The Tempe v. Sunny Isles

Case 1:10-cv-24549-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2010 Page 1 of 69
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
TEMPLE B’NAI ZION, INC., a

Florida not-for-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH,

FLORIDA, a Florida municipality, and
NORMAN S. EDELCUP, individually,
Defendants.
__________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiff, TEMPLE B’NAI ZION, INC. (the “Temple”), by and through its
undersigned counsel, hereby sues the CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA
(the “City”), and NORMAN S. EDELCUP (“Edelcup”), in his individual capacity,
and alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc et seq. (the “RLUIPA”), and the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1998, Fla. Stat. § 761.01 et seq. (“FRFRA”), and for injunctive, declaratory,
compensatory, and punitive relief under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, for the injuries suffered as a result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
2. As alleged herein, the Defendants have singled out and selectively
targeted the Temple by designating its property as a “historic site” under the City’s
zoning code, the first such original designation in the City’s history. The purported
basis for such a designation was a March 28, 2004 gathering of approximately 200
Holocaust survivors at the Temple in a ceremony sponsored by the City and
spearheaded by Edelcup (while he was still a member of the Temple). Despite the
fact that this event occurred only six years ago in a portion of the Temple which
was not even included in the historic site designation, and was one of many similar
Holocaust-related gatherings that have been held throughout the United States, the
City, clearly advancing the personal agenda of Mayor Edelcup (a disgruntled
former congregant), has seized upon this one-time event as a pretext for stemming
the Temple’s growth and expansion under the fiction of “historic designation.”
3. This isolated historic designation is quite remarkable (not to mention
highly suspect) given the unquestioned importance of “Motel Row” to the City’s
history, a fact noted throughout the portion of the City’s website entitled “History
of Sunny Isles Beach.”1 Not one of the still-standing “Motel Row” properties has
been designated by the City as a historic site, even though each is older than the
Temple’s property (in some cases, by more than a decade), each remains a viable
1
See http://www.sibfl.net/history.asp. By contrast, this section of the City’s website makes no
reference to the Temple, its property, of the fact that it hosted a gathering of Holocaust survivors
a mere six years ago.
2
LAW OFFICES
BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A. • 3111 STIRLING ROAD • FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33312
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
institution, and each is inextricably intertwined with the City’s history. In fact, the
City previously considered, but refrained from designating, the iconic Ocean Palm
Motel, the first two-story motel in the United States (built in 1949). Likewise, the
City previously considered, but did not designate, the Golden Strand Hotel, the
first hotel in Sunny Isles Beach (built in 1946) and memorialized by the City (on a
plaque hanging in City Hall) as Babe Ruth’s last Florida residence. The City even
considered designating another house of worship, St. Mary Magdalen Catholic
Church (built in 1961, three years prior to the Temple’s construction) as a historic
site, but refrained from doing so after Church officials objected to the proposed
designation. Instead, in a surprising move, the City has chosen a non-descript,
modern-style synagogue, which did not merit so much as even a brief mention in
the “History” section of the City’s website, for its initial historic designation.
4. The City’s disparate and unequal treatment of the Temple resulted
from an improper motive, namely, purposeful religious discrimination, and was
based upon impermissible considerations, such as (a) Edelcup’s longstanding
personal grudge against the Temple (he once referred to the Temple’s Sephardic
congregants as “a bunch of pigs”), (b) the City’s and Edelcup’s desire to limit or
inhibit the Temple’s growth, and (c) the City’s desire to acquire the Property. The
enmity in which the City holds the Temple is also reflected in the transcript of the
September 2, 2010 City Commission hearing (approving the historic designation)

3
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
during which the Temple’s Rabbi was personally attacked by some of the
Temple’s former congregants, including several of the City Commissioners, who
accused him of destroying the Temple’s religious artifacts, including its Torahs
and memorial plaques.
