Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
April 8, 2019
Thursday two preemption bills received overwhelming votes of support from Florida House members during House Commerce Committee hearings. Today — Monday, April 8, 2019 at 4:00 p.m.— the Senate’s versions of these bills come before the Senate Judiciary Committee. To see the complete agenda of today’s committee meeting, click here.
PLEASE REACH OUT TO SENATORS TO OPPOSE THESE BILLS AS THEY PREEMPT HOME RULE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION!
Committee on Judiciary Members
Chair: Senator David Simmons (R)
Vice Chair:Senator Jose Javier Rodriguez (D)
- Senator Dennis Baxley (R)
- Senator Audrey Gibson (D)
- Senator Travis Hutson (R)
- Senator Kelli Stargel (R)
HB 1383 — Amends Bert Harris Act
On Thursday, the House Commerce Committee passed CS/HB 1383 (Grant, J.) on a 21-2 vote. The bill significantly amends the Bert J. Harris Act and substantially handicaps local government ability to resolve these claims. The bill requires any settlement reached on a Harris claim that involves the issuance of a variance or exception to a regulation on a residential property be automatically applied by the government entity to all similarly situated residential properties that are subject to the same rules or regulations. Similarly situated is not defined in the bill. Therefore, the legislation will have a severe chilling effect on the settlement of Harris claims.
Additionally, the bill limits the timeframe for government entities to respond to Harris claims from 150 days to 90 days and increases the likelihood of paying the property owners attorney fees and removes prevailing party fees if the government entity prevails. Lastly, CS/HB 1383 would include business damages as part of the calculation of damages a property owner could receive. Current law only awards damages for loss of property value.
The Senate will consider its version of the bill, SB 1720 (Lee), on Monday, April 8. Please reach out to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to OPPOSE the bill. (Cruz)
HB 1159 — Tree trimming and removal
| CS/SB 1400 (Albritton) and CS/HB 1159 (La Rosa) impose restrictions on enforcement of local government tree ordinances. The bills prohibit a local government from enforcing a tree regulation on residential property that requires a permit, an application, the provision of notice or a fine, if: (1) the property is located in a county subject to a tropical storm watch or warning or hurricane watch or warning, or is under a storm-related declared state of emergency, and the property owner has determined the tree is damaged, diseased, infested or presents a danger to persons or property; and (2) the property owner has obtained from a certified arborist proof the tree is damaged, diseased, infested or presents a danger. CS/SB 1400 was substantially amended this week in the Senate Community Affairs Committee. As amended, CS/SB 1400 would prohibit the enforcement of a local government tree ordinance against a residential property owner under specified conditions during the period of March 1 to June 1 of each year. During this three-month period, notwithstanding a local tree ordinance, a residential property owner would be authorized to trim, prune or remove a tree, or to trim or prune (but not remove) a specimen, heritage or patriarch tree, if a certified arborist provides documentation the tree is a danger to persons or property. The bill exempts endangered species from its provisions. CS/SB 1400 will be heard Monday, April 8 by the Senate Judiciary Committee. CS/HB 1159 passed the House Commerce Committee on Thursday on a 19-4 vote with no changes. It has a final stop in the House State Affairs Committee. The League remains opposed to the bills. (O’Hara) |
I think there is a typo in the heading “CS/SB 1400 (Albritton) and CS/HB 1169 (La Rosa)”. Should be HB 1159.
Thanks. You are correct. Copied hastily from FLC release. Made correction.
Please dont ASSUME that everyone is in agreement with your incitement of citizens to respond as you wish them to…..try to maintain some semblance of neutrality…not everyone is a “tree hugger” and some believe owners have rights that cannot be obliterated by local authorities misguided beliefs of the common good….enough already