Glorius Bethlehem Temple, et al vs. Florida Dep't of Trans. - Complaint filed 09.27.13

- 1 -

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: DIVISION: PARCELS: 187, 191, 193, 197

GLORIUS BETHLEHEM TEMPLE, INC., IN TRUST FOR FLORIDA STATE COUNCIL, INC., 29TH EPISCOPAL DISTRICT, PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF THE WORLD, INC.,

Plaintiff, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Glorious Bethlehem Temple, Inc., in Trust for Florida State Council, Inc.,

29th Episcopal District, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., ("Glorious Bethlehem

Temple") by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this action against Defendant,

State of Florida Department of Transportation, ("FDOT"), alleging as follows:

Jurisdiction

1. This is an action regarding certain property in Duval County, Florida, that is

owned by a religious assembly or institution.

2. This action involves real property that exceeds $15,000 in value, exclusive

of attorneys fees and costs.

blaingTypewritten Text

blaingTypewritten TextCV-D

blaingTypewritten Text2013-CA-008825

- 2 -

3. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

4. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Article I, 2, 3, 9, 21 and 22, and

Article X, 6, of the Constitution of the State of Florida.

5. Jurisdiction is also invoked pursuant to the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Parties

6. Plaintiff, Glorious Bethlehem Temple, Inc., in Trust for Florida State Council,

Inc., 29th Episcopal District, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., ("Glorious

Bethlehem Temple") is a religious assembly or institution consisting of church members

who are predominantly African American.

7. Plaintiff, Glorious Bethlehem Temple, owns property consisting of a

sanctuary building, occupying a single lot, and several other nearby lots, all located along

Wister Street and Waldo Avenue, in Jacksonville (the Subject Property).

8. Defendant, State of Florida, Department of Transportation (hereafter,

FDOT), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is actively engaged in the

implementation of its I-95 Overland Bridge Project (the Project).

9. More specifically, Duval County Property Appraiser identifies the Subject

Property under parcel identification numbers 130276-0000, 130347-0000, 130279-0000,

and 130283-0000. These parcel identification numbers from the Duval County Property

Appraiser correspond, respectively, to FDOTs I-95 Overland Bridge Project Parcels 187,

191, 193, and 197.

- 3 -

General Allegations

10. Glorious Bethlehem Temple is a church with over a fifty year history that is

woven into the fabric of the neighborhood which surrounds its location at 2210 Wister

Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. In fact, the church has survived and thrived after the

neighborhood was originally bifurcated by I-95 so many years ago. The current pastor is

Donald Richardson, who began attending the church in 1978. He has served for the past

13 years, first as an associate pastor and now as senior pastor. His predecessor before

him had served the church as its pastor for over 40 years.

11. Additionally, Glorious Bethlehem Temple is one of five Jacksonville area

churches belonging to the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Of the five churches,

Glorious Bethlehem Temple is the oldest of the three congregations and has oversight

responsibilities over the other sister churches. It is the only one of the five churches

located south of the City of Jacksonville, east of the St. Johns River, and still proximate to

downtown. The real property belonging to the church, and its members, are under the

care of Bishop Billy G. Newton. Bishop Newton is also the pastor of Word of God church

in Orlando, Florida.

12. Today, Glorious Bethlehem Temple presently has approximately 85

communing members with approximately 130 total congregants in regular attendance on

Sunday mornings. Attached and incorporated as Exhibit A hereto are photographs of

Glorious Bethlehem Temple, its property and, more importantly, its people.

13. From 2010 to 2012, FDOT proceeded with the Project Engineering &

Design (PD&E) phase of its I-95 Overland Bridge Project which resulted in the

preparation of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that included both

an Interchange Modification and Pond Siting Reports.

- 4 -

14. Because FDOT's I-95 Overland Bridge Project is receiving federal funds,

FDOT is required as part of its EIS to evaluate different build or no-build alternatives in

order to justify its selection of a recommended alternative upon which to proceed.

15. FDOT is also required to conduct public hearings and workshops to provide

public information and receive public input and comment during its PD&E phase of its I-95

Overland Bridge Project.

16. For this purpose, in 2010, FDOT right-of-way representatives requested

that Glorious Bethlehem Temple allow a number of these public hearings and workshops

be held at the sanctuary building. Glorious Bethlehem Temple consented to allow FDOT

to use its church facilities for this civic purpose.

17. These public hearings and workshops occurred at different times between

2010 and 2012. Many who attended were understandably concerned when FDOT

informed them that needs of the project may require the taking of private property for

right-of-way. Many were church members of Glorious Bethlehem Temple. They were

not only concerned for their homes, but also for their church.

18. At these public hearings and workshops, FDOT representatives, trained

and experienced with the public acquisition process, gave assurances to those who

attended that the need for acquisition would be properly studied and that those whose

properties would ultimately be acquired would be cared for and fully compensated.

19. After completing its study of alternatives within the framework of an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), FDOT determined that it intended to acquire a

whole take of all Glorious Bethlehem Temples property.

- 5 -

20. FDOT representatives, trained and experienced with the public acquisition

process, further notified Glorious Bethlehem Temple that FDOT intended to acquire a

whole take of all of Glorious Bethlehem Temples property and that the church would be

cared for through federal relocation assistance and the payment of full compensation.

FDOT representatives informed Pastor Richardson and several church members that the

church would be displaced and would need to relocate.

21. Already, FDOT has proceeded to demolish the houses on the residential

properties it acquired as part of its I-95 Overland Bridge Project within the footprint of

Pond E in Basin 6. This includes all of the lots immediately surrounding and adjacent to

the lots owned by Glorious Bethlehem Temple. Such an acquisition policy and practice

creates a significant blight upon the neighborhood.

22. The residential neighborhood in which the church was located is no more

and the churchs sanctuary is left on an island in the middle of what FDOT has indicated

by its construction plans will be Pond E in Basin 6. The historic pattern of land use has

been completely disrupted by FDOT resulting in a substantial burden on the religious

exercise and assembly of Glorious Bethlehem Temple.

23. Glorious Bethlehem Temple is now the last remaining property within the

footprint of Pond E in Basin 6 that is not acquired by FDOT. Attached and incorporated

as Exhibit B hereto are photographs of the residential properties surrounding the

church that are within the footprint of Pond E in Basin 6.

24. At the urging of FDOTs representatives, Glorious Bethlehem Temple

began efforts to locate a suitable replacement church facility within the immediate area or

a reasonable distance away. Glorious Bethlehem Temple, however, could not locate

- 6 -

any improved property for sale within the immediate area or a reasonable distance away

that could be adapted for church use.

25. Without being able to locate any improved property suitable as a

replacement, Glorious Bethlehem Temple was able to locate and purchase a vacant 1.2

acre parcel within 1.3 miles of its present location. The property was formerly subject to

foreclosure which prompted the bank to donate the property to HabiJax. HabiJax was

willing to sell the property for $50,000, understanding that the purchase would enable the

relocation of the church. Attached and incorporated as Exhibit C hereto are

photographs of the substitute property.

26. After purchasing the substitute property, Glorious Bethlehem Temple was

able to work with the City of Jacksonville and Mayor Browns staff to obtain a PUD

rezoning following the normal course of public hearings. The PUD rezoning also

included an exception to a local development code which requires a minimum of 2 acres

for development of a new church, recognizing that the church was relocating because of

the I-95 Overland Bridge Project and trying to remain in the same neighborhood.

27. Glorious Bethlehem Temple retained a contractor that was recommended

to them by HabiJax to provide a design-build contract for constructing a replacement, or

substitute church. After revision, the program of construction for the new sanctuary

building is a reasonable substitute for the church building and parking areas being

acquired by FDOT as a whole take.

