Florida Power Corp. v. Gulf Ridge Council
| Decision Date | 09 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-38,80-38 |
| Citation | 385 So.2d 1155 |
| Parties | FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. GULF RIDGE COUNCIL, Boy Scouts of America, Inc., a nonprofit FloridaCorporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. Rex Owen of Owen & McCrory, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
John W. Frost, II and Peter P. Murnaghan of Holland & Knight, Bartow, for appellee.
Florida Power Corporation appeals the dismissal of its petition for condemnation of certain land owned by appellee Gulf Ridge Council, Boy Scouts of America, Inc. We affirm.
Appellant filed its petition to condemn a route for a high voltage power transmission line in Polk County. The intended route bisected Flaming Arrow Camp, a recreational and wildlife refuge maintained on its property by appellee. At a quick taking hearing, appellee opposed the "straight-line" route selected by appellant and claimed that appellant had abused its conceded condemnation powers by selecting it. Appellee proposed two alternative routes over other portions of their property and offered to donate the portions of land necessary to either alternative route. Appellant refused. The trial court found that appellant had exceeded its statutory authority to acquire real property by eminent domain under Section 361.01, Florida Statutes (1977) and Section 74.011, Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.). It therefore ruled that appellant's petition for condemnation would be dismissed unless appellant elected, within fourteen days of the entry of the order, to utilize one of the reasonably available alternate routes across appellee's land. This appeal followed timely.
The trial court noted in its well-reasoned opinion that strict compliance with the law is required when public utilities exercise their statutory right of eminent domain. Valleybrook Developers, Inc., v. Gulf Power Co., 272 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The trial court continued:
Once a condemning authority has decided that a taking is necessary, selects one of the alternatives available to it, and applies to a court for approval of the taking, the court's role is then to assure that the condemnor acted in good faith, did not exceed its authority, and did not abuse its discretion. Hillsborough County v. Sapp, 280 So.2d 443 (Fla.1973). Florida law requires a condemning authority to weigh and consider several factors in deciding which route to select and which land to condemn. Specifically, Florida appellate courts have enumerated five criteria that a condemnor must weigh in order to properly exercise its discretion; (sic) (1) Availability of an alternate route; (2) costs; (3) environmental factors; (4) long-range area planning; and (5) safety considerations. The failure or refusal of a condemning authority to properly weigh these factors may constitute an abuse of discretion.
Admittedly, a condemning authority does not necessarily abuse its discretion by choosing one route over another equally suitable route. However, a condemnor does abuse its discretion by making a route selection determination without first properly considering and weighing the relevent (sic) factors considered determinative by Florida appellate courts.
It appears from the testimony heard in this cause that Florida Power planning engineers considered only the most direct and economical route, overlooking the other factors mentioned above. In fact, Florida Power's engineers testified that they did not know what factors, if any, company officials had considered in approving the utility's decision to condemn this particular land.
The Court further finds that the protection of natural resources is the constitutionally declared public policy of the State of Florida, and as such, is an appropriate matter for consideration in condemnation cases. Seadade Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power and Light Company, 245 So.2d 209 (Fla.1970); Fla. Const. art. II, § 7. Florida Power overlooked the environmental and esthetic damage that would necessarily accompany the construction of a power line through Respondent's land. Although Florida Power's experts admitted that placement of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acadian Gas Pipeline Sys. v. Nunley
...and to the Florida cases of Florida Power & Light Co. v. Berman, 429 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4 DCA 1983), and Florida Power Corp. v. Gulf Ridge Council, 385 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 2 DCA 1980), which reached similar results. Mr. May's testimony, under close scrutiny, is riddled with omissions and exaggerat......
-
Southern Development Land and Golf Co., Ltd. v. South Carolina Public Service Authority
...outlined below and exercise its discretion in a choice of a route based upon that analysis. See Florida Power Corp. v. Gulf Ridge Council, 385 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980). Under S.C.Code Ann. Section 28-2-210 (Rev.1991), a condemnor may institute an action for "the acquisition o......
-
Red River Waterway Com'n v. Fredericks
...See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Berman, 429 So.2d 79 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4th Dist.1983); Florida Power Corp. v. Gulf Ridge Council, 385 So.2d 1155 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2d Dist.1980). In the present case the Corps and the Commission decided at the outset to construct a new road to current standa......
-
Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't v. Lucile B. Randol Heirs, LLC
...See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Berman, 429 So.2d 79 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4th Dist.1983); Florida Power Corp. v. Gulf Ridge Council, 385 So.2d 1155 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. Dist.1980). Based on the forgoing jurisprudence, it is presumed that the location chosen by the expropriating authority is the ......