R. CLEIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
L. L. LEE, CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, WILLIAM SYDOW, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND D. V. GODWIN, FOREMAN OF SHOPS AND WASTE DIVISION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
R. Clein sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Miami to remove his garbage without paying the four-dollar annual fee imposed by city ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that a municipality may charge for garbage removal services and that a resident who refuses to pay has no legal grounds to compel the service.
A municipality may lawfully charge residents for garbage removal services. A resident who refuses to pay the prescribed fee has no legal right to compel the city to remove his garbage. The four-dollar charge was reasonable, and the city's ordinance was valid.
“A governmental entity can no more perform a public service without means to do so than the head of the family can increase gadgets to enlarge the convenience and comfort of the home and office without means for the purpose.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that municipalities require funding to provide services, just as individuals do.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami enacted Ordinance No. 2164 defining garbage and imposing a four-dollar annual charge per family for its removal. Clein, a city resid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonableness Of Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error is to a final judgment dismissing a proceeding in mandamus. The proceeding was instituted by the plaintiff in error to require the City of Miami to remove his garbage from the premises, he being a resident of the city.
The record discloses that the City of Miami enacted Ordinance No. 2164 defining the term garbage and imposing a charge of four dollars per annum on each family for its removal. Plaintiff refused to pay the charge, the City refused to move the garbage so he brings this action to coerce performance on the theory that the public health of the city requires it to remove all garbage.
It is shown that the City was authorized to enact the ordinance, that it was regularly enacted, and that plaintiff had not complied with its terms. In our view, the trial court was correct in dismissing the cause. The charge is not shown to be unreasonable and it is shown that 30,000 families in the city had complied with it.
It is quite true that the ordinance was a police measure and that the City is charged with the duty of protecting the health and sanitation of its people but it cannot perform this and the other services it is called on to perform without means to do so. A charge of four dollars for the service is reasonable and since plaintiff refused to pay it, he has no ground for complaint.
A governmental entity can no more perform a public service without means to do so than the head of the family can increase gadgets to enlarge the convenience and comfort *308of the home and office without means for the purpose. The means may be raised by a direct or some other species of tax, but it must be extracted from the people and should be spread to require all who enjoy the service to aid in bearing the burden. In a democracy like ours where all enjoy the fruit of good government, it is a false concept that any be relieved of its burden. To do so engenders a false view of social responsibility and a lack of loyalty and devotion that every citizen should have to the political devices that he looks to for comfort and protection.
Health and sanitation as a burden on government came as a result of scientific research and is quite as important as police protection but city fathers are possessed of no magic by which they can extract from the elements or some Other intangible source the means to support new burdens as they arise. Certainly they must be undertaken but it is the duty of all to shoulder them. He who enjoys the benefit without participating in the burden does so at the expense of those who pay. He is thereby the member of a privileged class and out of step with the spirit of our institutions.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Ci-iapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Gainesville v. State, 778 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ion as "a useful, indeed an indispensable, part of urban society”). To the extent any landowner using either of these municipal services fails to pay what is billed, the burden falls on other utility users to make up the difference. See Chin v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693, 694 (1941) ("He who enjoys the benefit without participating in the burden does so at the expense of those who pay.”). . For purposes of paying its utility bills, DOT is a "person” within the meaning of section 180.13(2), Florida Stat…
-
State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. THE City OF Miami, 157 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1946)…ds v. Avaran, 144 Ala. 427, 14 So. (2nd) 278 and Nourse v. City of Russellville, 257 Ky. 525, 78 S. W. (2nd) 761; Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U. S. 303, 33 Sup, Ct. 290, 57 L. Ed. 520, and cases there cited. In this connection see also Clein v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693. It is contended in Question Five that the provision of Ordinance No. 3053, supra, violates Sec. 655.27 Fla. Statutes 1941 (same F.S.A.), in that thereby a banking association not located in the State of Florida is named as the Fiscal…
-
United Sanitation Servs. OF Hillsborough, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 302 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…t in fact exclusively performed — as an essential part of a “public service” — by municipalities or other governmental subdivisions, even if such a decision results in the complete preclusion of private facilities for the same use. See Clein v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693 (1941); City of Jacksonville v. Nichols Engineering & Research Corp., Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 529; Annotation, Garbage Removal Services-Regulation, 83 A.L.R.2d 807; 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §§ 24.243, 24.250, 24.251. The essenti…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence