote?
Did your side win the vote?
Do you believe in the right of citizens to vote?
Did you read the signs of the NO people and conclude that they were NOT liars?
To clarify--this is going before a judge to render an opinion. It is not a jury trial...it is not an expensive proposition to find out if what the city did was legal or if they usurped their power. It is not a Greater Bay law suit where the city PAID THE flim flam artists $1.6 MILLION.
You don't think the people deserve that their voice be heard?
Do you believe in dictatorships?
Protecting the rights of the people especially the 56% of those who voted down increasing heights in our downtown, will look on Ms. Decker very favorably regardless of the outcome that will be given by the judge. She is a hero to the people.
Holy crap. We have a Mac McKinnon mindset posting on this blog. Christ, let's get term limits in Lake Worth.
@8:50--I answered your comment but your 2nd comment was deleted. You don't like my answer? Please refer to the comment policy. No name calling allowed. This is not a BULLY blog.
I guess the new norm is to sue. Whatever happened to the election process?
There was no name calling by me? But your response was off point and pitiful.
You used another word towards me that was name calling. Pitiful? You got it azz backwards.
@9:56..that is exactly what we are protecting--the election process,
Referendum is a time honored part of the political process, enshrined in both our Federal and State Constitutions, allowing citizens who disagree with a specific legislation to challenge it by petitioning their government to put what is viewed as an incorrect or mis-representative decision by elected officials to a vote of the people.
The suit is a result of our local government failing to follow the law, honor the people's vote, and amend the Charter.
One American way is to vote out a misrepresentative leader (something that requires waiting for an election); another way is to keep the leader but challenge the individual decision by referendum.
You're right, the American way and the election process WERE used here. When we found out 3 of 5 reps on the dais said they were the deciders and could change our Property Rights w/out our permission, so we voted!
Andre Duany HAS CONFIRMED on PUBLIC RECORD to FOUR Counties of elected and appointed Representatives YOU ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR CAR and into Stack and Pack Housing (hotels fit that bill). Now history shows when people live like this - and reps beg for fed grant money (TAXING US BY DEFLATING THE VALUE)Crime Blight and Violence WILL HAPPEN! Always has and always will!
At least a Prostitute dresses for the part and makes an agreeable transaction. Out reps get on their knees to 'service the fed gov' for grant $$$ and that's OK my GREAT GRAND CHILD will pay it back...really???
A Federal Reserve NOTE is NOT real $$$ but a NOTE or DEBT to be repaid! The American Way or Law of the Land says the fed gov and NOT the PRIVATE FED RESERVE is to coin money and establish weights and measures!
AND Punish those that counterfeit!
Then do the Math - the CRA will TAKE the TAX increase if hotels happen. What election process was used to elect them? They are Unelected and Unaccountable to US. So how would one Vote them Out?
"Protecting the rights of the people especially the 56% of those who voted down increasing heights in our downtown, will look on Ms. Decker very favorably regardless of the outcome that will be given by the judge."
Although a "NO" voter, I am interested in the outcome of this legal challenge. I contend, and I think the judge will agree, that the proposed heights were not increased and were actually decreased from what was allowed by charter.
I think he will find that a prohibition against referendum that change comp plans and mapping, two things the charter change did, will fall into the category even if you call the means a charter change. There are other prohibitions against referendum by the people.
The yes people lied and the no people lied too.
Can't wait to hear how the judge rules. Good luck to both sides. I'm still rooting for advancing the city, not keeping it poor.
This WAS a Charter change, anonymous. That is what this election was all about. You are correct...a charter change from heights already written in the charter that were higher than what the people wanted.
Also, you have said before that the YES people lied. Name the lies.
Advancing the city is a lofty goal. We are ALL for that, anonymous. 45 feet will not deter your objective.
