Pirman v. Florida State Imp. Commission
| Decision Date | 16 February 1955 |
| Citation | 78 So.2d 718 |
| Parties | Ernest J. PIRMAN et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA STATE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, and State Road Department of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Fields & Ward, Tampa, for appellants.
J. Turner Butler, Jacksonville, Ford L. Thompson, Tallahassee, and Dewey A. Dye, Bradenton, for Florida State Improvement Commission.
Ross H. Stanton, J., Tallahassee, for State Road Department of Florida.
This is another example of taxpayers and property owners attempting to substitute their judgment or have the Court substitute its judgment for that of the constituted authorities vested with the power to designate the location of a road.
The selection of locations for public improvements has caused more delay in constructing such public improvements than any other cause. This is especially true with reference to roads and bridges. It is impossible to select a site or location for a major road or bridge which will satisfy the desires of all the citizens and taxpayers. The discretion to make such selections is generally vested in administrative boards, or the location itself is fixed by the Legislature. There is no constitutional provision which requies that the location of a road or bridge should be fixed by the Legislature or by the administrative board with such certainty that it can be located by a surveyor as a prerequisite to the issuance of bonds or the validation of such bonds.
The appellants in this case own some property which would be benefited materially if the constituted authorities would construct a road around Palma Sola Bay instead of across or over the Bay. The real question in which appellants are interested is stated in their brief where they state: 'Indeed, plaintiffs would be glad to see the proposed new highway connecting Anna Maria Island with Bradenton constructed if it ran around Palma Sola Bay on the north rather than through it, and if, instead of widening Manatee Avenue, one-way streets were used.'
Chapter 22700, General Laws of Florida, 1945, names, designates and establishes a state road, forming a part of the system of state roads of the State of Florida, a road in Manatee County described as follows:
'Commencing at or near the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 30, Township 34 South, Range 17 East, the said point being at the westerly end of Manatee Avenue (Present State Road No. 18) near the westerly (sic) shore of Palma Sola Bay; thense running in a generally westerly direction for a distance of 3.9 miles more or less to a junction with Anna Maria Road (Present State Road No. 18-A) on Anna Maria Key, latter said point of junction being at or near the SE corner of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Fractional Section 28, Township 34 South, Range 16 East.'
After much discussion and agitation, sentiment crystallized for the construction of what is now called the Manatee County Bridge Project. The bridge in question over Palma Sola Bay is only a portion of the project and this particular bridge and its approaches is the part of the project now under attack.
The description of the Palma Sola Bridge contained in the resolutions authorizing the lease-purchase agreement of the State Improvement Commission and the State Road Department of the State of Florida at the request of the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County is as follows:
'a) Palma Sola Bridge, described as a two-lane bridge with movable span over Sarasota Pass (Intracoastal Waterway), and causeways, bridge and road approaches from State Road 684 (GIA) on Anna Maria Island to a westerly extension of Mandate Avenue on the mainland east of Palma Sola Bay, together with necessary roadway connections between Palma Sola Bay and downtown Bradenton.'
This description is a more definite description than that contained in Chapter 22700, General Laws of Florida 1945, and is contained within the general description set forth in said Act.
The appellants contend that the description set forth in Chapter 22700, General Laws of Florida 1945, and in the resolutions above mentioned, was so indefinite that the actual location could not be determined by a surveyor and, therefore, said Act and the resolutions above mentioned were null and void and that the determination of administrative authorities to build a bridge and make the connecting approaches in question was capricious and arbitrary. There is no merit to these contentions.
A bridge and its approaches are parts of a road. Section 341.09, F.S., F.S.A., is simply declaratory of what has always been considered to be a road or a part of a road. That section reads as follows:
'The terms 'road' and 'roads' as used in this chapter shall be construed to mean and include all highways and ways for public travel, including means for crossing streams by ways of bridges or ferries, under the jurisdiction of the several boards of county commissioners, or boards of bond trustees of the several counties or subdivisions thereof, of this state, or upon which such boards may expend any public money or cause work to be done, or any roads that may be this or any other law be placed under the supervision and control of the state road department.'
Section 341.63(3), F.S., F.S.A., vests power in the State Road Department to make any project, or part thereof, a state road, or a part thereof. Section 341.47, F.S., F.S.A., vests power and authority in the State Road Department to determine and fix lines and locations of roads. Section 341.81, F.S., F.S.A., provides that all routes that may be hereafter approved, designated, dedicated and constructed by the State Road Department are designated and declared to be part of the State Highway System of Roads.
Chapter 22700, General Laws of Florida 1945, must be construed in connection with the above sections of the law and it is very clear that the Legislature has vested in administrative boards, created by it, the power and authority to take every action taken in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Florida Development Commission, s. 37190
...reasons and unless clearly erroneous. Miller v. Brewer Co. of Fla. (Fla.1960), 122 So.2d 565. See also Pirman v. Florida State Improvement Commission (Fla.1955), 78 So.2d 718. Here, the plans for the proposed Capitol Center Project were approved by the Capitol Center Planning Committee (a m......
-
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Dist. v. Scott
...State Improvement Commission, Fla.App.,1954, 75 So.2d 1; Webb v. Hill, Fla.App.,1954, 75 So.2d 596; Pirman v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla.App.,1955, 78 So.2d 718 (cert. den. 349 U.S. 956, 75 S.Ct . 885, 99 L.Ed. 1279); Lewis v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.App.,1957, ......
-
State v. Florida Development Commission
...the matter of the wisdom or factual justification for the construction of a particular highway improvement. Pirman v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 718. The plan of financing tendered by the record in the case before us has been approved on several occasions invol......
-
State v. Florida State Turnpike Authority
...such consequence that the change would undermine a decree based on the original notice. Cf. Pirman v. Florida State Improvement Commission, (and State Road Department of Florida), Fla., 78 So.2d 718. As we have just said the procedure under Chapter 75, Florida Statutes 1953, and F.S.A., is ......