28. With regard to the states responsibilities in exercising its eminent domain

power, the Supreme Court of Florida has held that the constitutional guarantee of full

compensation is that which makes the owner whole so far as is possible and

- 7 -

practicable. Dade Co. v. Brigham, 74 So. 2d 602, at 604 (Fla. 1950); Jacksonville

Expressway Authority v. Henry G. Dupree, 108 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1958). Citing from these

two cases, the standard jury instruction reads as follows:

The constitutional requirement of full compensation means that the property owners must be completely paid for that which is taken, and compensated for the whole loss occasioned by the taking. In most cases, it will be necessary and sufficient to full compensation that the award constitute the fair market value of the property. Although fair market value is a reliable standard in determining the amount of full compensation to be paid to the owner, it is not the only standard. It is merely a tool to assist you in determining what is full compensation as guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. In determining full compensation, however, all facts and circumstances that bear a reasonable relationship to the owners loss must be taken into account.

***** The owner is to be put in as good a position financially as he or she would have been if the property had not been taken.

See, Instruction Number 1 Introductory: General Principles; 11.5 Florida Eminent Domain Practice and Procedure, Sixth Edition, 2003.

29. On March 9, 2012, FDOT presented an initial offer to Glorious Bethlehem

Temple for a whole take of all of the churchs property.

30. An initial offer is mandated as part of presuit negotiation procedures set

forth in Chapter 73, Florida Statutes. See, 73.015, Fla. Stat. These procedures require

FDOT to negotiate in good faith.

31. FDOTs initial offer contemplated a whole take of Parcels 187, 191, 193,

and 197 for the purpose of constructing Pond E in Basin 6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge

Project.

- 8 -

32. The appraisal upon which FDOTs initial offer was based was premised

upon a $285,750 estimate of fair market value for the existing church land and buildings.

The initial offer also included what FDOT right-of-way administrators refer to as an

incentive of $105,320 which is added to the fair market value estimate to encourage

earlier settlement in order to avoid more significant costs and attorneys fees the state is

obligated to pay if filing a lawsuit. Thus, the total amount of FDOTs initial offer was

$391,070.

33. In light of Floridas constitutional guarantee that the measure of full

compensation be that which makes the owner whole so far as is possible and

practicable, it can be demonstrated that FDOTs estimate for the depreciated value of

Glorious Bethlehem Temples existing building improvements is not sufficient to construct

a replacement church with parking area in accordance with land use and zoning

regulations of the City of Jacksonville. While the cost expended by Glorious Bethlehem

Temple to purchase substitute property and have it rezoned is less than FDOTs

appraisers land value estimate for Parcels 187, 191, 193, and 197, the cost of a new

replacement sanctuary building and parking lot is greater than the depreciated value of an

existing sanctuary building and parking areas.

34. More specifically, FDOTs appraisers estimate of fair market value was

based upon the land value and the depreciated value of the existing building

improvements. Considering that the original sanctuary building of Glorious Bethlehem

Temple was constructed in 1954, the depreciation applied to the cost of a new building is

significant. Likewise, the existing church does not have a formal parking lot. Those

attending worship services park on the churchs other three nearby lots which are

- 9 -

unimproved except for level grass areas which are used for parking under an

aesthetically pleasing tree canopy. FDOTs estimate considered only the value of land

for these three other lots which are used for parking and other church activities.

35. Amidst presuit negotiations, FDOT proceeded with the acquisition of all of

the residential properties immediately surrounding Glorious Bethlehem Temple needed

for Pond E in Basin 6 of its I-95 Overland Bridge Project as depicted in FDOTs

right-of-way maps and construction plans. This placed tremendous pressure on the

Pastor Richardson and church members, creating extraordinary anxiety in that the church

property was the only property left to be acquired by FDOT for Pond E.

36. During the course of presuit negotiations, Glorious Bethlehem Temple

informed FDOT that it would not be able to replace the church after its whole take for an

amount less than $725,000. Because the church was not in debt before the taking, and

was losing its church property through no fault of its own to accomplish the public

purposes alleged by FDOT in its I-95 Overland Bridge Project, Glorious Bethlehem

Temple would not accept FDOTs initial offer with the incentive because the church did

not believe it was the proper measure of full compensation.

37. On September 25, 2012, a FDOT representative forwarded a letter that

informed the church that FDOT would be proceeding to file eminent domain proceedings

and that, on the day that the lawsuit was filed, the incentive of $105,320 would expire.

Thereafter, the letter said, FDOT would use only the appraisal estimate of fair market

value of $285,750 without the incentive as the basis of its negotiations. Glorious

Bethlehem Temple maintained that FDOTs initial offer, plus incentive, was not sufficient

to place the church in the same position, financially, after the taking as the church was

- 10 -

before the taking.

38. On October 5, 2012, FDOT passed a Parcel Resolution to authorize the use

of eminent domain to take private property necessary to accomplish the public purpose

associated with its I-95 Overland Bridge Project, specifically for Parcels 187, 191, 193

and 197.

39. On November 30, 2012, FDOT filed its lawsuit styled State of Florida,

Department of Transportation FDOT v. Glorius Bethlehem Temple, In Trust for Florida

State Council, Inc. 29th Episcopal District, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. et al.,

Case No. 2012-CA-012858 (Fla. 4th Judicial Circuit Court, Duval Co.) and later served a

Summons to Show Cause together with a Petition in Eminent Domain on Glorious

Bethlehem Temple on January 2, 2013.

40. Glorious Bethlehem Temple responded by serving its Answer on February

1, 2013.

41. Glorious Bethlehem Temple also served discovery on February 1, 2013.

The discovery requested that FDOT produce its study of the environmental impacts of

proposed alternatives for the alignment of its highway facilities. This included all of the

documents prepared by FDOT during the Project Engineering & Design (PD&E) phase

of its I-95 Overland Bridge Project.

42. FDOT responded to discovery on March 15, 2013, only four days prior to

the hearing in which FDOT sought an Order of Taking to acquire a whole take of Parcels

187, 191, 193, and 197. Among the documents produced was FDOTs EIS that included

both the Interchange Modification and Pond Siting Reports.

- 11 -

43. A review of the responsive documents related to the EIS created further

anxiety for Glorious Bethlehem Temple and gave cause to question FDOTs

decision-making concerning which alternative was selected for Pond E in Basin 6.

44. In regards to Glorious Bethlehem Temple, the EIS showed that FDOT

gave no consideration to the displacement of Glorious Bethlehem Temple as a result of

condemnation for the project for Pond E in Basin 6 even though the purpose of the study

was to identify environmental impacts relating to the no-build and build alternatives for the

project, including cultural and social impacts.

45. Glorious Bethlehem Temple was left without any mention in the study

between alternatives set forth for stormwater pond sites within Basin 6, including Pond E.

This is so despite the fact that FDOT held its public hearings and workshops in the

sanctuary building owned by Glorious Bethlehem Temple during the course of such

study. The church, of course, is located in the footprint of proposed Pond E. It was

evident to FDOT that Glorious Bethlehem Temple predominantly consists of church

members who are African American.

46. By contrast, when looking at another basin studied within the I-95 Overland

Bridge Project, Basin 5, FDOT gave consideration to the displacement of property owned

by another church, Southside Assembly of God. The displacement of this property,

although vacant, was identified by FDOT as a cultural and social impact, because the

vacant property was church-owned. Such factor was considered in selection between

alternatives for the Basin 5 stormwater pond. Instead of displacement of the property

owned by the church, FDOT chose to acquire a commercial storage facility as the

preferred alternative. It was evident to FDOT that Southside Assembly of God

- 12 -

predominantly consists of church members who are Caucasian.

47. The primary documents, attached and incorporated hereto, show the

following:

Exhibit D Addendum Interchange Modification Report I-95 Overland Bridge Northbound Modifications, FDOT District Two, December 2010:

3.6 Existing Environmental Conditions, 3.6.2 Cultural Resources There is one school, one cemetery and multiple churches [within the study area]. None of these cultural resources are within close proximity of the proposed changes, and are not expected to be impacted by the modifications. Page 3-18.

6.4 Recommended Alternative The Build Alternative can be implemented with no impact to sensitive environmental areas or existing cultural assets. Page 6-32.