Lynn,"45 feet will not deter your objective" You or I or Ms. Decker are not qualified to make that statement. It is one thing to have an opinion but your habit of belittling and talking down to people who make thoughtful comments is a real turn off. I live east and pay high taxes and utilities and maintain my property. I am not looking for a bs lawsuit from you and your buds. I like my neighbors want a safe place to live, fair utility rates, and a vibrant downtown whether 45 or 75 feet.
anonymous above, when I have an opinion different than yours, you say I am belittling. That will always be the case. You are not allowed to have a different opinion in this city by some people. You are not allowed to stand up for your rights or election results. Put the shoe on the other foot. We ALL want a safe city and this has nothing to do with the heights amendment.
You don't care about the heights amendment but those who voted and won, do. We have a vibrant downtown and unfortunately we have slum, blight and crime all around us.
"Also, you have said before that the YES people lied. Name the lies."
Each time I list the ones I heard and the ones I heard of, you call me a liar. I believe it was the intention of the friends to point out by mimicking the yes lies by the statements on their signs. Even though it backfired, it got the desired effect. People I spoke with were rabid that the no people would dare use the yes' tactic. I thought that was funny.
You seem to imply that it wasn't a vote of the people that put heights in the charter (where it does NOT belong) in the first place. I know I was one of those voters.
The 45 feet won't deter your objective comment is humorous. It will deter anyone wishing to build another 6 story hotel (the only 6 story construction allowed there) next door to the gulfstream, amid other buildings of equal or greater heights.
Like I said.... can't wait to hear the judge's opinion. I was ok with the results of the referendum, I'll be happy with the judge's ruling. But you won't, either way. I can almost hear it now. Just like with amendment 4, we are all stupid and you alone are intelligent. I pity the judge who rules against your side. Will there be a recall attempt? And if it goes your way, we will see images of Katie holding signs thanking the judge?
We have bigger fish to fry than to continue trying to limit Lake Worth reaching her potential. (including people wanting to build a hotel up to six stories)
Now who's belittling whom? You just don't get it? You do exactly what you accuse me or others of doing. Typical LW. You see it one way, others see it a different way. The NO signs were not funny--they were liars.
And I have a hint for you--either way the judge rules is fine with me. It will be legal. However, the city commission still could have voted in 45 feet. Th4y didn't and they will be held accountable. It is they who are losing their popularity.
No one said that those who disagreed with Amendment 4 were stupid. It is unfortunate that they didn't understand that a developer wants to grab the entire state for his own personal wealth at the expense of those who live here.
Another hint for you--NO ONE WANTS TO BUILD A HOTEL IN LW AT ANY HEIGHT.
OMG can we give heights a rest already? The people spoke, and so did the Rick Scott. Can you spell
R E T R O A C T I V E?????
RETROACTIVE????? I believe even that is illegal and certainly questionable in itself, already!
Well, old wise one, we will see in December.
The relevant question is--did the 2011 and 2012 versions of the legislation preclude local citizens' rights to vote in their community on heights. If it did not, an amendment to the legislation has probably no legal basis. Courts have regularly "shot down" post-facto legislation.
HOORAH for MS DECKER, the people spoke and the CM and Commission
tried everything they could with the help of LS and GR putting the illegl banner on the Gulfstream
but it didnt work, the vote won for the people but the CM and Commission read it wrong, now the court will decide.
Lynn, I did not know you werea Lawyer.
You didn't? Gosh.
This is an opinion blog. As such, it is my opinion as well as Laurel Decker's attorney, that the YES people who won this election have a great case, otherwise why would this all be going on?
Fun and games? This is the side of reason and intellectual astuteness. :)
You and I know that it was a Charter Amendment to change the maximum height, and that a height limit was already in the Charter.
The retroactive legislation is, IMO, illegal as have all retroactive laws been found in America.
England can pass them; we cannot.
In addition, this had nothing to do with a comp plan challenge until they failed to change the Charter and instead sent the comp plan change to Tallahassee.
So this was the Commission's neglect of a ministerial duty to change our Charter immediately upon the citizens voting affirmatively for it.
Post a Comment