In Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc., the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that the mere enactment of a statute, ordinance, or other governmental rule or regulation may satisfy the “as applied” requirement of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act if the impact of the statute, ordinance, or other governmental rule or regulation is “readily ascertainable” upon enactment. This ruling effectively negated the plaintiff landowner’s cause of action under the Harris Act by requiring a presuit claim to be asserted within one year from the time the Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted in 1997, instead of allowing the landowner to assert a presuit claim within one year from the time the applicable Comprehensive Plan amendment was applied to the landowner’s property in 2002.
The court’s ruling contradicts the plain language and intent of the Harris Act, which is to create a separate and distinct cause of action to provide relief (in the form of payment of compensation) when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, inordinately burdens real property.