Zinnen v. City of Fort Lauderdale
| Decision Date | 03 October 1947 |
| Citation | 159 Fla. 498,32 So.2d 162 |
| Parties | ZINNEN v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Jos. S. White judge.
S. O O'Bryan, Jr., of Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Julian E Ross, of Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
C. A Hiaasen, of Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae.
This appeal is from a final decree validating Municipal Recreation Revenue Bonds proposed by the City of Fort Lauderdale as provided by Chapter 24514, Special Acts of 1947. The appellant, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene and resist issuance of the bonds. No objection is offered to the resolution or other proceedings incident to their issue.
It is first contended that the purchase of property and the construction of recreational facilities thereon as contemplated by the bond issue under attack is not a municipal purpose.
Chapter 24514 Special Acts of 1947 (Charter of the City of Fort Lauderdale), authorizes the city to accuire real estate and to construct recreational facilities thereon. The act further declares such recreational facilities to be comprehended within the meaning of a municipal purpose and this court has repeatedly held that the legislature may determine what constitutes a municipal purpose. The following cases elaborate on the modern concept of municipal purpose and conclude this question, contrary to appellant's contention: Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 240, 25 So.2d 648; State v. City of Tallahassee, 142 Fla. 476, 195 So. 402; City of Fernandina v. State, 143 Fla. 802, 197 So. 454.
It is next contended that the proposed municipal recreation bonds are invalid because they were for new construction rather than extension of an existing facility and were not approved by a vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution.
The petition for validation reveals that the City of Fort Lauderdale operates public beaches, a bathing casino and other recreational facilities, including municipal docks, that the proposed recreational facilities are nothing more than extensions and additions to the facilities already owned and being conducted and that their primary purpose is more efficiently to answer the needs of the city for such facilities. The petition for validation also shows that the bonds brought in question are to be retired and the interest thereon is to be paid exclusively from revenues derived from the recreational facilities. They are not secured by mortgage or lien of any character on the facility to be enlarged or acquired. We therefore conclude that an approving vote of the freeholders was not a necessary prerequisite to their issue. State v. City of Clearwater, 135 Fla. 148, 184 So. 790; State v. City of Key West, 153 Fla. 226, 14 So.2d 707; Kinsey v. Walton County Bridge Authority, 136 Fla. 204, 186 So. 418; Brash v. State Tuberculosis Board, 124 Fla. 652, 196 So. 218; Hopkins v. Baldwin, 123 Fla. 649, 167 So. 677. Many other cases might be included in this category. Some of them approved bond issues for extensions of existing facilities while others approved bond issues for new facilities. If they are to be paid for exclusively from income from the facility, it is not material whether they are new or were additions to facilities already owned and operated.
It is last contended that the municipal Recreation Bonds drawn in question must be approved by a vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, because they ultimately impose an obligation on the taxing power of the city.
There is no merit to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of St. Petersburg
...22 So.2d 150; State ex rel. Watson v. Caldwell, 156 Fla. 618, 23 So.2d 855.' See also the more recent cases of Zinnen v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 159 Fla. 498, 32 So.2d 162; State v. City of Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So.2d Appellants-- in their second question--contend that Chapter 2352......
-
State v. Escambia County
...25810, Special Acts 1949. Similar recreational facilities of various descriptions have been held public purposes. Zinnen v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 159 Fla. 498, 32 So.2d 162; Schmeller v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 38 So.2d 36; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So.2d 218......
-
Bessemer Properties, Inc. v. MacVicar
...707; Gardner v. Fuller, 155 Fla. 833, 22 So.2d 150; State ex rel. Watson v. Caldwell, 156 Fla. 618, 23 So.2d 855; Zinnen v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 159 Fla. 498, 32 So.2d 162; State v. City of Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So.2d Affirmed. HOBSON, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. ...
-
Schmeller v. City of Fort Lauderdale
... ... The first question ... for determination is whether or not the City of Fort ... Lauderdale may issue municipal Recreational Revenue Bonds and ... pledge the proceeds of its utility service tax to service ... them absent an approving vote of the freeholders ... In Zinnen v ... City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Fla., 32 So.2d 162, ... this Court upheld the authority of the City to purchase lands ... on which to construct a recreational center and a yacht ... basin, to finance the cost thereof by issuing municipal ... recreational revenue bonds, the principal ... ...