Exhibit E Addendum Interchange Modification Report I-95

Overland Bridge Northbound Modifications (IMR), FDOT District Two, December 2012:

3.4 Existing Environmental Conditions, 3.4.1 Cultural Features As documented in the 2010 Addendum Interchange Modification Report I-95 Overland, there is one school, one cemetery, and multiple churches in the study area limits. None of these cultural resources are expected to be impacted by the modifications proposed under the D-B alternative in this IMR Addendum. Page 3-3.

Exhibit F Pond Siting Report, I-95 Overland Bridge

Replacement, FDOT District Two, July 2011 (prepared by Arcadis):

Compare

Analysis of Basin 5, Alternative 1 and 2 which identifies one of the social impacts by referencing that, It is currently vacant land that is owned by a church, Southside Assembly of God.

- 13 -

Page 20 and Table 7 on Page 30.

With

Analysis of Basin 6, Alternative 2, in regards to social impacts, makes no mention whatsoever of improved property that is owned by a church, Glorious Bethlehem.

Page 21 and Table 8 on Page 31.

48. On March 19, 2013, the parties appeared before the Honorable Jean M.

Johnson, Circuit Judge, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, for a hearing on Order

of Taking.

49. At the hearing on Order of Taking on March 19, 2013, Glorious Bethlehem

Temple asserted its concerns over FDOTs Pond Siting Report as it appeared that

insufficient study was performed by FDOT to evidence that any consideration was given

to the displacement of Glorious Bethlehem Temple.

50. Instead of requesting that the Court deny FDOTs authority to take,

however, Glorious Bethlehem Temple requested that the hearing on Order of Taking be

continued so as to allow for a court-ordered mediation.

51. Glorious Bethlehem Temple contended that, if FDOT did not consider the

environmental impacts, including cultural and social impacts, when it should have at the

time it was considering no-build and build alternative locations for its projects stormwater

ponds, FDOT would be able to correct its failure by resolving the dispute over full

compensation that would allow the church to proceed to rebuild on the substitute property

it acquired and for which it obtained a PUD rezoning with the City.

52. Judge Johnson granted Glorious Bethlehem Temples request and ordered

- 14 -

mediation between the parties to occur on or before April 18, 2013.

53. Judge Johnson also provided that, if mediation concluded in impasse,

FDOT would be able to set the continued hearing on Order of Taking on an emergency

basis based upon FDOTs representations, made in open court.

54. FDOT represented that FDOT required title to Parcels 191 and 193 by May

17, 2013, because of FDOTs contractual obligation to turn the property over to the

projects design-build firm by June 1, 2013. FDOT also represented that it required title

to Parcels 187 and 197 (sanctuary building) by August 15, 2013.

55. This was consistent with FDOTs counsels representations to Glorious

Bethlehem Temples counsel before the hearing when inquiry was made concerning

extended possession. Attached and incorporated as Exhibit G hereto is a copy of the

e-mail confirmation.

56. As part of the Courts granting its request for a continuance of the hearing

on Order of Taking, Glorious Bethlehem Temple committed to exchange an appraisal to

support its valuation contentions prior to mediation. To this end, Glorious Bethlehem

Temple timely exchanged an appraisal which considered the church to be a limited

market property wherein the proper appraisal methodology requires the appraiser to

estimate the land value using the comparable sale method and estimate the building and

improvement value based upon the replacement cost of subject improvements without

depreciation consistent with the principle of substitution. Under this appraisal

methodology, the total appraisal estimate was $838,406.

57. Notwithstanding, Glorious Bethlehem Temple informed FDOT prior to

mediation that it would not negotiate from the total appraisal estimate of $838,406, but

- 15 -

would instead reduce the amount by removing elements of financing, entrepreneurial

incentive, and owners risk for escalating building costs on the assumption that a

settlement could be achieved to avoid delay and allow the church to proceed to build on

its substitute property and avoid those elements. The church desired only that the

measure of full compensation pay for the costs associated with building a sanctuary and

parking lot of similar size to the church facilities taken by FDOT.

58. Mediation commenced on April 10, 2013, at the office of Glorious

Bethlehem Temples counsel in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Larry Gendzier, former Chief

of Eminent Domain, Office of General Counsel, FDOT, Tallahassee, served as mediator.

At FDOTs request, mediation was continued until April 17, 2013, at the office of FDOT

District Two in Lake City, Florida. Mr. Gendzier declared a mediation impasse at

approximately 1:00 p.m., April 17, 2013, at the office of FDOT District Two in Lake City,

Florida.

59. Immediately following the mediation impasse, FDOT served Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of its eminent domain lawsuit, State of Florida,

Department of Transportation FDOT v. Glorius Bethlehem Temple, In Trust for Florida

State Council, Inc. 29th Episcopal District, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. et al.,

Case No. 2012-CA-012858 (Fla. 4th Judicial Circuit Court, Duval Co.), by U.S. Mail and an

e-mail message at 2:47 p.m., April 17, 2013.

60. It is through its Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice that FDOT seeks to

force Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept less than full compensation for the taking of

Parcels 187, 191, 193, and 197. It is contrary to what FDOT represented in open court

with regard to its need for Parcel 187, 191, 193, and 197. It employs a bait and switch

- 16 -

negotiating tactic that is used to force a compromise of constitutional rights. In essence,

FDOT is saying that it is the choice of Glorious Bethlehem Temple to either accept less

than what the church knows to be full compensation for the taking or remain stranded on

an island in the middle of what FDOT has indicated by its construction plans will be Pond

E in Basin 6. This, of course, follows FDOT decimating the historic pattern of land use

resulting in a substantial burden on the religious exercise and assembly of Glorious

Bethlehem Temple. It is the consummate bully tactic which abuses the discretion

afforded FDOT when wielding the governments sovereign power.

61. Shortly after serving its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice,

FDOTs counsel invited Glorious Bethlehem Temple to continue negotiations for

voluntary acquisition. However, FDOT is well aware that dismissal of its eminent

domain lawsuit removes the possibility of a jury determination of the constitutional

measure of full compensation should FDOT and Glorious Bethlehem Temple not be able

to agree. Meanwhile Glorious Bethlehem Temple faces the prospects of having already

purchased substitute property, having already paid for a PUD rezoning, and now being

left behind after the transformation of its immediate surroundings from a residential

neighborhood to a FDOT highway project and stormwater pond construction site. FDOT

knows and intends for this to crush the churchs resolve to hold fast for a constitutional

measure of full compensation.

62. Indeed, these oppressive pre-condemnation tactics leave the church in an

unduly vulnerable position, uncertain as to its property rights or its future, as FDOT

explores possibilities for design and construction of its stormwater pond without the

churchs property afforded by its design-build method of procurement of engineering

- 17 -

and contracting services. Although this design-build method has existed as a creature

of statute, it has been rarely used by FDOT until recently. Through this design-build

method, in accordance with the facts and circumstances of this case, FDOT is

transferring the decision-making on whether or not Parcels 187, 191, 193, and 197 are

necessary for public acquisition to a third party. While FDOT has indicated that it no

longer needs the churchs property for the construction of Pond E in Basin 6, FDOT has

not provided to Glorious Bethlehem Temple any alternative right-of-way maps or

construction plans to show how Pond E in Basin 6 can be constructed without the

churchs property.

63. Glorious Bethlehem Temple responded by challenging the validity of

FDOTs service of the aforesaid Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, seeking

as well to amend its answer so as to assert a counterclaim. Upon hearing, Judge

Johnson, denied the relief sought and entered an Order on Amended Motion to Strike

Pleading or, in the Alternative, Strike E-mail Service which denied the relief sought, has

since appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Glorius Bethlehem Temple, In Trust

for Florida State Council, Inc. 29th Episcopal District, Pentecostal Assemblies of the

World, Inc. et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Case No. 1D13-2980

(Fla. 5th DCA).

