Laserfiche WebLink
90 <br /> <br />Page 4 --November 10, 2003 <br /> <br /> After the necessary procedures were fo/lowed, the two proposals were placed <br /> on the ballot. They passed by a wide margin. <br /> However, prior to the election, Vacation Beach Inc. sued to enjoin enforce- <br />ment of the amendments. Vacation Beach argued the amendments did not com- <br />ply with the provisions of Florida's Growth Management Act. Under the act, <br />"land development regulations" adopted by a govermng body had to be sub- <br />mitted to a locaJ planning agency for review. <br /> The lower court ruled in favor of Vacation Beach. <br /> The city appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The amendments could be enforced. <br /> By repealing the earlier ordinances, the amendments amended a land use <br />regulation and thus became land use regulations themselves. <br /> However, the amendments were passed through a certified vote of a major- <br />ity of the peopie. Although the city council later adopted the amendments, this <br />function was a purely ministerial one. In fact, to suggest the council's adoption <br />was otherwise ig-nored the fact the city charter reserved to the people ~e fight <br />to amend the city's charter without approval, and' even in the face of objection <br />from the governing body. <br /> Consequently, because the amendments were not enacted by a governing <br />body, theY could aot violate the act. <br />Citation: City of Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach, fnc., Court of Appeal of <br />Florida, 5th Dist., No. 5D02-2722 (2003). <br />see also: Wilson v. Crews, 34 So.2d 124 (1,948). <br />see also: Ci~, of Miami v. Rosen, 10 So.2d 307 (1942). <br /> <br />Adult Entertainment -- Cabaret owner claims city code too broad <br />City argues cabaret's violations did not invoke First Amendrnent rights <br />WASHINGTON (09/09/03) -- The county sheriff's department conducted <br />numerous undercover operations at the New Players Club, an adult cabaret. <br />The operations uncovered several Lakewood Municdpal Code.violations, <br />ctuding improper contact, drug use, alcohol consumption, payment form, and <br />sexual conduct. <br /> The city gave Heesan, the owner of the cfub, notice of its intent to revoke <br />his business and adult cabaret license and to declare the club a public nuisance. <br /> Heesan sued. The court ruled in favor of the city. <br /> Fleesan appealed, arguing' the city code violated the club's Free Expression <br />fights because it was overbroad. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The club's Free Expression rights were not violated by the city code. <br /> A law was overbroad if it swept within its prohibitions activities that were <br />constitutionally protected. <br /> The city's cabaret code was not overbroad. Heesan violated several <br /> <br /> <br />