Full Senate to get bills aimed at local governments’ impact on business revenues
The state Senate has moved forward with two controversial local-government measures that critics contend are tilted too far to businesses.
The Appropriations Committee voted 11-7 on Thursday to back a proposal (SB 620) that would allow businesses to file lawsuits if local ordinances cause at least a 15% loss of profits.
And the Rules Committee voted 14-2 to approve a revised bill (SB 280) that would require municipal and county governments to craft economic impact statements for certain ordinances that could be paused by legal challenges.
Both bills are now positioned to go to the full Senate
Sen. Travis Hutson, R-St. Augustine, made changes to SB 620, the more contentious of the proposals. They included limiting the liability of counties or municipalities for business damages to seven years of lost profits and removing a provision that would have allowed businesses to sue if ordinances cause at least a 15% loss of revenue instead of profits.
The measure would apply to businesses that have been operating for at least three years.
Joining Democrats in voting against the measure, Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, said the proposal could bankrupt some small cities and counties.
“This is a Luddite bill,” Brandes said. “This bill holds us in stasis.”
Rebecca O’Hara, senior legislative advocate for the Florida League of Cities, said that if the bill was in place 20 years ago, local governments would have not been able to address the explosion of pill mills.
“Human trafficking, internet cafes, liquor stores, puppy mills, panhandling, short term rentals, medical marijuana treatment centers, all of these things will be fair game for business-damages claims if local governments are trying to address those activities, even in circumstances where you have specifically authorized local governments to act,” she said.
Hutson said local officials have the ability to factor in the economic impacts of addressing establishments that cause nuisances.
“There may be times where doing something to the business is a greater public interest and it’s worth making that decision even if it does cost them some of their revenue dollars to make that business whole,” Hutson said.
When asked why the bill doesn’t impose the restrictions on state government, Huston replied he’d support such a proposal.
The bill is modeled after a longstanding state law known as the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act, which allows property owners to file lawsuits if government decisions have “inordinately burdened” property use.