64. Every Sunday, when arriving at the church for worship services, the Pastor

Richardson and members of Glorious Bethlehem Temple are reminded of their

vulnerable position when looking at the all of the bulldozed lots around their sanctuary

building. This is not what public acquisition of right-of-way should look like under the

Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Florida Constitution.

- 18 -

65. Viewed in their entirety, all of FDOTs acquisition policies and practices with

regard to Glorious Bethlehem Temple constitute oppressive pre-condemnation conduct.

The church and its members are presently experiencing the very environmental impacts,

including cultural and social impacts, that FDOT failed to consider during the PD&E phase

of its I-95 Overland Bridge Project. Such failure is evidenced by the EIS, together with

the associated Interchange Modification and Pond Siting Reports, which acknowledged

what impacts may accrue to one church assembly if locating a stormwater pond within its

neighborhood in Basin 5 while completely ignoring the impacts now experienced by

Glorious Bethlehem Temple because it is located within the footprint of Pond E in Basin 6.

Instead of correcting its error by resolving the dispute over full compensation, FDOT has

voluntarily dismissed its eminent domain lawsuit to remove the possibility of a jury

determination of the constitutional measure of full compensation should FDOT and

Glorious Bethlehem Temple not be able to agree. Glorious Bethlehem Temple is now

left on an island in the middle of FDOTs highway project and stormwater pond

construction site to contemplate how vulnerable a position it will remain if not capitulating

to FDOTs bludgeoning tactics.

66. In setting forth the facts and circumstances at bar, it worth reflecting upon

Justice Drews special concurrence in the Florida Supreme Courts 1959 opinion in

Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Henry G. Dupree Co., 108 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1958):

The fact that the sovereign is now engaged in great public enterprises

necessitating the acquisition of large amounts of private property at greatly

increasing costs is no reason to depart from the firmly established principle

that under our system the rights of the individual are matters of the greatest

concern to the courts. The powerful government can usually take care of

itself; when the courts cease to protect the individual - within, of course,

- 19 -

constitutional and statutory limitations - such individual rights will be rapidly

swallowed up and disappear in the maw of the sovereign. If these immense

acquisitions of lands point to anything, it is to the continuing necessity in the

courts of seeing to it that, in the process of improving the general welfare,

individual rights are not completely destroyed. The fact that the sovereign is

now engaged in great public enterprises necessitating the acquisition of

large amounts of private property at greatly increasing costs is no reason to

depart from the firmly established principle that under our system the rights

of the individual are matters of the greatest concern to the courts. The

powerful government can usually take care of itself; when the courts cease

to protect the individual - within, of course, constitutional and statutory

limitations - such individual rights will be rapidly swallowed up and

disappear in the maw of the sovereign. If these immense acquisitions of

lands point to anything, it is to the continuing necessity in the courts of

seeing to it that, in the process of improving the general welfare, individual

rights are not completely destroyed. COUNT I - OPPRESSIVE PRE-CONDEMNATION CONDUCT

67. Glorious Bethlehem reiterates and alleges paragraphs 1 - 65 as though

fully set forth herein.

68. FDOT has engaged in oppressive pre-condemnation conduct with the

intention of forcing Defendant, Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept less than

constitutional full compensation in the taking of Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 for Pond E in

Basin 6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project.

69. This is an additional or alternative action for damages arising from the

failure of the FDOT to act in good faith and in violation of fundamental due process, both

procedural and substantive, in its implementation of a program of acquisition for the I-95

Overland Bridge Project.

- 20 -

70. Such governmental misconduct has caused blight on Glorious Bethlehem

Temples property and has removed the reasonable investment-backed expectation,

use, and enjoyment of vested rights in private property used by Glorious Bethlehem in

the exercise of religious freedom for over 50 continuous years. Accordingly, pursuant to

Article 1, 2, 9, and 21 and Article X, 6 of the Florida Constitution, and Chapters 73 &

74, Florida Statutes, Glorious Bethlehem Temple is entitled to relief from this Court.

71. FDOT has proceeded beyond mere planning efforts for the I-95 Overland

Bridge Project and has engaged in a deliberate pattern of conduct designed to coerce

Glorious Bethlehem to forgo certain constitutional rights of due process of law and full

compensation in connection with the condemnation of Glorious Bethlehem Temples

private property needed for the public purpose set forth in the project.

72. FDOT has negotiated in bad faith and/or has abused its discretion in the

following manner:

a. failing to consider the environmental impacts, including the social

and cultural impacts, associated with the acquisition of Glorious

Bethlehem Temples property when studying alternative locations for

Pond E in Basin 6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project;

b. representing to Glorious Bethlehem Temple over an extended

period of time that acquisition by a whole take was reasonably

necessary to accomplish the public purpose associated with the I-95

Overland Bridge Project and that the entire neighborhood

surrounding the church would likewise be taken for Pond E in Basin

6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project;

- 21 -

c. representing to Glorious Bethlehem Temple over an extended

period of time that the church would be cared for through relocation

assistance and payment of full compensation and that the church

would need to relocate from its home of over 50 years because of

FDOTs intention to whole take the property;

d. proceeding with its project by acquisition and demolition of

residential properties on all sides of Glorious Bethlehem Temples

property and thereby disrupting the traditional neighborhood pattern

of use and value that have been sustained by land use and zoning

regulations which the church had enjoyed for over 50 years;

e. to segregate Glorious Bethlehem Temple from other similarly

situated property owners, leaving Glorious Bethlehem Temple in a

class of one, when both performing its EIS and Pond Siting studies

and when acquiring all other properties marked for Pond E Basin 6

except Glorious Bethlehem Temple, leaving the church to weather

the storm associated with the project construction around it and

doubt as to the future now that the neighborhood pattern has been

completely disrupted and FDOT owns all of the surrounding

property; and

f. when knowing that Glorious Bethlehem Temple had relied on its

representations by purchasing substitute property and when

representing for three years that it would whole take the property

only to threaten leaving the church stranded on an island in the

- 22 -

middle of its highway project, by using the potential of a voluntary

dismissal in a coercive manner in an all-out attempt to force Glorious

Bethlehem Temple to accept an amount less than full compensation

or forgo a jury trial that would otherwise establish the constitutional

measure.

73. FDOT has failed to abide to a fair and equitable program of acquisition.

Instead, FDOT has employed its own policies and practices utilizing condemnation blight,

delay, threats, and bait-and-switch tactics in negotiations. Again, such deliberate

conduct toward Glorious Bethlehem Temple is intended to coerce Glorious Bethlehem

Temple into accepting an amount less than the constitutional measure of full

compensation for a partial taking of their private property.

74. The reasons behind FDOTs present attempt to voluntarily dismiss these

eminent domain proceedings are entirely pre-textual; FDOT has moved from the

allegations of its own Petition as to the reasonable necessity of taking Glorious

Bethlehem Temples property and representations in open Court as to requiring title to

Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 by dates certain within such a short time that the only thing

happening in-between was mediation with the owner.

75. The program of acquisition is one-sided, and oppressive, making the

exercise of the eminent domain power a more harsh process than is reasonably

necessary because the constitutional protections of due process of law and full

compensation are threatened to be held out-of-reach from Glorious Bethlehem Temple

by the FDOT.

- 23 -

76. Because the policies, practices, and tactics of FDOT are without the check

and balance, Glorious Bethlehem Temple seeks access to the courts so that a

constitutionally appropriate manner of public acquisition proceeds wherein the judicial

branch may adjudicate the proper manner in which the exercise of the sovereign power

may be completed while securing the constitutional guarantee to the individual whose

private property is needed to further the public good.

77. The program of acquisition and associated oppressive conduct by FDOT

has proximately caused Glorious Bethlehem Temple to incur economic losses which

Glorious Bethlehem Temple would not otherwise have suffered due not to the

uncertainties of whether their property will be acquired for the I-95 Overland Bridge

Project, but based on representations made by FDOT.

