By Bill Braswell

Editors Note: We thank commissioner Braswell for allowing us to use this crucial information and provide it to our readers.

Senate Bill 180, signed into law on June 26, 2025, is a sweeping emergency and disaster recovery statute that, among other things, sharply limits local land use authority. One of its most controversial features is a prohibition on counties and municipalities from adopting or enforcing ordinances, comprehensive plan amendments, land-development regulations, or procedural changes that are more “restrictive or burdensome” than what existed prior to specified storms.

For counties and municipalities impacted by Hurricanes Debby, Helene, or Milton, SB 180 forbids moratoria on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment; disallows more stringent amendments to comprehensive plans or land-development codes; and restricts changes to review procedures for site plans, permits, or development orders. These prohibitions apply retroactively from August 1, 2024, through October 1, 2027. In addition, in counties located within 100 miles of a hurricane track or municipalities within those counties a one-year ban is imposed after landfall, blocking new moratoria or tougher development controls. The law also prohibits “lookback” or cumulative substantial-improvement ordinances for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Local governments are further required to adopt post-storm permitting plans, including staffing and inspection protocols, to expedite rebuilding. They are barred from raising inspection or permit fees for 180 days following a declared emergency.

Supporters’ rationale

Proponents argue that SB 180 streamlines recovery, removes bureaucratic obstacles, and ensures homeowners and

businesses can rebuild quickly after storms. They contend that local governments sometimes impose delays, moratoria, or shifting rules that create costly uncertainty. The requirement for post-storm permitting plans is billed as a way to inject clarity and predictability into disaster recovery. Supporters also emphasize the fairness of prohibiting new impact fees when a rebuilt structure does not increase its burden on infrastructure. Some see SB 180 as complementing Florida’s “Live Local” housing reforms by preventing local rules from throttling housing supply during recovery.

Critiques and risks

Critics argue that SB 180 is overbroad, vague, and a severe erosion of home rule authority. The undefined “restrictive or burdensome” standard creates uncertainty and opens the door to litigation. Because its restrictions are retroactive, planning efforts already underway may be invalidated or frozen until 2027. Local governments warn that the law ties their hands precisely when stronger stormwater, floodplain, or resilience standards are most needed. Property owners and developers can now sue over perceived burdens, with the potential to collect attorneys’ fees, making cities and counties hesitant to act. Indeed, multiple local governments have already filed lawsuits, claiming the bill is unconstitutional.

The Polk County experience

Polk County illustrates what is at stake. As one of the fastest-growing counties in the nation, we operate under a comprehensive plan and land-development code that has not seen a major revision in 30 years. That code was written in an era when the county was desperate for growth. Jobs were scarce, opportunities limited, and leaders were willing to approve almost anything to attract development. Back then, no one was clamoring for restrictions, our county wanted something, anything, to move here.

Times have changed. Two years ago, Polk County began updating its outdated development rules. The goal was higher-quality projects that would stand the test of time, rather than sprawling subdivisions of cookie-cutter homes that deteriorate within a decade. Those efforts promised to raise standards, protect community character, and ensure sustainable growth. But under SB 180, all of that work is effectively off the table. The builders have won.

To be fair, there are parts of SB 180 that make sense. Forcing families to rebuild storm damaged homes to prohibitively expensive new standards would be unfair, and adjusting rules to ease recovery is reasonable. But the broad brush with which the Legislature painted this law goes far beyond fairness. By sweeping aside decades of local planning authority, SB 180 does not merely level the playing field it tilts it decisively toward developers, leaving counties like ours unable to respond to growth challenges.

Going forward

Senate Bill 180 represents a major state intervention into local planning at precisely the time when resilience and thoughtful growth management are most critical. While its supporters tout efficiency and fairness in recovery, the law’s vagueness, retroactive reach, and restrictions on home rule risk undermining the very communities it claims to help.

The ultimate test will come in the courts, where judges will decide whether Florida has overstepped by stripping local governments of their ability to shape their future in the name of post storm expediency.