The rush to judgment on Wisteria Island is being supported by the argument of "we're only deciding annexation, not development — we'll have that debate when the time comes because they will have to go through the development process." Granted the development process provides for ample debate and public comment, but we must have the development debate now. Inverse condemnation, or "takings" claims, are based entirely on the owners' "investment-backed expectations."

The basic question a jury is asked to decide in a takings case is whether the owner was denied their reasonable investment-backed expectations. This is the language that has been used by the courts for decades. The phrase "investment-backed expectations" has been defined in many ways by the courts in an area of law deemed one of the most complex by even the federal courts. I assure you our local takings attorneys are salivating at the notion of the city's annexation. It provides an essential tool in establishing a takings claim — an act of government approval giving the owner an expectation that there would be more to come. The grandfather of the takings claim is the vested rights claim.

One of only three elements that must be established for a successful claim is specifically and merely "an act of government approval." The decision to annex is not one without huge legal ramifications. Plaintiffs in takings cases more often are not seeking compensation back to the date they purchased the property, but to a later date triggered by some act of government approval that gave them the magical expectations needed to establish their claim.

For example, the city annexed my island, so it was reasonable for me to believe they wanted me to develop it. I spent a lot of money on engineers, architects and accountants to determine the most profitable development to build, so I am now entitled to compensation. It is as good a takings case as any, so it's too bad the city is considering giving it to the owners of Wisteria Island as a multimillion dollar Christmas in July present.

Any notion that we do not need to debate whether and how much development the city will ultimately allow is both uninformed and contrary to the public interest. Some commissioners have been quoted to give the impression that the annexation is no big deal, that it leaves the possibility for the island to be kept status quo. If annexation is approved, there will be no ability whatsoever to keep the island status quo or to improve it as a park without creating the financial liability of an enormous takings claim. The city has already given the owners one foot in the door with a first reading and approval.

If there is any real possibility of maintaining the island as a park or other non-profitable use, we must have the debate now.

Karen Cabanas, Key West