Approaching the first hurdle
Steve Milo is looking to pass the first major hurdle in his attempt to overturn city council's December 11 decision to outlaw short term, or resort, rentals of residential houses within the city limits of Venice. The city now has to convince the 12th Judicial Circuit not to act as a court of appeals over city council's decision in the case.

Milo is the owner/operator of Vacation Rental Pros, a company that manages some twenty plus residential short term rentals in and around the city.

On January 22, Circuit Court Judge Robert Bennett signed an order directing the city to show cause as why the court should not issue a Writ of Certiorari.

The issuing of a Writ of Certiorari would be significant for several reasons. The writ would take jurisdiction away from the city and place it into the courts by acknowledging the 12th Judicial Circuit as a court of appeals over the city's short term rental hearing. The writ would also be an acknowledgment that the court believes that the issues raised by Milo's attorneys in the filed complaint are compelling enough to warrant further scrutiny by the court.

It's an unusual, but not unique, situation in law where a lower court is suddenly elevated to the status of being an appellate court over a prior legal ruling -- most of these types of writs are issued by appellate courts, a necessary legal mechanism for an appellate court when it agrees to hear an appeal of a decision from a lower court.

It's an important hurdle for Milo, as Judge Bennett can, after hearing arguments from both parties, refuse to sign the writ, which would leave city's decision standing. Milo would then have to file an appeal at the appellate court level asking the appellate court to issue an order to the lower court to accept jurisdiction and hear the case, and then you have an attorney's nightmare: a hostile court forced into hearing a case that it had already stated that it didn't want to hear.

Additionally, Bennett's signed order forces the City of Venice to show cause as to why elements in Count 1 (and only Count 1) of Milo's lawsuit should not lead to an order of injunction or declaratory relief. Sounds simple enough, except that Count 1 is some eleven and a half pages of a fact-packed 58-page court filing (see pages 26-37 of Milo et al. v City of Venice complaint).

The city has until February 29 to respond. The city can request an extension from the court. If requested, an extension would likely be issued by the court as a routine matter of course, especially given the numerous and complex issues raised in Milo's initial complaint.

Milo's argument can be nutshell summed by quoting one of the leading arguments in the complaint, this from page 27: "The zoning determination deprives petitioners [Milo] of certain constitutional rights, constitutes an abuse of discretion and is neither supported by facts, laws or custom and practice. Based on the clear language of the city ordinance, the zoning determination is improper and in error. The ultimate effect of the zoning determination is to amend the city ordinance[s] as to how the city would like [them] to read, not how they actually read. This type of action has been disapproved by the Florida courts."

John Patten is the editor and publisher of Venice Florida! dot com and had previously worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.