Thursday, January 29, 2009

The Lowe’s Big Box Trial in Miami Continues. By Geniusofdespair

I spent Wednesday at the trial, well really it is an administrative hearing, but I figured you rapid readers would pass over something sounding so dry. The County Commission is suing the State of Florida because the State wouldn’t accept the County’s approval of the Lowe’s store on the other side of the Urban Development Boundary (and the Brown commercial development too). The State said it didn’t conform to the County’s own Growth Management Plan (a.k.a. Comprehensive Plan).

I thought the hearing went well for our side Wednesday — that would be the State of Florida side. Who in their right mind would side with the County Commissioners on this one? I suppose some of the lawyers at Holland and Knight might. Curiously they are not representing Lowe's at this hearing. One Lowe's expert witness was crushed by the State of Florida Attorney and intervenor Attorneys Miami Lakes Mayor Michael Pizzi and Everglades Law Center's Richard Grosso (representing two environmental groups).

I won’t bore you with the details as we have an extensive Lowe’s index (use our search above left, we have 14 posts on the store). Just know that it is wrapping up today and there will be a decision soon on whether Lowe’s and Brown et al., can build on the other side of the UDB line.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Grosso, Pizzi and the State; Lowes should be dead in the water. Now we will see if politics rule the day. I predict if the County/Lowes loose, they will appeal to ALC and appeal to circuit when they loose the first appeal. Circuit is so political. they might win there.

Anonymous said...

Please ,please give us more details!!
Like how exactly Pizzi and Grosso destroyed that "expert" witness.

Geniusofdespair said...

The expert witness was basing his data on a 20 minute drive from the site, not the modules the county was using....also expert's data was compiled using a program that has not been peer reviewed/nor was it submitted to the DCA for review, as it is something they developed and they don't want to share it...only the data it generates so you don't exactly know how they came to their conclusion, i.e. their work product. They didn't factor in 3 other retail developments in the area...just a lot of stuff that made you not believe there was a need for more retail acreage in the area, which is what he was trying to prove. I think he said he was being paid $250 an hour to be there (or $275).

Geniusofdespair said...

Now they have 10 days from when the transcripts of the hearing are ready to submit 45 page maximum from Lowe's and Brown' 65 page maximum from the county, intervenors, and the State (addressing both applications). I would suppose this is what amounts to a summation as there was no summation.

Oh, and modules isn't the correct term (I used above) They are called MSA's: Minor Statistical Areas. I believe each MSA needs a certain amount of industrial and retail business within it. I am not a planner so don't rely on my information...I tried my best to understand what I am not really trained for. McDaniels said, in cross, as the county attorney zeroed in on particular parts of the comp plan, that the plan wasn't meant to be looked at in pieces, it was meant to be viewed in its totality.

So it amounted to that picking out pieces to quibble with (mostly over semantics) wasn't going to work for the other side.

Anonymous said...

Listen, if we happen to lose this one please, someone, remember to pressure Planning and Zoning to require airboat parking. I am, if nothing else, a practical woman.

Anonymous said...

If it was meant to be looked at in peices, they wouldn't call it Comprehensive, now would they?

m

Geniusofdespair said...

M...you're right. What is that twice?