BORN AND RAISED in New York, Gilbert Fornatora’s family often vacationed in Florida, offering them a warm escape from the brutal East Coast winters. It was during these cherished trips of his boyhood years that he became taken with the Miami-Dade County region.
But his interest in the area wasn’t due only to its scenic landscapes and warm sunshine. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Gilbert had become an adult, the investment potential in the western part of the county was expected to boom.
His father had several friends in the real estate world who specialized in the buying and selling of acreage, rather than residential properties. It was through these friends that the family first became aware of the investment opportunities in the area.
The elder Fornatora poured himself into researching the land’s potential, becoming ever more certain that this was the path for his family to make some real money to secure their financial future.
In the days before 401(k)s, people had to save for their retirement in other ways. Buying land was among the most popular means of preparing for the future.
Set on pursuing this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Gilbert’s dad began encouraging him to get in on the investment while the getting was good. He frequently told Gilbert that there was “no new ground to be manufactured,” so putting their money into land was a no-brainer.
He followed his father’s advice, and the Fornatoras began slowly buying up acreage in western Miami-Dade County, putting their retirement plan into action.
The 480 acres of land the family ended up purchasing over time bordered Florida’s Everglades National Park. Being so close to federally protected land, the area had always been subject to strict regulations. As Gilbert explained, when it came to this tract of land, elements of the federal government always “loomed in the background.”
IN THE 1970S, the looming government threat became real.
Gilbert’s dad and other property owners in the area had heard rumors that the National Park Service (with support from many environmental groups) wanted to expand the boundaries of Everglades National Park. While at first there was no grand announcement, or press conference, the actions of the Park Service proved the property owners’ fears were true.
In the early 1970s, the National Park Service gave the county funds to conduct a study on the health of the watershed in the area.
This was not the first time such a study had been commissioned. Gilbert’s father had noticed a pattern: whenever the National Park Service wanted to justify violating property rights in the area, it would literally open the floodgates, purposefully flooding the border of the property line and the Everglades. The federal officials would then go to the county governments and say “Look! The land is under water!” and some sort of intervention would ensue.
Gilbert’s dad knew that for most of the year, the land was fine—it was only when federal entities intervened and allowed the flooding to happen that any potentially harmful effects would occur.
So it was really no surprise to Gilbert’s father when the feds went to Miami-Dade County officials and offered to fund a study about the health of the watershed.
It was the Fornatoras’ belief that the Park Service’s goal with the study was to conclude that there was too much development in the area to maintain healthy water levels, in order to put the kibosh on further development. Without development, the land’s value would not appreciate, putting a damper on the family’s retirement plans.
The results of the study concluded that the watershed was perfectly healthy for the current population and developments. But bureaucrats on a mission are not easily stopped.
DESPITE THE STUDY SHOWING THAT NO ZONING CHANGES WERE NEEDED, in 1975, Miami-Dade County enacted a comprehensive plan that down-zoned this property so fewer buildings could be built on the land. Fewer development options mean less valuable land.
Then, just six years later in 1981, the federally funded land commission responsible for advising the county planners had revisited the plan and recommended that zoning be restricted to one dwelling per 40 acres.
These limitations significantly reduced the value of the Fornatoras’ and their neighbors’ property even further.
With the National Park Service working so closely with county officials, the Fornatoras could not help but think that the stage was being set for the federal government to take the land without having to pay just compensation for its use.
Even with the surrounding land values now diminished, the Park Service still needed congressional approval before expanding Everglades National Park. In 1989, Congress authorized the expansion, hammering the final nail in the coffin of the property owners’ dreams.
After congressional approval, the Park Service began seizing the surrounding properties at pitiful prices to expand the park.
THE COUNTY LAND COMMISSION sent each property owner a notice explaining that the process of condemnation had begun. Each owner was made a lowball offer for their once-valuable land.
Gilbert had watched his father fight this plan every step of the way. And when his father passed away in 1991, he followed in his footsteps, fighting back in court.
He sued the Park Service, claiming that the government wasn’t giving him fair compensation for his land. Others followed suit.
Gilbert was supposed to be the first Everglades case heard in court, but it got postponed, rescheduled, then postponed again.
He later found out that his case kept getting pushed back because the Park Service was going after those landowners without legal representation before coming after the ones with attorneys.
It was going to be easier to take from the property owners without legal representation. Understanding this all too well, the Park Service grouped the property owners together: those with attorneys were in one group, and those without were in another.
