Make us your home page
Instagram

Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily.

(View our Privacy Policy)

Florida Supreme Court says 'no' to overruling governor's citrus canker veto

The Florida Supreme Court's ruled Thursday that residents who want the state to pay damages for lost citrus trees must go back to court for the money they are due.  [Scott Keeler | Tampa Bay Times]

The Florida Supreme Court's ruled Thursday that residents who want the state to pay damages for lost citrus trees must go back to court for the money they are due. [Scott Keeler | Tampa Bay Times]

TALLAHASSEE — Homeowners in Broward and Lee counties who lost their citrus trees to canker or the state's eradication program were told by Florida's highest court Thursday that because of the governor's veto, they'll have to go back to court to get the money they are due.

The 6-1 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court continues the legal limbo that has trapped homeowners for the last decade as they try to get redress after the state destroyed their healthy citrus trees as part of its ailed Citrus Canker Eradication Program between 2000 and 2006.

After years of litigation, the Legislature for the first time set aside the money in June — $20.9 million to 70,036 Broward tree owners and $16.4 million to 167,677 homeowners in Lee County.

But Gov. Rick Scott vetoed the $37.3 million, ignoring the order by the court that the state pay the money on the grounds that destroying the trees without adequate compensation was an unconstitutional "taking" and instead argued that the veto was warranted "because of ongoing litigation."

Outraged property owners representing counties with 94 percent of the lost trees joined five class-action lawsuits to seek compensation. In four of the cases, the court has ordered the state to pay more than $100 million in judgments, attorneys fees and interest. One case, involving Miami-Dade residents who lost 40 percent of the healthy trees removed in Florida, is still pending. The bench trial in that case ended in June 2016, but the judge has not ruled.

Homeowners petitioned the court last month to invalidate Scott's veto, but the court rejected their request, saying the better approach is to return to the lower courts to compel the state to pay.

"We hereby dismiss this petition without prejudice to seek redress in the pending circuit court actions," the majority wrote, adding that: "Nothing about the start of the new fiscal year prevents the respective circuit courts from issuing the relief requested, if those courts determine that relief is commanded by the facts and law."

However, Justice Barbara Pariente, who concurred with the majority that the high court could not invalidate a veto, wrote a separate opinion with a scathing criticism of the governor.

"Adding further insult to injury, the Governor's veto was based on misinformation that the litigation in these cases was still ongoing when that was not the case," she wrote. "... These petitioners have the right to full compensation. The time has come for the State to pay up." Justice Peggy Quince concurred.

Justice Fred Lewis was the lone dissent on the court. He also blasted Scott for failing to understand the Florida Constitution but also accused his partners on the court of abdicating their responsibility by elevating the governor's veto over the constitutional right for compensation when the state takes property.

"This is a sad day for Florida citizens with a majority and concurring opinion that refuse to protect the right of compensation for the massive government taking of property from Florida citizens," Lewis wrote. "The right to own private property and the corresponding right to receive full and complete compensation when private property is taken by a government is a foundational cornerstone of this democracy."

He criticized the court's majority and Pariente's opinion for using "artful and eloquent words ... to give an illusion of protecting a sacred constitutional right then to only crush that right by refusing to require payment of that compensation."

He said the governor's argument in support of a veto was "misdirected" and failed to understand both the separation of powers and the constitution.

"This is not a game, and our citizens should not be toyed with as if a yo-yo, and yet that is exactly what this veto accomplishes,'' Lewis wrote. "Now, with the opportunity to stop this 10-year game of yo-yo, this Court abdicates its responsibility when it allows state actors to disregard their constitutional obligation by playing further games of delay and obfuscation. Justice demands that it stop now."

Lewis also lampooned the governor, a lawyer, and his understanding of the law.

"The Executive's response oozes executive power in what he terms his unfettered veto. However, the Executive forgets or has failed to read the first lines of the Florida Constitution: 'All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.'

"We simply cannot allow another 10 years to go by for the Executive to continue playing games of hide the money through a veto power and word games in the courts," Lewis concluded. "Furthermore, every day that goes by, the State owes more and more in post-judgment interest for a judgment that has long been final."

During the citrus eradication program, state agriculture inspectors deployed crews with chain saws to chop down 577,253 orange, grapefruit and key lime trees throughout the state — even if the trees showed no signs of infection.

Lawmakers added the money to the budget for only two of the four counties in which judgments have been rendered. They did not include money for homeowners in Orange and Palm Beach counties.

Contact Mary Ellen Klas at meklas@miamiherald.com. Follow @MaryEllenKlas

Florida Supreme Court says 'no' to overruling governor's citrus canker veto 07/13/17 [Last modified: Thursday, July 13, 2017 1:50pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2017 Tampa Bay Times

    

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

Loading...
  1. Trump associate Roger Stone to talk to House panel in Russia probe

    Nation

    WASHINGTON — The House intelligence panel will interview two of President Donald Trump's associates behind closed doors this week as congressional committees step up their investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    Roger Stone talks to reporters outside a courtroom in New York this past March. The House intelligence panel will interview Stone behind closed doors Tuesday as congressional committees step up their investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Fformer Trump staffer Boris Epshteyn also will talk to the House panel. [Associated Press]
  2. Pinellas commission set to discuss next budget, licensing board

    Local Government

    CLEARWATER –– The Pinellas County Commission will be busy on Tuesday.

  3. Romano: Sure, let's trust a board with no professionalism, transparency or ethics

    Local Government

    So, if you've been following the bureaucratic carnage:

  4. St. Petersburg mayor's debate: Rick vs. Rick 2.0 starts tonight

    Elections

    ST. PETERSBURG — Rick Kriseman and Rick Baker are getting back together.

    Former Mayor Rick Baker (left) is challenging incumbent Mayor Rick Kriseman in St. Petersburg's mayoral election. These photos were taken during the July 25 televised debate. [DIRK SHADD   |   Times]
  5. Pinellas County embarks on $19-million project to pull muck out of Lake Seminole

    Environment

    SEMINOLE — Environmental experts, always concerned about the water quality of Lake Seminole, are assessing how much Hurricane Irma may have stirred up the nearly 1 million cubic yards of muck that lay on the bottom.

    Despite the expenditure of more than $30 million over nearly two decades, improved water quality in Lake Seminole remains elusive. The muck that lines the bottom of the 684-acre freshwater lake keeps accumulating while the cost to remove it keeps rising. Having exhausted less drastic methods for restoring the lake, the county is about to embark on a six-year dredging project expected to cost $18.6 million. DOUGLAS R. CLIFFORD  |  Times