Hijacked by Developers: How the Bert Harris Act Became a Weapon Against Florida’s Communities
Once a shield for property owners, the Harris Act is now a legal bludgeon used to bully local governments into approving reckless development. It’s time to restore the original intent.
Background
The Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, enacted in 1995, was intended to provide relief to property owners whose land is inordinately burdened by governmental actions that do not rise to the level of a constitutional taking.
The original intent of the Harris Act was to provide a remedy in cases where regulatory actions unfairly burden private property rights beyond what is protected under constitutional takings law. However, early drafts of the Act were criticized by legislators and stakeholders for offering limited relief, mainly to landowners with already vested or existing uses, thus failing to address the broader grievances that had fueled the property rights movement.
To address these concerns, the final version of the Act included an alternative definition of "existing use" that acknowledged the potential compensability of a “reasonably foreseeable future use.” This concept draws from principles in eminent domain law, where the highest and best use of a property, including some future uses, is considered in determining value. Under the Harris Act, Courts could account for the reasonable probability of land use changes if such changes are grounded in suitability and not merely speculative.
While the inclusion of this concept was intended to ensure meaningful remedies for landowners, its interpretation has at times created uncertainty for local governments, particularly when landowners assert Harris Act claims based solely on denied upzoning or development applications. Local governments must be able to make land use decisions based on comprehensive plans and the long-term welfare of the community without the undue threat of liability for speculative claims.
The Problem
Use of “Reasonably Foreseeable Use” to Pressure Local Governments
In recent years, some developers and landowners have increasingly relied on the “reasonably foreseeable future use” provision of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act as a tactical threat to influence local land use decisions. By asserting that a proposed zoning change or development plan constitutes a “reasonably foreseeable use” under the Act, developers have sought to discourage local governments from exercising their lawful discretion to deny or modify land use proposals—even when such proposals are inconsistent with local comprehensive plans or would impose clear harms on infrastructure, the environment, or community character.
This tactic often takes the form of preemptive legal notices or veiled threats of litigation, in which developers claim that denial of a rezoning or permit application will expose the local government to financial liability under the Harris Act. The mere assertion of a Harris Act claim—particularly when backed by well-resourced legal teams—can have a chilling effect on elected boards and planning officials, leading them to approve speculative or incompatible development rather than risk costly legal battles.
The problem is compounded when such claims are based on minimal evidence, such as the property's proximity to other developed areas, without formal entitlements, consistency with local land use policy, or demonstrated infrastructure capacity. In these instances, local governments are effectively being bullied into approving rezonings that they would otherwise deny in the public interest.
This misuse of the Act undermines its original intent: to protect property owners from unfair government burdens, not to override legitimate local planning authority or coerce land use approvals through legal intimidation. It also erodes public trust in the planning process and the ability of local officials to act independently on behalf of their communities.
Accordingly, Defending Rural Florida will seek Legislator Sponsors for proposed legislation that clarifies that:
Not all future uses are compensable under the Act, and
Local governments maintain the authority to deny rezonings or development proposals when those proposals are speculative or inconsistent with long-term public interests.
SAMPLE LEGISLATION
A bill to be entitled
An Act relating to private property rights; amending s. 70.001, F.S.; providing clarifications regarding the applicability of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act to certain governmental actions; redefining the term “reasonably foreseeable future use”; affirming the authority of local governments to deny certain development proposals under specified circumstances; providing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1.
Legislative Findings.—
The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1) The Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, codified in section 70.001, Florida Statutes, was enacted to provide a remedy for property owners whose land is inordinately burdened by governmental actions, even when such actions do not rise to the level of a taking under state or federal law.
(2) The Act’s recognition of “reasonably foreseeable future use” was introduced to expand protections beyond existing or vested uses, acknowledging that landowners may be harmed when denied regulatory permission for a potential future use that is non-speculative and supported by substantial evidence.
(3) However, the Legislature finds it necessary to clarify that not all future uses qualify as “reasonably foreseeable” for the purpose of asserting a claim under the Act. Mere speculation, unapproved upzoning requests, or hypothetical development scenarios do not establish a compensable interest under the Act, even if the subject property is bordered by existing development. Adjacency alone does not demonstrate suitability or entitlement to a proposed use.
(4) The Legislature affirms that local governments retain the authority to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed future uses on infrastructure, environmental resources, and the character of existing communities.
(5) Accordingly, a local government may deny a claim of “reasonably foreseeable future use” when the proposed use would result in demonstrable hardship, overburden public facilities, degrade environmental resources, or otherwise conflict with comprehensive planning and local development standards.
Section 2. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 70.001, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
(3) For purposes of this section:
(b) The term “existing use” means:
1. An actual, present use or activity on the real property, including periods of inactivity which are normally associated with, or are incidental to, the nature or type of use; or
2. Activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land uses which are suitable for the subject real property. and compatible with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the actual, present use or activity on the real property. The term “reasonably foreseeable” means a proposed use of real property that is not speculative or hypothetical and is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Mere speculation, unapproved upzoning requests, or hypothetical development scenarios do not establish a compensable interest under the Act, even if the subject property is bordered by existing development. Adjacency alone does not demonstrate suitability or entitlement to a proposed use. A local government shall have the authority to deny a claim of “reasonably foreseeable future use” if the proposed use would, if approved or permitted, cause demonstrable adverse impacts on the surrounding community, infrastructure, or environment, or would otherwise be inconsistent with the character of the area as established in the local comprehensive plan or land development regulations. An increase in allowable density or intensity through upzoning or land use map amendments shall not, in and of itself, constitute a “reasonably foreseeable future use” unless such use is expressly approved and permitted by the local government through a final development order.
Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2026.
Summary of the Bill
This bill amends Florida Statute 70.001 to clarify the limitations of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act regarding claims based on upzoning or speculative development expectations. It provides a more precise definition of “reasonably foreseeable future use”, giving local governments the discretion to deny such uses when they would create community hardship, strain infrastructure, or conflict with established plans. The amendment seeks to balance private property rights with the public interest in responsible land use and development.
What you can do
Defending Rural Florida is already hard at work building the case for reform. Between now and the start of the next legislative session, we’ll be meeting with lawmakers, coordinating with community leaders, and assembling the legal and policy arguments needed to win support for this crucial legislation.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
But we can’t do it alone. This kind of focused, grassroots advocacy takes time, energy, and resources.
If you believe in protecting rural communities and restoring balance to Florida’s land use decisions, please consider donating to support this effort. Every contribution helps us fight back against developer abuse and ensure local governments can serve the public good without fear of legal intimidation.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
Help us secure a legislative sponsor and bring real reform to the Bert Harris Act.
👉 Donate today and be part of the solution.
John Hallman
Executive Director
Defending Rural Florida
john@hallmanservices.com