78. Glorious Bethlehem Temple has been obliged by the actions of FDOT to

engage attorneys to represent themselves and to incur costs in order to advance the

claims of this action.

WHEREFORE, Glorious Bethlehem Temple respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Declare that FDOTs program of acquisition, its policies, practices, and

tactics, alleged herein constitute bad faith or an abuse of its statutorily delegated

authority and oppressive pre-condemnation conduct;

B. Declare that FDOT forthwith immediately file eminent domain proceedings

to condemn Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 pursuant to the Chapters 73 and 74, Florida

Statutes, so that Glorious Bethlehem Temples private property will be taken with due

process of law and with payment of full compensation in court proceedings held without

sale, denial, or delay;

- 24 -

C. Empanel a jury to determine the full compensation along with any

compensatory damages due Glorious Bethlehem Temple for economic damages

consequent of FDOTs oppressive pre-condemnation conduct, together with interest; and

D. Award Glorious Bethlehem Temples costs and fees incurred in bringing

this action; and

E. Grant such other relief as this Court deems proper.

COUNT II DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

79. Glorious Bethlehem Temple reiterates and alleges paragraphs 1 - 65 as

though fully set forth herein.

80. This is an action for declaratory relief and supplemental injunctive relief,

pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes.

81. Specifically, Glorious Bethlehem Temple seeks a declaration that the

practices of the FDOT herein alleged unlawfully infringe upon the Glorious Bethlehems

constitutional rights to due process of law and access to courts, which the FDOT has a

duty to secure for landowners in the process of acquisition of private property for public

purpose.

82. A controversy has arisen between Glorious Bethlehem Temple and FDOT,

as alleged herein, and, as a result, there is doubt as to the rights and status of the parties.

83. Glorious Bethlehem Temple alleges that there is a bona fide, actual,

present and practical need for a declaration of their constitutional rights.

84. FDOT, as part of its negotiating tactic, is in bad faith or abuses its discretion

by voluntarily dismissing its eminent domain proceeding.

- 25 -

85. Such governmental misconduct has caused blight on Glorious Bethlehem

Temples property and has removed the reasonable investment-backed expectation,

use, and enjoyment of vested rights in private property used by Glorious Bethlehem in

the exercise of religious freedom for over 50 continuous years. Accordingly, pursuant to

Article 1, 2, 9, and 21 and Article X, 6 of the Florida Constitution, and Chapters 73 &

74, Florida Statutes, Glorious Bethlehem Temple is entitled to relief from this Court.

86. The program of acquisition of FDOT, together with its policies, practices,

and tactics, violate the following constitutional rights of Glorious Bethlehem Temple, to

wit:

a. Glorious Bethlehem Temples rights under Article I, Section 2, Fla.

Const., to be equal before the law and have inalienable rights,

among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to

pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire,

possess and protect property.

b. Glorious Bethlehem Temples rights under Article I, Section 9, Fla.

Const., which provides, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or

property without due process of law...

c. Glorious Bethlehem Temples rights under Article I, Section 21, Fla.

Const., which provides, the courts shall be open to every person for

redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale,

denial or delay.

d. Glorious Bethlehem Temples rights under Article X, Section 6, Fla.

Const, which provides, no private property shall be taken except for

- 26 -

a public purpose and with full compensation thereof paid to each

owner or secured by deposit in the registry of the court and available

to the owner.

87. Glorious Bethlehem Temple further seeks supplemental injunctive relief

requiring the FDOT to provide Glorious Bethlehem Temple with due process by enjoining

FDOT from voluntarily dismissing these eminent domain proceedings.

88. Glorious Bethlehem Temple also seeks damages for losses sustained to

date as a result of FDOTs unlawful conduct together with costs and attorneys fees

incurred in bringing this action to enforce Glorious Bethlehems rights.

89. Glorious Bethlehem Temple has no adequate remedy of law unless and

until the court in this case will declare that the acquisition practices and tactics of the

FDOT alleged herein are contrary to Glorious Bethlehem Temples constitutional rights,

as well as the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4601 et. seq., the Uniform Real Property

Acquisition Act of 1970.

90. Glorious Bethlehem Temple has no adequate remedy of law unless and

until the court in this case will declare that the acquisition practices and tactics of the

FDOT alleged herein are contrary to Chapters 73 & 74, Florida Statutes, including good

faith in presuit negotiations so as to balance the public need with the individual rights to

procedural and substantive due process.

91. The I-95 Overland Bridge Project is a federally funded and/or assisted

project and therefore the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Act of 1970 are applicable to the acquisition of all property within the

project.

- 27 -

92. FDOTs program of acquisition, as applied to Glorious Bethlehem Temple

contravenes the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4601, et seq. which provides in 4651(7) the

following:

"In no event shall [the condemnor] either advance the time of acquisition or defer

negotiations or condemnation, or take any other action coercive in nature, in order

to compel an agreement on the price to be paid for the property."

Glorious Bethlehem Temple alleges that FDOTs program of acquisition does not comply

with the above federal guidelines and if such is determined accurate in this cause, the

federal funding for the project is in jeopardy.

93. Glorious Bethlehem Temple suffers immediate, continuing and irreparable

injury, to which there is no adequate remedy at law, because the FDOT is without check

and balance and is allowed to continue with its coercive practices and disregard of

constitutional guarantees of private ownership in the acquisition process. Without

judicial intervention, FDOT deliberately suppresses any use and value inconsistent with

its proprietary plans to put the area to public use.

94. The injury to Glorious Bethlehem Temple, if injunctive relief is not granted,

outweighs any potential injury to the FDOT if injunctive relief is granted because the relief

sought would only compel the FDOT to actually proceed with a project for which it is fully

ready and fully funded and which the FDOT already contends is reasonably necessary

for the public interest.

95. Granting the injunctive relief sought herein would not be adverse to the

public interest because the relief sought would only compel the FDOT to proceed with a

public project which is fully authorized, planned, and funded. Furthermore, protection of

individual constitutional rights serves the public interest.

- 28 -





A. Declare that the FDOTs program of acquisition, its policies, practices, and

tactics, alleged herein violate Glorious Bethlehem Temples rights under Article I, 2, 9,

and 21, and Article X, 6 of the Florida Constitution;

B. Declare that the FDOTs program of acquisition, its policies, practices, and

tactics, alleged herein violate 42 U.S.C. 4601 et. seq., the Uniform Real Property

Acquisition Act of 1970;

C. Declare that the FDOTs program of acquisition, its policies, practices, and

tactics, alleged herein violate Chapters 73 & 74, Florida Statutes;

D. Declare that FDOT forthwith immediately file eminent domain proceedings

to condemn Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 pursuant to the Chapters 73 and 74, Florida

Statutes, so that Glorious Bethlehem Temples private property will be taken with due

process of law and with payment of full compensation in court proceedings held without

sale, denial, or delay;

E. Empanel a jury to determine the full compensation along with any



F. Award Glorious Bethlehem Temples costs and fees incurred in bringing

this action; and

G. Grant such other or further relief as this Court deems proper.

- 29 -

COUNT III - MANDAMUS



98. This is an additional or alternative action for injunctive relief by way of

mandamus.

99. The Florida Eminent Domain Code, Chapters 73 & 74, Florida Statutes,

contains a mandated presuit procedure that is to be conducted in good faith by a

condemning authority acting under its delegation of authority to use the eminent domain

power, in this case, the FDOT.

100. FDOT has a clear legal duty and Glorious Bethlehem Temple has a clear

legal right to good faith in negotiations when the eminent domain power is delegated to

one of the parties to the negotiations.

101. FDOT cannot lawfully engage in a program of acquisition, including its

policies, practices, and tactics, that are oppressive or require Glorious Bethlehem

Temple to accept less than full compensation for the taking as same is in violation of

Article I, 2, 9, 21 and Article X, 6 of the Florida Constitution.

102. The facts alleged herein demonstrate that Glorious Bethlehem Temple will

suffer immediate, continuing, and irreparable injury, to which there is no adequate

remedy at law, if the FDOT is allowed to continue with its conduct toward Glorious

Bethlehem in the acquisition of its private property.

