Upping the ante on Mizner Trail
In November, there was news of a proposed settlement of the lawsuit resulting from Palm Beach County’s approval last June of development on the old Mizner Trail Golf Course. I can report that in December there was a second offer.
The main plaintiff in the lawsuit, which argues that the county’s approval is illegal, is the Boca Del Mar Improvement Association. It’s the umbrella group for all the homeowner associations in Boca Del Mar, between Camino Real and Southwest 18th Street west of Military Trail. Mizner Trail is one of two golf courses in Boca Del Mar, which was developed 40 years ago. The other plaintiffs are a small number of residents.
The first offer was $250,000 to the improvement association. The lawyers for Compson Associates—the developer, operating as Mizner Trail Golf Club, Ltd.,—and the association disagreed over whether the offer technically amounted to a settlement, but the developers essentially were offering what they believed were the association’s legal fees to that point. Through its law firm, Sachs Sax Caplan, the association rejected the offer.
The second offer was higher and wider. On Dec. 18, attorney F. Martin Perry sent a letter to Sachs Sax Caplan offering the association $500,000 if the lawsuit went away. Not just the association but also the individual plaintiffs would have to agree to drop the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning that they never could refile it.
Simultaneously, Mizner Trail principal Robert Comparato sent a letter to three homeowners who are plaintiffs—a couple and an individual—offering them $100,000 each to drop the lawsuit and agree to not “further appeal, litigate or otherwise interfere with the development of the former golf course.”
The developers set a deadline of Jan. 16. One week before the deadline, attorney Peter Sachs wrote to Perry, rejecting the settlement. Sachs first cautioned Perry about communications going directly to plaintiffs and around the improvement association’s lawyer. Sachs added, “Your client continues to miscomprehend the objectives” of the association. The group and the individual plaintiffs “do not seek monetary relief, as a monetary settlement to those parties does not remedy the adverse impact of the development. . .” In other words, the lawsuit seeks to keep the golf course undeveloped.
The fact that the developers raised their offer is interesting. When I spoke with Robert and James Comparato—their current project is Tower One Fifty-Five near Mizner Park— about the first settlement they waxed confident about their chances of prevailing in the lawsuit. Yet they raised their offer by $450,000. That sounds less confident.
In fact, the lawsuit is a tough one. The plaintiffs must show that the county broke its rules by approving 253 units on the course. The plaintiffs cite a 2008 Palm Beach County court ruling upholding the county’s denial of an earlier Compson development request. The judge indicated that the property has no development rights, as the plaintiffs contend. Compson says that ruling doesn’t apply because it stemmed from an earlier plan for developing the site. County staff recommended approval of the latest version, after recommending against the previous version.
A three-judge panel of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court has yet to rule on the lawsuit.
The helmet debacle and other examples of freedom
Many big national stories make me think of Florida. The latest example is the measles outbreak.
Some parents don’t vaccinate their children because they wrongly suspect a link between vaccines and autism. Other parents believe in an “all-natural” life for their families, meaning that they are willing to let their children suffer through an “all-natural” case of the measles, which in extreme cases can kill children.
Still others call it a matter of “freedom” to disregard government rules for vaccinating children. Which brings me to Florida.
In 2000, the Legislature allowed motorcyclists to ride without helmets. They had to buy a little bit more insurance, but legislators acted because the bikers wanted their “freedom.”
And if that “freedom” didn’t affect anyone else, all fine and good. I’m not a biker, but even non-bikers can appreciate that on a pretty day it’s more enjoyable fun to ride helmet-free. The problem is that fewer helmets mean more serious injuries, which mean higher medical costs in a state where auto insurance already is pricey.
Also, the bikers who wanted their helmet freedom also wanted the freedom to sue if they were injured. Bikers say crashes usually are the fault of those driving cars.
How are things working out? Deaths are up so much that AAA uses Florida’s example to help defeat attempts to ban helmet use in other states. And auto insurance costs keep rising for many Floridians.
Similarly, if parents who don’t vaccinate their children want to keep them away from everyone else, they at least are putting only their own kids at risk. Of course, they don’t quarantine their unvaccinated children. They take them out, where they infect others.
Doesn’t “freedom” also mean being free from consequences of reckless decisions others make?
And the Bibi matter
One of the many contentious issues in Washington is the address in March to a joint session of Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu without consulting the White House, a move that is without precedent for an invitation to a foreign head of state.
In his speech, Netanyahu plans to criticize the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran. The speech is scheduled for two weeks before Israel’s elections, which Netanyahu hopes will allow him to remain in power.
Israeli politicians, security officials and commentators, along with some of Israel’s strongest American allies in and out of Congress have urged Netanyahu to cancel. Some House Democrats plan to skip the speech.
Democrats Ted Deutch and Lois Frankel represent this area in the House. Both are Jewish. I asked for their comments. Here’s what I got from their press aides:
Deutch: “He believes the prime minister is always welcome here, and he will of course attend the speech, but he is also concerned that the way Speaker Boehner went about the invitation suggests political gamesmanship. What is of paramount importance to the congressman is that the U.S.-Israeli relationship never becomes a partisan issue.”
Frankel: “I am deeply troubled that this situation is threatening to turn our most critical ally in the region into a political football. The strength of the U.S.-Israeli relationship has always been deeply rooted in bipartisanship, reflecting the American public’s overwhelming support for Israel. We need to keep an eye on the critical issue of peace in the Middle East without the game of one-upmanship.”
And will she attend? “I have not yet been invited. With that said, it has been my practice to attend joint sessions of Congress.”
••••••••
You can email Randy Schultz at randy@bocamag.com
For more City Watch blogs, click here.About the Author
Randy Schultz was born in Hartford, Conn., and graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1974. He has lived in South Florida since then, and in Boca Raton since 1985. Schultz spent nearly 40 years in daily journalism at the Miami Herald and Palm Beach Post, most recently as editorial page editor at the Post. His wife, Shelley, is director of The Learning Network at Pine Crest School. His son, an attorney, and daughter-in-law and three grandchildren also live in Boca Raton. His daughter is a veterinarian who lives in Baltimore.