5. By designating the Temple as a historic site (over its objection), while
considering and refusing to similarly designate a number of iconic “Motel Row”
properties, as well as a nearby Catholic church (all of which were built prior to the
Temple’s property), the City has selectively enforced the historic site provisions of
its zoning code, in violation of the “Equal Terms” provision of the RLUIPA, the
federal Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The unwanted historic site designation, which essentially prohibits
the Temple from modifying or expanding its property to accommodate its growing
Sephardic Orthodox Jewish congregation, also substantially burdens and unduly
restricts the Temple’s religious exercise in violation of the RLUIPA and the First
Amendment. For these deprivations, the Temple seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, as well as an award of nominal damages, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6. In addition, the Temple seeks a declaration that Section 171-5 of the
City Code of Ordinances, which sets forth the criteria for designating a particular
property as a historic site, is unconstitutionally vague because it vests the Historic

4
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Preservation Board and the City Commission with unbridled and unreviewable
discretion in designating property as a “historic site.” The six enumerated criteria,
any one of which could conceivably justify a historic site designation, are so vague
and general (and easy to satisfy) that virtually any property in the City may be
found to meet “one or more” of the enumerated criteria for historic designation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over all federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1343, as it is a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the
United States and seeks redress and relief for deprivations under color of state law of
rights and privileges secured by the Constitution of the United States and to secure
relief under an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.
8. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law
claims arising under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a), as such claims are part of the same case or controversy giving rise to the
claims over which this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over the request for declaratory relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
10. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as
each of the Defendants resides within the Southern District of Florida, a substantial
5
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the action occurred within this district,
and/or the property that is the subject of the action is situated within this district.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they
are residents of the State of Florida.
12. All conditions precedent to the commencement and prosecution of this
civil action have been satisfied, complied with and/or waived.
13. The Temple has been compelled to engage the services of the law firm
of Becker and Poliakoff, P.A. for the purpose of commencing and prosecuting this
civil action to final judgment. In this regard, the Temple has obligated itself to pay a
reasonable attorney’s fee and to reimburse that law firm for its necessary costs and
expenses. If successful in this civil action, the Temple would be entitled to recover
its attorneys’ fees and costs from the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).
THE PARTIES
14. Plaintiff TEMPLE B’NAI ZION (the “Temple”) is a Florida non-profit
corporation which operates a house of worship directly adjacent to the City of Sunny
Isles Beach Government Center, and is located at 200 178th Street, Sunny Isles
Beach, Florida (the “Property”). The Temple has operated a Jewish synagogue
from that location since 1977. The Temple is the owner in fee simple of the
Property. Its purpose is to teach, provide social and political discourse, community
6
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
assistance and to worship consistent with the tenets of Orthodox Judaism. The
Temple is a “religious assembly or institution” within the meaning of the RLUIPA.
15. Defendant, CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA (the “City”),
is a municipality created and existing under the statutes and laws of the State of
Florida and is empowered to act through its governing body, its officials, employees
and official bodies, including its City Commission. The City Commission of the City
sets policy, and enacts, amends and repeals ordinances governing the City. The City
is empowered by the State of Florida to regulate the use of land and structures within
its borders, consistent with the law. For purposes of RLUIPA, the City constitutes a
“government.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(A)(i), (ii). Under Florida law, the City has
the power to sue and be sued. See Fla. Const., art. VIII, § 2(b); Fla. Stat. § 166.021.
16. Defendant, NORMAN S. EDELCUP (“Edelcup”), is the Mayor of the
City. He is sued in his individual capacity and not for votes made while acting in his
representative capacity. Mayor Edelcup is a former member of the Temple, and has
misused the power of his office to wage a personal vendetta against the Temple and
its new leaders, including Rabbi Aaron Lankry (the current President of the Temple).
As described herein, Mayor Edelcup has abused his power as Mayor, by inter alia,
intimidating or otherwise wrongfully utilizing City resources, including the building
department and code enforcement agencies, to harass the Temple, and to selectively
target the Temple for “historic designation” (but not other older and more historically
7
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
significant properties) in an effort to curb the Temple’s growth and to avenge the
transformation of the Temple into an Orthodox, or more religious, house of worship.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Historical Significance of “Motel Row” to Sunny Isles Beach
17. In 1920, Harvey B. Graves, a wealthy businessman from Rochester,
New York, purchased a 2.26 square-mile tract of land for development as a tourist
resort. He named it “Sunny Isles--the Venice of America.” Sunny Isles is located
on a barrier island in the northeast corner of Miami-Dade County, bounded by the
Atlantic Ocean on the east and the Intracoastal Waterway on the west
18. Sunny Isles developed at a slow pace until the late 1940’s. The City’s
first four-story hotel, The Golden Strand, was built in 1946. The Ocean Palm, the
first two-story motel in the United States, was built in 1949. Both of these hotels
are still in existence, yet neither has been designated as a historic site by the City.