103. Further, the facts alleged herein demonstrate that FDOT is with knowledge

of the injury inflicted upon Glorious Bethlehem Temple resulting from its improper

conduct.

- 30 -





A. Find that the FDOTs program of acquisition, its policies, practices, and



B. Find that FDOT has a clear legal duty and Glorious Bethlehem Temple has

a clear legal right that FDOT not engage in a program of acquisition, including its policies,

practices, and tactics, that are oppressive or require Glorious Bethlehem Temple to

accept less than full compensation for the taking as same is in violation of Article I, 2,

9, 21 and Article X, 6 of the Florida Constitution.

C. So that Glorious Bethlehem Temple will not suffer immediate, continuing,

and irreparable injury, grant mandamus and require that FDOT forthwith immediately file

eminent domain proceedings to condemn Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 pursuant to the

Chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes, so that Glorious Bethlehem Temples private

property will be taken with due process of law and with payment of full compensation in

court proceedings held without sale, denial, or delay;

D. Empanel a jury to determine the full compensation along with any



E. Award Glorious Bethlehem Temples costs and fees incurred in bringing

this action; and

- 31 -

F. Grant such other or further relief as this Court deems proper.

COUNT IV PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL



106. This is an additional or alternative action for equitable relief based upon

Glorious Bethlehem Temples reliance on FDOTs representations and estoppel.

107. The facts and circumstances alleged in paragraphs 1 64 of the Amended

Complaint evidence an inexcusable lack of due care on the part of JTA.

108. FDOT representatives, trained and experienced with the public acquisition

process, repeatedly notified Glorious Bethlehem Temple that FDOT intended to acquire a

whole take of Glorious Bethlehem Temple and that the church would be cared for

through federal relocation assistance and the payment of full compensation. In good

faith, Glorious Bethlehem Temple relied on FDOTs representations.

109. FDOT representatives repeatedly informed Glorious Bethlehem Temples

pastor and several church members that the church would be displaced and would need

to relocate. In good faith, Glorious Bethlehem Temple relied on FDOTs representations.

110. At the urging of FDOTs representatives, Glorious Bethlehem Temple

purchased a suitable replacement church facility within the immediate area and a

reasonable distance away. Further, Glorious Bethlehem Temple expended its monies to

obtain a PUD rezoning in order to build a new church sanctuary and parking lot. Again,

in good faith, Glorious Bethlehem Temple relied on FDOTs urging.

111. As evidenced by the facts and circumstances alleged in paragraphs 1 64

of the Amended Complaint, FDOT made these representations to Glorious Bethlehem

- 32 -

Temple, intended for Glorious Bethlehem Temple to rely on said representations, and, as

part of negotiating tactics, filed and voluntarily dismissed eminent domain proceedings

because the church would not accept FDOTs appraisal estimate as the measure of full

compensation.

112. It is through its Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice that FDOT seeks to

force Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept less than full compensation for the taking of

Parcels 187, 191, 193, and 197. In essence, FDOT is saying that it is the choice of

Glorious Bethlehem Temple to either accept less than what the church knows to be full

compensation for the taking or remain stranded on an island in the middle of what FDOT

has indicated by its construction plans will be Pond E in Basin 6.

113. This abuse of discretion is nothing less than pulling the rug out from under

Glorious Bethlehem Temple owner in order to force Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept

less than full compensation for the taking of Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197.

114. FDOT is well aware that dismissal of its eminent domain lawsuit removes

the possibility of a jury determination of the constitutional measure of full compensation

should FDOT and Glorious Bethlehem Temple not be able to agree. Meanwhile

Glorious Bethlehem Temple faces the prospects of having already purchased substitute

property, having already paid for a PUD rezoning, and now being left behind after the

transformation of its immediate surroundings from a residential neighborhood to a FDOT

highway project and stormwater pond construction site. FDOT knows and intends for

this to crush the churchs resolve to hold fast for a constitutional measure of full

compensation.

- 33 -

115. Indeed, these oppressive pre-condemnation tactics leave the church in an

unduly vulnerable position, uncertain as to its property rights or its future, as FDOT

explores possibilities for design and construction of its stormwater pond without the

churchs property afforded by its design-build method of procurement of engineering

and contracting services. Although this design-build method has existed as a creature

of statute, it has been rarely used by FDOT until recently. Through this design-build

method, in accordance with the facts and circumstances of this case, FDOT is

transferring the decision-making on whether or not Parcels 187, 191, 193, and 197 are

necessary for public acquisition to a third party.

116. While FDOT has indicated that it no longer needs the churchs property for

the construction of Pond E in Basin 6, FDOT has not provided to Glorious Bethlehem

Temple any alternative right-of-way maps or construction plans to show how Pond E in

Basin 6 can be constructed without the churchs property.

117. Glorious Bethlehem Temple has suffered damages as a result of their good

faith reliance on FDOTs representations and actions toward the condemnation of Parcels

187, 191, 193, and 197.

118. So as to avoid injustice, Glorious Bethlehem Temple seeks to have this

Court require FDOT to file eminent domain proceedings to condemn Parcels 187, 191,

193, and 197 in order to restore the right of a jury determination of the constitutional

measure of full compensation should FDOT and Glorious Bethlehem Temple not be able

to agree.

- 34 -





A. Find that the FDOTs program of acquisition, its policies, practices, and



B. Find that FDOT inexcusably violated a duty of due care by knowingly

making representations to Glorious Bethlehem Temple, that Glorious Bethlehem Temple,

relied on said representations in good faith, and then, as part of negotiating tactics, FDOT

filed and voluntarily dismissed eminent domain proceedings because Glorious

Bethlehem Temple would not accept FDOTs appraisal estimate as the measure of full

compensation;

C. Find that FDOTs policy and practice of condemning all other private

property surrounding Glorious Bethlehem Temple in Pond E in Basin 6 of its I-95

Overland Bridge Project, demolishing the houses on these properties, filing and

voluntarily dismissing eminent domain proceedings against Glorious Bethlehem Temple,

and continuing to delay acquisition of Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 during its design build

method of procurement of engineering and contracting services also violates a duty of

due care and is not in good faith when negotiating constitutional full compensation;

D. Find, on principles of promissory estoppel, that FDOT cannot engage in a

program of acquisition, including its policies, practices, and tactics, that are oppressive or

- 35 -

require Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept less than full compensation for the taking

as same is in violation of Article I, 2, 9, 21 and Article X, 6 of the Florida Constitution.

E. So that Glorious Bethlehem Temple will not suffer immediate, continuing,

and irreparable injury, require that FDOT forthwith immediately file eminent domain

proceedings to condemn Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 pursuant to the Chapters 73 and 74,

Florida Statutes, so that Glorious Bethlehem Temples private property will be taken with

due process of law and with payment of full compensation in court proceedings held

without sale, denial, or delay;

F. Empanel a jury to determine the full compensation along with any


consequent of FDOTs oppressive pre-condemnation conduct, together with interest;

G. As alternative relief to requiring that FDOT forthwith immediately file

eminent domain proceedings, although Glorious Bethlehem Temple contends such relief

is not fully adequate, impanel a jury of six (6) persons to try the issues of liability and

damages for promissory estoppel for which Glorious Bethlehem Temple demands

judgment against FDOT for compensatory, special, and consequential damages,

together with attorneys fees, costs, interest, and such other relief the Court deems is

proper under the facts and circumstances;

H. Award Glorious Bethlehem Temples costs and fees incurred in bringing

this action; and

I. Grant such other or further relief as this Court deems proper.

- 36 -

COUNT V - EQUAL PROTECTION



121. This is an additional or alternative action for injunctive relief to alleviate

unequal and discriminatory treatment by the FDOT toward Glorious Bethlehem Temple

pursuant to Article I, 2, 3, 9, 21, and 22 of the Florida Constitution and also the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

122. With no factual basis, FDOT arbitrarily, irrationally, intentionally,

purposefully, unjustifiably, and unlawfully has discriminated against Glorious Bethlehem

Temple in a manner unlike the treatment given other similarly situated owners whose

properties have been the subject of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project.

