I've been following the
Yankeetown v. DCA (37 2011 CA 002036) litigation. So far, I've written on
Yankeetown's complaint alleging that the Community Planning Act is unconstitutional and on
St. Pete Beach's motion to intervene in the litigation against Yankeetown.
The Department of Community Affairs was
recently substituted in the litigation by its new administrative iteration, the Department of Economic Opportunity. Just before that, DCA
filed a motion to dismiss Yankeetown's complaint. DCA argues that officers of the state and state agencies must presume that laws affecting their duties are valid. Because the validity of the law must be assumed, the public officer is not given standing to challenge the law. That is, public officers are expected to uphold their office, not fight about it. Because this line of case law has been applied previously to both local governments and to growth management law, DCA argues, it should applied in this case.
If Yankeetown responds to the motion in writing before the hearing, I will post a summary here.