19. Over the next decade, Sunny Isles came into its own as a vacation spot
with the rapid growth of “motor hotels,” a great attraction to the emergent ranks of
the motoring public. A family could pull up and park right beside their room door.
The word “motel” was quickly coined, and the northern end of Collins Avenue
between 158th and 195th Streets (the heart of Sunny Isles Beach) became known as
“Motel Row.”
8
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
20. These motels were convenient and affordable. In 1949, the Sombrero
Motel advertised its rates as “$2 daily for 2 in a room.” The wealthy vacationed at
the Eden Roc or Fontainebleau hotels in Miami Beach proper. But for average
post-war families, “Motel Row” in Sunny Isles Beach--with its steel drum bands,
shuffleboard tournaments, and beachside jukeboxes--was paradise enough.
21. During the 1950’s and 1960’s, more than 30 motor hotels sprang up
along the northern end of Collins Avenue in Sunny Isles, including the Aztec,
Driftwood, Thunderbird, Sahara, Dunes, and Golden Gate. Most of these motels
were two-story H-shaped complexes spilling onto the beach, with rectangular pools
and diving boards. Tourists came from all over to vacation on “Motel Row.”
22. The motels which lined “Motel Row” sought to attract business with
their fanciful and exotic facades. The Mandalay, The Suez and The Buccaneer
epitomized the promise of escape to “far-away” lands--metaphorically at least.
The Sahara (which still stands today) delighted visitors by showcasing a desert
theme, including two enormous fake camels complete with robed Bedouins (who
acted as greeters to each passerby). The Thunderbird, with its massive Native
American symbol, struck a more American, but equally exotic, note. These motels
were designed with theatrical abandon, as epitomized by the leaping prospector at
The Golden Nugget Motel, the sphinx at The Suez Motel, and the flamboyant
mermaids serving as support for the porte-cochere at the Blue Mist Motel.
9
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
23. Motel Row also attracted its fair share of celebrities. The Golden
Strand (which still stands today) served for many years as a majestic enclave for
the rich and famous. Visitors included America’s royal princess, Grace Kelly;
industrialists such as the DuPonts, the Guggenheims and the Vanderbilts;
celebrities such as actors Burt Lancaster, Mike Todd, and Gary Cooper; band
leaders Benny Goodman and Guy Lombardo; and baseball legend Babe Ruth.2
24. The Beatles of rock-and-roll fame were also visitors to Sunny Isles.
In 1964, when The Beatles first came to Miami Beach for the Ed Sullivan show,
they visited the Castaway Motel’s famed Wreck Bar, located in Sunny Isles. The
City’s official website even touts this historic moment in the portion of its website
entitled “History of Sunny Isles Beach.” See http://www.sibfl.net/history.asp
(“The Beatles were among noted visitors to Sunny Isles, cavorting at the Castaway
Motel’s famed Wreck Bar on Collins Avenue . . .”).
25. Most of the larger hotels on Motel Row had legendary nightclubs,
with the Marco Polo, the Newport’s Seven Seas Lounge and the Castaways’ Wreck
Bar being the biggest draws, fielding the biggest names (such as Ike and Tina
Turner, Ray Charles, and Frankie Vallie and the Four Seasons, to name just a few).
2
A plaque hanging in the Sunny Isles Beach Government Center notes that the Golden Strand
was Babe Ruth’s last Florida residence.
10
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
26. In 1954, Wolfie Cohen’s Rascal House (the “Rascal House”), one of
the most iconic restaurants in the United States, opened its doors in Sunny Isles.
The Rascal House was a Jewish delicatessen located at the intersection of 172nd
Street and Collins Avenue. Sporting a large neon sign in the front, the iconic
building was designed in the 1950’s “MIMO”-style (Miami Modern) which was
common to much of the northern precincts of the Miami-area beaches. For several
years, the Rascal House featured a sign that read “The only thing that needs to
come dressed is our chickens.” In 2008, the Rascal House was shuttered for good,
and the owners of the building converted it to an Epicure Gourmet Market,
signaling the end of a historic era in Sunny Isles.
27. Each of the aforementioned iconic properties (many of which are still
standing) share one other common characteristic: incredibly, none of them has
been designated as a “historic site” by the City. By contrast, the Plaintiff’s
synagogue (which was built long after these other properties were built and is of
rather common architecture) was designated as a historic site by the City in 2010.
