A Moratorium?

“Moratorium”

It just sounds bad doesn’t it? Brings to mind onerous and dark possibilities. But it shouldn’t. It is a tool of local government that is commonly used to maintain the status quo while problematic laws are fixed, particularly ordinances inconsistent with comp plan requirements, kind of like the situation we find our little city in today. I am not a land use lawyer and I do not play one on TV. But I can read and I believe I have some common sense. The following is a very short but representative example of how courts have interpreted the use of moratoria in Florida and elsewhere. It is purely informational, a tool to better equip readers of this blog to understand the nature of the ongoing debate. Hopefully, it will spawn more questions and more interest from more people about the many things happening at City Hall these days that affect every one of us. I do not advocate this information as the basis for any action or inaction by anyone nor should anyone consider it to be a legal opinion. That is Mr. Dye’s job. And of course, many thanks to the loyal reader who found this valuable information and made it available to us:

Courts will uphold moratoria that are necessary to protect the public health safety and welfare. City of Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corporation, 371 So.2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 (1980).

Courts have upheld moratoria based on the need to plan to avoid growth induced public facility problems, or to cure existing problems caused by prior development. Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y. 2d 359, 334 N.Y. 2d 138, 285 N.E. 2d 291 (C.A.N.Y. 1972, appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972).

Moratoria that are reasonably limited in scope and duration, and have a firmly fixed termination point will be upheld. Franklin County v. Leisure Properties, Ltd., 430 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (Upheld three year moratorium on the issuance of building permits for multi-family construction as a means of maintaining the status quo during the adoption of a new comprehensive plan).

The above cases should be distinguished from moratoria of excessive or unlimited duration, which are generally held to be unreasonable. Government has a duty to expeditiously take steps to rectify the problem upon which the moratorium is based. Smoke Rise v. Washington Suburban Sanitation Commission, 400 F. Supp. 1369 (D.C.Md.1989).

Thanks again for reading. Now go ask questions and keep asking until you get answers.

Bill Yanger