123. FDOT has failed to abide to a fair and equitable program of acquisition that

has been implemented in regards to other similarly situated owners, but not to Glorious

Bethlehem. Instead, the FDOT has employed its own policies and practices utilizing

condemnation blight, delay, and bait-and-switch tactics in negotiations against Glorious

Bethlehem Temple.

124. Glorious Bethlehem Temple has not been treated like other owners

similarly situated and have been denied their rights of equal protection guaranteed by

Article I, 2 (Basic Rights), 3 (Religious Freedom), 9 (Due Process), 21 (Access to

Courts), and 22 (Trial by Jury) of the Florida Constitution and also the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

125. FDOT has no compelling reason to discriminate against Glorious

Bethlehem Temple due to the race or religious affiliation or beliefs of its members; there

- 37 -

are least restrictive means by which FDOT can achieve the public purpose alleged for its

I-95 Overland Bridge Project without discriminating against Glorious Bethlehem Temple.

126. FDOT has no rational basis for which to discriminate against Glorious

Bethlehem Temple by treating Glorious Bethlehem Temple unequal to other similarly

situated property owners; FDOTs intention to voluntarily dismiss these eminent domain

proceedings is not reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose when the

basis for taking such action is to force Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept either less

than constitutional full compensation in the taking of Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 for Pond

E in Basin 6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project or be left as the only property owner

remaining in the midst of a highway construction project. FDOT is not forcing the issue

with any other property within the I-95 Overland Bridge Project.

127. FDOT has violated equal protection in the following manner:

a. failing to consider the environmental impacts, including the social

and cultural impacts, associated with the acquisition of Glorious

Bethlehem Temples property when studying alternative locations for

Pond E in Basin 6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project;

b. representing to Glorious Bethlehem Temple over an extended

period of time that acquisition by a whole take was reasonably

necessary to accomplish the public purpose associated with the I-95

Overland Bridge Project and that the entire neighborhood

surrounding the church would likewise be taken for Pond E in Basin

6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge Project;

- 38 -

c. representing to Glorious Bethlehem Temple over an extended

period of time that the church would be cared for through relocation

assistance and payment of full compensation and that the church

would need to relocate from its home of over 50 years because of

FDOTs intention to whole take the property;

d. proceeding with its project by acquisition and demolition of

residential properties on all sides of Glorious Bethlehem Temples

property and thereby disrupting the traditional neighborhood pattern

of use and value that have been sustained by land use and zoning

regulations which the church had enjoyed for over 50 years;

e. to segregate Glorious Bethlehem Temple from other similarly

situated property owners, leaving Glorious Bethlehem Temple in a

class of one, when both performing its EIS and Pond Siting studies

and when acquiring all other properties marked for Pond E Basin 6

except Glorious Bethlehem Temple, leaving the church to weather

the storm associated with the project construction around it and

doubt as to the future now that the neighborhood pattern has been

completely disrupted and FDOT owns all of the surrounding

property; and

f. when knowing that Glorious Bethlehem Temple had relied on its

representations by purchasing substitute property and when

representing for three years that it would whole take the property

only to threaten leaving the church stranded on an island in the

- 39 -

middle of its highway project, by using the potential of a voluntary

dismissal in a coercive manner in an all-out attempt to force Glorious

Bethlehem Temple to accept an amount less than full compensation

or forgo a jury trial that would otherwise establish the constitutional

measure.

128. If either party to presuit negotiations condemnor or condemnee believes

that the other party is making an unreasonable offer or has an unreasonable expectation

with regard to the measure of compensation applied to the facts and circumstances of the

matter, then the proper manner in which to proceed is to go through the process which is

due both from a procedural and substantive due process standpoint and proceed with

eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Chapters 73 & 74, Florida Statutes, so that the

judicial branch of government may perform its constitutional role and function and

balance the sovereign power asserted with the constitutional rights at stake.

129. It is because Glorious Bethlehem Temple has a legitimate disagreement

with the price and terms for acquisition set by FDOT that Glorious Bethlehem Temple is

singled-out by FDOT and that FDOT voluntarily dismissed its eminent domain

proceedings.

130. It is because the predominance of Glorious Bethlehem Temples church

members race, or its religious affiliation or beliefs, that Glorious Bethlehem Temple is

singled-out by FDOT and that FDOT voluntarily dismissed its eminent domain

proceedings.

131. This Court should not refuse to observe the tremendous disparity in

resources and in the goals and objectives between the parties to this action, or in the

- 40 -

parties competing dispositions to the legal principles stated herein. The issues before

this Court compose a clear question between the sovereign and the individual: the extent

to which the exercise of the eminent domain power may be limited in that it must adhere

to a process that is fundamentally fair to the individual whose private property is needed

for a public purpose for which all should equally bear the burden of expense.

132. The program of acquisition and associated unequal treatment by FDOT to

date has proximately caused Glorious Bethlehem Temple to incur economic losses which

Glorious Bethlehem Temple would not otherwise have suffered due not to the

uncertainties of whether their property will be acquired for the I-95 Overland Bridge

Project, but due to the uncertainties associated with the conduct of FDOT.





A. Find that the FDOTs program of acquisition, applied to Glorious Bethlehem

Temple, has violated the constitutionally guaranteed equal protection rights;

B. Find that FDOT is liable for all Glorious Bethlehem Temples resulting

financial losses, related thereto;

C. So that Glorious Bethlehem Temple will not suffer immediate, continuing,

and irreparable injury, require that FDOT forthwith immediately file eminent domain

proceedings to condemn Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 pursuant to the Chapters 73 and 74,

Florida Statutes, so that Glorious Bethlehem Temples private property will be taken with

due process of law and with payment of full compensation in court proceedings held

- 41 -


D. Empanel a jury to determine the full compensation along with any


consequent of FDOTs oppressive pre-condemnation conduct, together with interest;

E. As alternative relief to requiring that FDOT forthwith immediately file

eminent domain proceedings, although Glorious Bethlehem Temple contends such relief

is not fully adequate, impanel a jury of six (6) persons to try the issues of liability and

damages for which Glorious Bethlehem Temple demands judgment against FDOT for

compensatory, special, and consequential damages, together with attorneys fees, costs,

interest, and such other relief the Court deems is proper under the facts and

circumstances;


this action; and

G. Grant such other or further relief as this Court deems proper.

COUNT VI - RLUIPA



135. This is an additional or alternative action for injunctive relief to alleviate

unequal and discriminatory treatment by the FDOT toward Glorious Bethlehem Temple

pursuant the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

136. FDOT receives federal financial assistance in regards to the I-95 Overland

Bridge Project.

- 42 -

137. FDOT has proceeded with its project by acquisition and demolition of

residential properties on all sides of Glorious Bethlehems property and has thereby

disrupted the traditional neighborhood pattern of use and value that has been sustained

by land use and zoning regulations which the church had enjoyed for over 50 years.

138. As a direct result of FDOTs program of acquisition, demolition, and use of

property for the I-95 Overland Bridge Project, all of the properties surrounding the church

will be rezoned to accommodate public, not private, use. This constitutes a defacto

landmarking of land within FDOTs project boundaries.

139. By intention, FDOT means to take the neighborhood, but leave the church.

140. It is the change in land use pattern that FDOT is using as a means to coerce

Glorious Bethlehem Temple to accept either less than constitutional full compensation in

the taking of Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 for Pond E in Basin 6 of the I-95 Overland Bridge

Project or be left as the only property owner remaining in the midst of a highway

construction project.

141. FDOTs decisions with regards to the land use and zoning of all surrounding

property will result in a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Glorious Bethlehem

Temple as a religious assembly without a compelling government interest that cannot

otherwise be achieved by less restrictive means.