B. Following the City’s Incorporation, the City Approves the Demolition of

Much of “Motel Row,” Without Preserving Any of its Historical Elements,
In Order to Allow Developers to Build High-Rise Condominiums on the
Beach, Leading Many Critics to Derisively Refer to the City as Shady Isles
28. On June 16, 1997, the City of Sunny Isles Beach was incorporated as
a municipality, becoming Miami-Dade County’s thirtieth municipality.
11
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
29. Following its incorporation, the City began a major redevelopment
push, with an emphasis on luxury high-rise condominiums. The City re-wrote its
land use and zoning code to allow developers to construct oceanfront buildings of
up to 55 stories tall. In a May 1994 magazine article, Mayor Norman Edelcup
explained that “[o]ur philosophy [is] to build tall and skinny buildings with wide
view corridors.” (emphasis supplied) In an obvious reference to “Motel Row,”
Mayor Edelcup stated that “this approach is better than having short and squat
buildings . . . . It allows us to accommodate developers.” (emphasis supplied)
30. In 2002, the City Manager issued a report, which was published in
South Florida CEO Magazine, extolling the City’s rapid transformation from one-
and-two story motels to luxury high-rise condominiums. The Introduction to the
City’s Report notes that “[e]ven by the ‘go-go’ standards of South Florida growth,
the redevelopment of Sunny Isles Beach in the last few years has been nothing
short of extraordinary. From a tax base of less than $1 billion just a decade ago,
Sunny Isles Beach is heading towards a tax base of $5 billion, propelled by a
parade of high-rises that are among the tallest anywhere in South Florida.”
31. Focusing on the phenomenal rise of new multi-million dollar high-
rise condominiums, the City Report notes “[f]rom the sleepy motel row of just a
few years back, Sunny Isles Beach is now transforming itself into a city of mega
12
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
high-rises with a soaring tax base and a new influx of younger, far more affluent
residents. The sky’s the limit.”
32. The City’s Report concludes that “[s]uch is progress and Sunny Isles
Beach is in the thick of it – to the tune of thousands of residential units coming
online in the next several years. The City’s renaissance translates into billions of
dollars invested in a strip of beachfront only 2.5 miles long and three blocks wide.”
33. During the real estate boom of the early 2000’s, the City approved a
multitude of new development projects, resulting in the construction of thousands
of new high-rise residential condominium units on the beach side of A1A,
replacing most of the historic one-and-two-story motels along Motel Row. As
the City explained on its website (http://www.sibfl.net/about.asp), “[t]he emphasis
of most of the redevelopment is on residential condominium construction. The
City is steadily replacing outdated motels with luxury residential oceanfront
development.”) (emphasis supplied). However, due to the afternoon shadows of
the newly-erected high-rise condominiums that now loom over the beach, many
longtime Sunny Isles beachgoers now derisively refer to the area as “Shady Isles.”
34. Despite having created a Historic Preservation Board in 2004,
ostensibly for the purpose of preserving links to the City’s past, the City did not
designate any of these Motel Row landmarks, most of which have been demolished
to make way for residential condominiums, as “historic.” The City has even failed
13
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
to consider those still-standing Motel Row properties, such as the Golden Strand
Hotel, the Ocean Palm Motel, and the Sahara Motel, as “historic.” Instead, such a
designation has been exclusively reserved for a non-descript, modern-styled Jewish
synagogue that was built in 1964, more than a decade after several of these iconic
Motel Row properties had already been constructed, and several years after another
similarly-designed local house of worship (St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church)
had been built.
C. The Building Which Currently Houses Temple B’Nai Zion Was Constructed
in 1964, Long After Much of “Motel Row” Had Already Been Developed
35. In 1957, a roughly triangular lot at the intersection of 179th Drive,
178th Street, Atlantic Boulevard and 178th Drive, in Sunny Isles (the “Property”)
was purchased by the Miami Beach United Lutheran Church at a cost of $60,000.
36. On November 1, 1962, ground was broken for the construction of the
Sunny Isles Epithany Lutheran Church, designed by local architect William
Conrad Kreidt. The church was designed in a modern style of architecture.
