Opinion
Case No. 3D01-3294.
November 27, 2002.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Appellate Division, Scott S. Silverman, Cecilia M. Altonaga, and Leon Firtel, Judges. Case numbers 3D01-3294 and 3D01-3298.L.T. Nos. 00-091, 00-092, 00-362, 00-365.
Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney and Robert Dixon, Deputy City Attorney and Debora J. Turner, First Assistant City Attorney and Gary M. Held, First Assistant City Attorney, for The City of Miami Beach.
Siemon Larsen and Charles L. Siemon and Todd G. Messenger (Boca Raton); Tew Cardenas Rebak Kellogg Lehman Demaria Tague Raymond Levine and Santiago D. Echemendia and Bob de la Fuente and Patricia M. Baloyra, for RPH Hotel Associates, LLC.
Richard Richard and Dennis Richard and Richard Sarafan for Chisholm Properties South Beach, Inc. and Beach Hotel Associates Limited Partnership.
Shubin and Bass and Jeffrey S. Bass for Decoplage Condominium Association and Juan Jover.
Before COPE, LEVY, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
The motion for rehearing en banc is denied.
JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, SHEVIN and RAMIREZ, JJ., concur.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge (specially concurring).
On July 1, 2002, a panel of this court unanimously and without opinion denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking second-tier review of a decision of the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. City of Miami Beach v. Chisholm Properties South Beach, Inc., No. 3D01-3294 (Fla. 3d DCA Clerk's Order July 1, 2002). In that case, Chisholm Properties South Beach, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 689 (Fla. 11th Cir.Ct. August 9, 2001), the circuit court, in a comprehensive and insightful opinion by Judge Altonaga, rejected an attempt by a hotel owner and the City of Miami Beach to grant totally unjustified and illegal height variances through the device of a sweetheart "settlement" of a spurious action by the hotel owner against the City under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act, § 70.001, et seq., Fla. Stat. (1999). I of course totally agree with this opinion and thus with the panel's determination to deny review. See Broward County v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2001); Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995).
Beyond that, however, I think that this case is so rife with suspicion that the proceedings in this court, especially the presumptuous motion for rehearing en banc now before us, are, in turn, so clearly — indeed, at best — frivolous that sanctions should be imposed against the petitioners under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2002) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.