The city of Cape Coral loaded a round in the chamber and gave the cylinder a spin last week, imposing a moratorium on car washes and self-storage facilities despite warnings from the business community that the bans might be, well, illegal.

Citing state statutes, including legislation which states that “a county or municipality located entirely or partially within 100 miles of where either Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole made landfall shall not propose or adopt any moratorium on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property damaged by Hurricane Ian or Hurricane Nicole,” Chamber of Commerce of Cape Coral President/CEO Donna Germain, former mayor and local attorney Eric Feichthaler, and former mayor and governmental issues consultant Joe Mazurkiewicz each urged the elected board not to play legal roulette by approving a pair of ordinances to temporarily halt construction of new facilities to give city staff “breathing space for consideration and adoption of new regulations.”

Also speaking against were property owners, developers and real estate professionals who spoke to the city’s own economic development efforts, free-market philosophy, and the monetary impacts of a pause on projects permittable under current zoning and land use regulations.

According to the ordinances, the city will not accept or consider “applications for the issuance of development permits, building permits, site plan approvals, and other official action during the time period that the moratorium is in effect.”

The moratoriums will expire on Jan. 17, 2025, “the reasonable period of time needed for staff to study, and determine what remedial legislation and new or amended Land Development Codes are essential” to mitigate what the city says is a proliferation of these types of facilities.

An exception allows for the “construction, repair, or rebuilding of self-storage facilities in existence prior to April 17, 2024, for which approved development permits, building permits, site plan approvals, and any other official action by the city have been obtained.”

We are neither legal experts nor litigators and will not weigh in on whether the ordinances will pass muster if an invested property owner or developer opts to file suit.

We do, however, think that a challenge or challenges are likely.

In fact, one is currently pending as Council fired its first salvo well ahead of its approval of the moratoriums last week.

Hal Arkin, who has lived in Cape Coral for 56 years, and served as a commercial real estate broker for more than 40, was among those who spoke over the course of the two public hearings held before Council.

He is a party to a filed suit related to a prior action by Council last July that has impacted property he has said was intended to “be a legacy when he bought it for his wife, kids, and grandkids.”

Sitting as a “quasi-judicial body” that is required to decide any land-use related case based solely — only — on the evidence and sworn testimony presented at the hearing, Cape Coral City Council rejected a request last August to vacate an “alley” through a commercially zoned block off Burnt Store Road for a planned development project.

Vacation of the undeveloped strip bisecting a number of lots was needed so as to allow full use of the parcel by unifying four sites separated by the platted, but never constructed, alleyway.

All affected utilities signed off on the vacation.

City staff recommended approval.

A hearing examiner recommended approval.

No evidence was presented that the vacation request did not meet city requirements for approval.

The Council motion for that action, though, failed with 3 ayes and 4 nays after a majority of the elected board — Mayor John Gunter and council members Patty Cummings, Keith Long, Dan Sheppard — voted against the resolution that would have allowed vacation.

The project planned for the site?

A three-story self-storage facility. One of the two types of development of which the city has since formally determined Cape Coral has too many.

Car washes and self-storage facilities are using up “too much” of the city’s commercial land inventory, municipal officials contend.

The lawsuit filed last August concludes “… the City’s decision was arbitrary and irrational, unsupported by either facts or the law.” The suit asks the court to “quash the City of Cape Coral’s decision, and award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate” as the petitioners “continue to suffer financial injury… due to the City of Cape Coral’s decision. Petitioners cannot move forward with the purchase and sale agreement.”

The matter is still pending.

We’re sure the city is not too stressed by either this litigation, the potential for more, or even the two suits filed against it for its legally specious meeting attendance ban.

Since we’re talking commercial development, let us use the financial jargon.

Legal actions filed against the government entities are always paid for with OPM financing, i.e. Other People’s Money.

That’s taxpayer dollars to the rest of us. And our pockets are never as deep as city officials seem to perceive.

Factoring in the risk of a legal challenge and opting to go for it is seldom good business no matter how you foot the bill.

Let’s hope Council doesn’t shoot itself in said appendage — again — as it plays the odds in its latest round of Cape Coral roulette.

Breeze editorial