Herb mentioned on the call yesterday an unfortunate decision by the Florida Supreme Court involving a noise law.  I took a look on Lexis and found two cases, the one that Herb mentioned involving a state law and a more recent, but lower court decision involving Daytona Beach.  I am including the info for those cases below.  Herb, if you can find out if Florida plans to seek cert, let me know.  I tend to think the distinction that the law made between commercial, political and private speech is a difficult hurdle to overcome, so not sure if we'd be an amicus at the cert stage but if granted, we'd likely join.  The case found the law constitutional on the vagueness issue, so not really a bad decision there, but found that a law that said it is ok to blast away for political and commercial purposes seems to belie the need to protect the health and safety of the public from loud noise private sources emit.
2.

Summers v. City of Daytona Beachhttp://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=28fc52feb503e7f67ac2e63acfba6a3c&docnum=2&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=723ec191361ba52e7ca0dc42de9b2cee, Case No. 6:12-cv-926-Orl-37TBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12472, January 30, 2013, Decided, January 30, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: ordinance, noise, as-applied, nuisance, music, sensitivity, licensing, factual allegations, vagueness, unfettered discretion ...

[Citing Refs. With Analysis Available. Click to Shepardize®]http://www.lexis.com/research/shepsignal?_m=28fc52feb503e7f67ac2e63acfba6a3c&_origin=CLS&_cite=2012%20Fla.%20LEXIS%202551&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=7f866ff4bd8efa9297959aeff4d80067

State v. Catalanohttp://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=28fc52feb503e7f67ac2e63acfba6a3c&docnum=3&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=723ec191361ba52e7ca0dc42de9b2cee, No. SC11-1166, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2551; 37 Fla. L. Weekly S 763, December 13, 2012, Decided, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.

OVERVIEW: The Supreme Court of Florida held that § 316.3045(1)(a), Fla. Stat.http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=28fc52feb503e7f67ac2e63acfba6a3c&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=FLA.%20STAT.%20316.3045&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzV-zSkAz&_md5=ac5f97bdc577a2fe85e0058c61376249, which set forth sound standards for radios and other devices in vehicles, was overbroad because it restricted the freedom of expression in a manner more intrusive than necessary. It was not narrowly tailored to improve traffic safety and protect citizens from excessive noise.

CORE TERMS: audible, motor vehicle, plainly, feet, unconstitutionally vague, amplified, ordinance, invalid, traffic safety, soundmaking ...

Go Keydets!  Chuck
Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Executive Director and General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
202-466-5424  x7110
Direct: 202-742-1016
Cell: 240-876-6790
Plan ahead:
IMLA Mid-Year Seminar April 14-16, 2013
IMLA'S Annual Conference in San Francisco September 29-October 2, 2013

This question pertains to the following scenario:

•     city has a Phase 1 stormwater discharge permit;
  

•     public university located within the city has a Phase 2
  

stormwater discharge permit;

•     public university discharges into the city's stormwater
  

system;

•     the city's stormwater requirements for developments, both new
  

and for additions/redevelopments of existing developments, which are
designed to keep the city in compliance with its stormwater discharge
permit, are more stringent than what the university has to do (or wants
to do) to be in compliance with its stormwater discharge permit.

The city, of course, has no control over most aspects of university
construction or development on its properties.  We apparently cannot
meet our stormwater discharge permit requirements if existing impervious
areas on sites are grandfathered and not required to comply with current
on-site detention/retention requirements when there is redevelopment of
the site, including the pre-existing impervious areas.  With the
university owning about 40% of the land in the city, we need to figure
out how to get compliance by the university with our requirements.

One specific scenario is the redevelopment by the university of its
basketball arena building and site.  The pre-existing % of impervious
area on the site was not increased.  Had it been a privately owned
site/development, the site plan would have required stormwater retention
or detention based on the % of impervious area, even if that % did not
increase.

Although we argue that discharges from the property that impact the
city's stormwater system CAN be regulated by the city, including on-site
construction/development activities that affect those discharges,
particularly because the city's requirements are to comply with the
federally imposed discharge permit limits, the university isn't (yet)
buying it.

Any thoughts? Experiences? Suggestions?

Abigail Elias, Chief Assistant City Attorney | City of Ann Arbor,
Michigan | mailto:aelias@a2gov.org mailto:aelias@a2gov.org  |
Telephone numbers: Office: (734) 794-6170 ext. 41888 | Direct: (734)
794-6188 | Internal extension: 41888 | Fax: (734) 994-4954 | Cell: (734)
320-7953 | address: 301 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | mail
address: P.O. Box 8647, Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8647.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  The information in this transaction is intended
only for the individual or entity named above.  It may be legally
privileged and confidential.  If you have received this information in
error, please notify me immediately and delete this transmission and any
other documents, files and information transmitted herewith.  If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication or its contents is strictly prohibited.

A mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its original
dimensions. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

I got an email message today with information about this new
publication, Town and Gown; Effective Strategies for Effective
Cooperation.  More info is available at the following link:

http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=main&fm=Product.A
ddToCart&pid=5330225&sc_cid=5330225-13A

Two chapters are authored by Dan Crean.

My quick review of the Table of Contents and the Forward give me a
feeling the content maybe more optimistic than some of us feel in our
relationships with our local university - but maybe there is some value
in the successful examples provided and the discussions of how the
parties on both sides of the table got there.  It seems to address
several of the topics this group discussed when we met in Austin.

Abigail Elias, Chief Assistant City Attorney | City of Ann Arbor,
Michigan | mailto:aelias@a2gov.org mailto:aelias@a2gov.org  |
Telephone numbers: Office: (734) 794-6170 ext. 41888 | Direct: (734)
794-6188 | Internal extension: 41888 | Fax: (734) 994-4954 | Cell: (734)
320-7953 | address: 301 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | mail
address: P.O. Box 8647, Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8647.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  The information in this transaction is intended
only for the individual or entity named above.  It may be legally
privileged and confidential.  If you have received this information in
error, please notify me immediately and delete this transmission and any
other documents, files and information transmitted herewith.  If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication or its contents is strictly prohibited.

A mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its original
dimensions. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.