Those who had been able to secure legal representation were excluded from the first round of land confiscation.
This was an especially cunning move on behalf of the Park Service. Much of the property in question was owned by immigrants and blue-collar farmers, many of whom were just trying to live their lives in peace. They weren’t well-versed in the law, nor did they have the means to hire attorneys to fight for them.
Many of the family’s neighbors were also Cuban immigrants who had fled their oppressive government in search of freedom and prosperity. The property surrounding the Everglades was the only land they could afford in the Miami area. The privilege of owning property not only gave them a sense of independence they were not afforded in Cuba, but it also gave them the opportunity to start over and begin building their American Dream.
Unable to fight back, many of Fornatora’s neighbors were an easy target. They were ultimately offered minuscule amounts of money for their land—about $2,500 for three acres.
Without any recourse available to them, they took what was offered and said goodbye to their property.
By going after those without legal representation first, the Park Service was able to set a precedent, valuing the land at a much lower rate than it was worth.
When it came time for Gilbert’s case to be heard, the Park Service was able to lowball him, pointing to the payouts given to his neighbors in the first round of landgrabs.
GILBERT WASN’T READY to give up just yet. He gathered several letters from federal agencies to Miami-Dade County officials to present in court. The documents urged county planners to restrict development, in a “Federal-State effort” to preempt “numerous and piecemeal legal confrontations” with property owners.
But no matter how much evidence he supplied, the court continued to claim that there was no real proof to confirm the Park Service’s “primary purpose” was to devalue the land.
In cases of this nature, the government entity in question only needs to state what their primary purpose is. As can be expected, the Park Service denied that its primary purpose was devaluing the land, placing the burden of proof on Gilbert.
As the Eleventh Circuit Court wrote in its decision, “A landowner must show that the primary purpose of the regulation was to depress the property value of the land or that the ordinance was enacted with the specific intent of depressing property value for the purpose of later condemnation.”
The court’s main stance was that Gilbert could not prove that devaluing the land was the “primary purpose” of the Park Service’s plan. The court did concede that it may have been a small part of it. In fact, the Eleventh Circuit Court’s opinion even acknowledged that his criticisms were valid, and that the primary purpose rule often gives governments an incentive to mask their true motives behind zoning restrictions. But the court also acknowledged that it was highly unlikely that the government would ever admit this as their primary purpose in passing the regulation.
The National Park Service, via the county government, had managed to use the power to rezone the land in order to devalue the property and expand the national park. But doing so violated constitutional property rights protections.
Adding insult to injury, throughout the whole ordeal the government’s attorneys treated Gilbert like a criminal. When asked about the experience, Gilbert says he “doesn’t have too many good words” to say about the lead attorney representing the government. He remembered the attorney as “aggressive and easy to dislike.”
As Gilbert continued his fight against this unjust practice, Pacific Legal Foundation joined the fight, helping him try to get his case heard before the Supreme Court.
As former PLF attorney Steven Geoffrey Gieseler stated at the time, “When government takes property, the Constitution requires compensation that is just, not merely what the government thinks it wants to pay.”
He continued:
Federal manipulation of the eminent domain process prevented Gilbert Fornatora from being justly compensated. We’re asking the Supreme Court to review this case in order to halt eminent domain abuse by federal officials, and to uphold the just compensation principle for property owners all across the country.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects individuals from having their property seized without just compensation. It states, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Yet the Park Service was doing everything it could to avoid giving just compensation to the landowners.
Unfortunately, in 2009, decades after the debacle had begun, the Supreme Court announced that it would not hear Gilbert’s case.
Without the primary purpose standard being met, Gilbert did not have a legal leg to stand on. And this prevented any meaningful discussion from taking place.
The case died there.
Conventionally speaking, the Fornatoras’ story did not conclude with a victory. In the end, more than 1,000 property owners had their land taken from them without just compensation.
While the family never necessarily expected to live on the land, they knew it was a great long-term investment that would appreciate in value. In fact, Gilbert had dreams of turning some of his land into a golf course, once the time came for him to retire.
To say this experience soiled Gilbert’s belief in due process would be an understatement.
The Fornatora family was never able to recover their losses. They were forced to sit by and watch as their retirements dissolved into nothing.
While Gilbert has spent years trying to forget the unpleasant legal proceedings, he has no regrets. He “cannot accept that somebody should steal a person’s property. And they were stealing my property.”
Defenders of individual rights may not always be able to slay Goliath, but we need people like Gilbert Fornatora willing to stand up and fight.