Judge dismisses $40M development lawsuit

Delray Beach will not have to pay more than $40 million in damages claimed by Atlantic Crossing, a proposed development in the heart of the city’s thriving downtown.

That’s because a federal judge dismissed the case and sent remaining nonmonetary claims to state court.

Development on the site, next to Veterans Park near the Intraand coastal Waterway, has been debated for at least seven years.

In 2014, the City Commission approved a 9-acre site plan that included apartments, offices, restaurants and shops, but has delayed several further administrative approvals needed before construction permits can be issued.

The developer, Ohio-based Edwards Cos., has accused the commission of trying to thwart the $200 million project.

On Wednesday, Don DeVere, an Edwards vice president, said the company is examining the judge’s opinion.

“We are reviewing our legal options to move Atlantic Crossing forward and secure our property rights,” he said in a statement.

The site, on the north side of Atlantic Avenue near the west side of the Intracoastal, is set to have six buildings, 82 condominiums and 261 apartments, as well as space for offices, restaurants, outdoor cafes a promenade. Some of its neighbors were initially concerned about traffic tie-ups, but announced earlier this year that they supported the project.

In April, the commission rejected a road plan designed to relieve traffic congestion in the development, leaving its future uncertain. Mayor Cary Glickstein called the yearslong approval process “torturous,” but said the roadwas not safe and he

cers— not the private contractor — to make decisions about ticketing motorists.

“Not only do the brightline standards promulgated by the city ensure the vendor’s tasks regarding images are purely ministerial and nondiscretionary in nature, but the record reflects that no notice or citation is issued unless and until an individual officer of the city weighs the evidence in the images and determines in his or her professional judgment that probable cause exists,” said the ruling, written by appealscourt Judge Thomas Logue and joined by judges Kevin Emas and Linda AnnWells. “The officers make these decisions in the same manner they decide to issue a roadside citation.”

But saying the “lawful use of cameras to enforce red lights has attracted the attention of the public, local governments, and the Legislature,” the judges also called on the Florida Supreme Court to take up the case, a move known as certifying issues to the high court.

The role of companies hired by cities to operate red-light camera programs has been highly controversial in recent years. Though proponents of the cameras say they improve traffic safety, critics argue that the devices are more about generating money for local governments andthe private vendors.

Wednesday’s ruling focused on Aventura’s contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc., a major player in the industry. The contract gave American Traffic Solutions a wide range of responsibilities, including installing and maintaining cameras, reviewing images and mailing notices and citations to motorists.

While Jimenez’s challenge raised issues such as the authority of the company to mail notices and citations, the appeals court focused heavily on American Traffic Solutions’ role in reviewing potential red-light violations.

The ruling said the company sorts through images and puts them into two databases — a “working” database that police review for possible traffic violations and a “nonworking” database that police do not use for ticketing motorists. In sorting through the images, the company considers issues such as whether cameras have misfired and whether license plates are legible. It also reviews photos of cars entering and going through intersections.

“The question thus becomes whether the vendor’s review in this case involves the exercise of unfettered discretion,” the ruling said. “We hold that it does not. The record reflects that the type of evaluation exercised in the vendor’s decisions is clerical and ministerial. When sorting images into the working and nonworking databases, the vendor separates the images that are usable because they contain certain easy-to-ascertain information, from those that are not usable because they fail to contain that information. For example, the vendor exercises no unfettered discretion when it determines the camera misfired, the traffic light in the image displays green, or the vehicle license plate number in the image is illegible.”

The ruling also tried to draw distinctions with the Hollywood red-light camera program rejected in the 2014 ruling by the 4th District Court ofAppeal. It said the Hollywood program did not give police officers as much authority in deciding whether motoristswere cited.

“In contrast, in the [Aventura] case, the vendor has no authority to decide that a citation will issue,” Wednesday’s ruling said. “Only the police officer, whose name and badge number appears on the citation, decides if probable cause exists and if a notice and citation issues.”