Opponents of across Everglades wetlands say Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Cabinet violated the law when they tossed a judge鈥檚 order blocking the road 鈥� and set a dangerous precedent statewide.
They plan to appeal within 30 days, said attorney Richard Grosso, who represents Tropical Audubon.
SA国际传谋 is here for you, even when life is unpredictable. Our journalists are continuing to work hard to keep you informed across South Florida. Please support this vital work. Thank you.
The state鈥檚 leaders 鈥渄idn't seem to care much about the precedent they set for how strong [growth management plans] will be in the future,鈥� said Grosso. 鈥淢any of the rulings were gratuitous. They just seemed to be calculated, even, to render the [Miami-Dade鈥檚] plan weaker going forward.鈥�
The in the final minutes of Tuesday鈥檚 Cabinet meeting, in fewer than 4 minutes. Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried voted against it, saying the Cabinet was siding with developers over wetlands.
The extension across the Bird Drive Basin south of the Tamiami Trail was touted by U.S. Rep. Carlos Gimenez when he was Miami-Dade County mayor as a solution to grinding congestion in South Dade. The MDX Expressway Authority launched a web site and promised residents it would ease their commutes.
But environmentalists complained the highway proposal strays beyond the urban development boundary set by the county to protect wetlands and farms. The proposed route crosses wetlands that were once part of the headwaters for Shark River Slough; a wetland mitigation bank created to make up for wetlands destroyed by development; and land targeted for an Everglades restoration project.
During a hearing two years ago, the county鈥檚 own planner testified that the road would shave just six minutes off the commute from West Kendall.
That testimony, along with the county鈥檚 promise to protect wetlands and prevent sprawl, led Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Van Wyk to find the proposal violated the county鈥檚 comprehensive development master plan.
In overturning her order, DeSantis and Cabinet members concluded that many of Van Wyk鈥檚 findings of facts, like the commute times, should instead be considered interpretations of the law, open to reversal. That, Grosso said, violates a basic principle of the law.
鈥淭he judge or the jury who's in the room during the trial are the only ones who get to decide what the facts are. An appeals court, or the governor and Cabinet reading the cold, hard transcripts hundreds of miles away, they don't get to see all that,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the whole purpose of having an administrative law judge hear a dispute and decide what the facts are, so that the ultimate decisions are made based on the facts and aren't just political votes.鈥�
When the Cabinet initially rejected Van Wyk鈥檚 order in June, DeSantis said he believed the county had met the threshold for its legal interpretations of the amendment that allowed the road, meaning the Cabinet should defer to local authority.
He also said he didn鈥檛 think the highway would ever get permitted by environmental regulators.
鈥淭he governor correctly acknowledged in June that this project is not likely to receive its environmental permit,鈥� Grosso said. 鈥淲hat that means is that this area is unsuitable for the highway under this planning law, that means it should have been found not in compliance and rejected.鈥�
In tossing out the judge鈥檚 order, Grosso also said the decision could undermine comp plans across the state.
鈥淚f Dade County gets to decide that it's more important to shave six minutes off of a two-way commute to compromise Everglades restoration,鈥� he said, 鈥渢hen you may as well repeal the state land use planning law.鈥�
