State ex rel. Lee v. City of Cape Coral
1973 Fla. LEXIS 4890, 272 So. 2d 481 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legislature has broad power to establish municipal boundaries to accommodate not only present needs but also future growth, and courts should not oust properties from city limits simply because they are remote and currently unserved, especially when they are part of a comprehensive development plan.
Facts:
- In the 1960s, Gulf American Corporation began developing a large tract of land known as Cape Coral in Lee County.
- In 1970, the Florida Legislature passed a Special Act, approved by referendum, to establish the City of Cape Coral.
- The legislatively-drawn boundaries of the new city encompassed 100 square miles, although the developed subdivision area comprised only 30 square miles.
- The additional 70 square miles of land included within the city limits were sparsely inhabited and received severely limited or no city services.
- Owners of several parcels in these outlying, unserviced areas, including individuals named Stuckey, Jackson, Morris, Nelson, Jeffcott, Maxwell, and Lee, contested the city's jurisdiction over their properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Various landowners petitioned the Lee County Circuit Court (the trial court) for a writ of Quo Warranto against the City of Cape Coral to contest its jurisdiction.
- The trial court declared the special act creating the City of Cape Coral to be constitutional.
- The trial court ordered the 'ouster' (removal) of the properties owned by Stuckey, Jackson, Morris, Nelson, Jeffcott, and Maxwell from the city's corporate limits.
- The trial court ordered that the Lee property remain within the city limits but prohibited the city from taxing the property until municipal services were made available.
- The trial court's judgment was appealed, bringing the case before the state's highest court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the authority to oust sparsely populated lands from the corporate limits of a legislatively-created municipality when those lands are part of a long-range development plan but do not presently receive city services?
Opinions:
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Ervin, J.
No. A court should not oust properties from legislatively-drawn municipal boundaries based on a lack of present services, particularly in a growing, planned community. This opinion concurs with the trial court that the legislative act creating the city is constitutional but dissents from the ouster of any properties. The opinion argues that the trial court misapplied precedents from the 1930s depression era to modern, growing Florida. Citing City of Fort Lauderdale v. Town of Hacienda Village, Inc., it emphasizes the legislature's 'plenary power' to fix boundaries to accommodate both present needs and future growth. Because Cape Coral is a comprehensive development, unified governmental operation is necessary for long-range planning. Instead of ousting land, the proper remedy for a lack of services is temporary tax relief until those services are provided.
Analysis:
This opinion advocates for strong judicial deference to legislative decisions regarding municipal incorporation and boundary-setting. It represents a shift from older jurisprudence, which prioritized protecting landowners from taxation without benefits, to a modern view that emphasizes the need for long-range, comprehensive urban planning. If adopted, this reasoning would make it significantly more difficult for property owners on the fringes of new or expanding cities to challenge their inclusion, pushing the legal remedy away from ouster and toward temporary tax abatement until services are provided.