142. Additionally, Glorious Bethlehem Temple has not been equally treated like

other owners similarly situated that are not religious assemblies.




- 43 -


A. Find that the FDOTs program of acquisition, demolition, and use of

property for the I-95 Overland Bridge Project has imposed a defacto landmarking that will

result in a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Glorious Bethlehem Temple as

a religious assembly without a compelling government interest that cannot otherwise be

achieved by less restrictive means;

B. Find that Glorious Bethlehem Temple has not been equally treated like

other owners similarly situated that are not religious assemblies;

C. Find that FDOT is liable for all Glorious Bethlehem Temples resulting

financial losses, related thereto;

D. So as to avoid further financial loss, require FDOT to forthwith file eminent

domain proceedings to condemn Parcels 187, 191, 193, 197 pursuant to Chapters 73 &

74, Florida Statutes, so that Glorious Bethlehem Temples private property will be taken

with due process of law and with payment of full compensation in court proceedings held


E. Empanel a jury to determine the compensatory damages due Glorious

Bethlehem Temple for said losses, together with interest;


this action; and

- 44 -

G. Grant such other or further relief as this Court deems proper, including

injunctive relief that would remove the substantial burden on religious exercise of

Glorious Bethlehem Temple.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Andrew Prince Brigham Andrew Prince Brigham Florida Bar No. 903930 Brigham Property Rights Law Firm PLLC 2963 Dupont Avenue, Suite 3 Jacksonville, FL 32217 Phone: 904-730-9001 Fax: 904-733-7633 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, Glorius Bethlehem and James T. Golden, Esq. Florida Bar No. 192303 P.O. Box 299 Bradenton FL 34206 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, Glorius Bethlehem

Glorious Bethlehems

Current Location

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "A"

The People of Glorious Bethlehem

---Worship Service

Footprint of Pond E in Basin 6

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "B"

Glorious Bethlehems

Future Location

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "C"

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "D"

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "E"

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "F"

7/21/2011 8:53:09 PM G:\TRA\06259 RWA I95 Overland Bridge\21330435201\drainage\DRMPRD01_PSR.DGN

ROAD NO. COUNTY

DESCRIPTIONDATE DESCRIPTIONDATE

REVISIONS

FINANCIAL PROJECT ID

STATE OF FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SHEET

NO.

213304-3-52-01 DUVAL SR 9

hnguyen

1650 Prudential Drive, Suite 400Jacksonville, Florida 32207Phone (904) 721-2991 Fax (904) 861-2450

Engineer of Record: Gene Howerton, P.E.Florida Registration Number: 43992

Certificate of Authorization No.: 7917

Infrastructure, environment, buildings

NO

TIC

E: T

HE

OF

FICIA

L

RE

CO

RD

OF

THIS

SH

EE

T IS

TH

E

ELE

CT

RO

NIC FIL

E

SIG

NE

D

AN

D

SE

ALE

D

UN

DE

R

RU

LE 61G

15-23.003, F.A.C.

FIGURE 8BASIN ALTERNATES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

0

Feet

100 500

DO NOT USE THE INFORMATION ON THISSHEET FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.This sheet is in the plans for documentation and toassist construction personnel with drainage concerns.

N

1"

=

500

BASIN 1 BASIN 2 BASIN 3

BASIN 1ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 1ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 1ALTERNATE 4

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 1ALTERNATE 3

SA

N

MA

RC

O

BO

ULE

VA

RD

PA

LM

AVE

NU

E

KIN

GS

AVE

NU

E

(US

1)

HE

ND

RIC

KS

AVE

NU

E

(SR

13)

BEGIN PROJECTSTA. 106+18.14{ CONST. I-95

ACOSTA

EXPRESSWAY

{ CONST. SR 9

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 3

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 4

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 5

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 6

BASIN 2ALTERNATE 7

BASIN 3ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 3ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 3ALTERNATE 3

BASIN 3ALTERNATE 4

BASIN 4ALTERNATE 3

BASIN 4ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 4ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 5ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 4

BASIN 5

7/21/2011 8:54:51 PM G:\TRA\06259 RWA I95 Overland Bridge\21330435201\drainage\DRMPRD01_PSR.DGN

ROAD NO. COUNTY

DESCRIPTIONDATE DESCRIPTIONDATE

REVISIONS

FINANCIAL PROJECT ID

STATE OF FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SHEET

NO.

213304-3-52-01 DUVAL SR 9

hnguyen

1650 Prudential Drive, Suite 400Jacksonville, Florida 32207Phone (904) 721-2991 Fax (904) 861-2450

Engineer of Record: Gene Howerton, P.E.Florida Registration Number: 43992

Certificate of Authorization No.: 7917

Infrastructure, environment, buildings

NO

TIC

E: T

HE

OF

FICIA

L

RE

CO

RD

OF

THIS

SH

EE

T IS

TH

E

ELE

CT

RO

NIC FIL

E

SIG

NE

D

AN

D

SE

ALE

D

UN

DE

R

RU

LE 61G

15-23.003, F.A.C.

FIGURE 8BASIN ALTERNATES

180

190

200210

220

230

240

0

Feet

100 500

DO NOT USE THE INFORMATION ON THISSHEET FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.This sheet is in the plans for documentation and toassist construction personnel with drainage concerns.

N

1"

= 500

BASIN 4

ATLA

NTIC

BOU

LEVA

RD

SA

N

D

IEG

O

RO

AD

PHILIPS HIGHWAY (US 1)

END CONSTRUCTIONSTA. 241+30.00{ CONST. I-95

{ CONST. SR 9

BASIN 5

BASIN 6 BASIN 7

BASIN 5ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 5ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 4ALTERNATE 3

BASIN 4ALTERNATE 4

BASIN 4ALTERNATE 5

BASIN 5ALTERNATE 3

BASIN 6ALTERNATE 1

BASIN 6ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 7ALTERNATE 2

BASIN 7ALTERNATE 1

1Andrew Brigham

From: Doud, Clinton Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:44 AMTo: Andrew BrighamCc: Henderson, Marcia; Teal, CraigSubject: Extended Possession - parcels 187, 191, 193 & 197

Andy,Pursuanttoourtelephoneconversation,Ihaveinquiredaboutextendedpossessionforthese4parcels.TheDepartmentwillneedpossessionoftheparcelson2separatedates.ForParcels191and193(vacantlandusedforparking),theDepartmentwillneedthepropertybyMay17,2013,sincetheDepartmenthasacontractualobligationtoturnoverthepropertytothedesignbuildfirmbyJune1,2013.ThisturnoverdateprovidesminimaltimefortheDepartmentneedstoinspectandremoveanyunexpectedpropertyfromtheparcels.ForParcels187and197(includesthechurch),theDepartmentcangrantextendedpossessionuntilAugust15,2013.But,toextenduntilthisdate,theDepartmentwillneedaccesstothepropertycommencingJuly15toallowittoconductasbestostesting.Also,sinceasbestostestingrequirescuttingintotheroof,theremayberoofleaksfromthedateoftestinguntilthechurchvacatesthepremises.Thus,theDepartmenthighlyrecommendsterminatingpossessionbyJuly15.Finally,thereare2additionalmatters.First,regardlessofthedateofpossession,theDepartmentwillsendoutits30dayrelocationnoticeduringthelast30daysofoccupancy.Second,sincetheseparcels191and193wouldnolongerbeavailableforparking,thechurchwillneedtofindalternativeparkingforitsmembersafterMay17.Clinton L. Doud Special Counsel, Eminent Domain Florida Department of Transportation Office of the General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Phone (850)414-5367 Fax (850) 414-5264 This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete this message, and do not use, disseminate, or copy its contents. Thank you. TheOGCwouldappreciateFDOTemployeescompletingourQualityAssuranceLegalServicesSurveybyclickinghere.Thankyou.

blaingTypewritten TextEXHIBIT "G"

Documents

Glorius Bethlehem Temple, et al vs. Florida Dep't of Trans. - Complaint filed 09.27.13