37. Although it took several years to complete each phase, the completed
property consisted of three buildings: (a) a one-story main sanctuary which is A-
shaped in a “praying-hands” style; (b) a social hall building (used as a community
center); and (c) a small building functioning as a connector between the other two
buildings. The three buildings together are in a triangular shape, symbolizing the
14
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Trinity.3 In addition, there was a freestanding memorial tower with a crucifix on
top.
38. Since it was originally designed as a Lutheran church, the buildings
and structures on the former church property were replete with obvious symbols of
Christianity. For example, the main sanctuary was in the shape of a crucifix and
contained the pillars of the Twelve Apostles. The windows were also made out of
stained glass and the central window contained a cherub with wings. Further, the
seating in the main sanctuary was configured in a manner which required those in
attendance to pray towards the west (whereas, in Orthodox Judaism, congregants
are required to pray east towards Jerusalem). In addition, the Lutheran church
constructed a memorial tower with a crucifix, a common church element that
would not be found in a Jewish house of worship.
D. Temple B’Nai Zion Acquires the Church Property in 1977
39. Temple B’Nai Zion, Inc. (the “Temple”) is a religious corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Florida. The Temple was founded in 1973.
40. On July 11, 1977, the Temple purchased the Property from the Sunny
Isles Epithany Lutheran Church.
41. Following the acquisition, the Temple made preliminary modifications
to the Property in order to facilitate its use as a Conservative Judaic house of
3
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most important doctrines in the Christian faith. It teaches the
unity of father, son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one divine Being.
15
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
worship.4 Specifically, the Temple attempted to minimize the Christian symbols.
The Temple modified the main stained-glass windows to remove most of the winged
cherub, and replaced the other stained-glass windows with plain glass. It also
attempted to conceal the “cross-shaped” design of the interior in the main sanctuary,
and replaced the crucifix at the top of the memorial tower with the Star of David.
42. Following this preliminary retrofitting, the Temple immediately began
utilizing the Property as a house of worship for its Conservative congregation.
43. Conservative Judaism is a modern stream of Judaism that seeks to
“conserve” the traditional elements of Judaism, rather than to reform or abandon it,
while also allowing for reasonable modernization and rabbinical development.
44. By 1986, the Temple’s membership had grown to 400 families, and
was the largest Conservative synagogue in Sunny Isles. By the early 2000’s,
however, the Temple’s membership had decreased substantially, down to
approximately 100 members.
E. The Temple Hosts a Reunion of Holocaust Survivors in March 2004,

One of Many Such Gatherings Held Throughout the United States
45. In early 2004, Mayor Edelcup (a member of the Temple at that time)
conceived the idea of honoring the nearly 300 Holocaust survivors who made their
homes in Sunny Isles Beach. The event was sponsored by the City, and
4
Conservative Judaism is a deliberately non-fundamentalist teaching of Jewish principles of faith with a positive
attitude toward modern culture.
16
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
spearheaded by Mayor Edelcup and the City’s historian, Richard C. Schuman. The
City secured the agreement of the Temple to host this event.
46. On March 28, 2004, the Temple hosted a gathering of approximately
200 Holocaust survivors. The event was not held in any of the buildings later
designated by the City as “historic,” but, rather, was held in the Temple’s social
hall (which, ironically, was excluded from the designation). Opening ceremonies
at this City-sponsored event included a color guard of the Sunny Isles Beach
police. The Temple’s Rabbi at the time, Mayer Abramowitz, gave invocation and
led in the singing of “Hatikvah” (the Israeli national anthem), which was then
followed by remarks from the Temple’s President, Isaac Franco. Mayor Edelcup
welcomed the Holocaust survivors and introduced various local dignitaries.
47. This event received scant media attention at the time, aside from being
featured as a news item in the City’s website (www.sibfl.net/news). No national
news publication picked up the story, and an electronic search revealed that neither
the Miami Herald nor Sun-Sentinel daily newspapers reported on this event.
48. One reason for the scant media attention is the fact that such events
are held on a frequent and recurring basis throughout Florida and the United States.
See, e.g., New York Daily News, More Than 2,000 Holocaust Survivors Gather at
Temple Emanu-El on Remembrance Day, Apr. 12, 2010 (commemorating annual
Holocaust Remembrance Day); The Palm Beach Post, Holocaust Survivors Gather
17
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
With a Message: ‘We are still here. We are strong’,” Dec. 1, 2009 (an estimated
300 Holocaust Survivors gathered at an annual luncheon, held at Temple Beth
Tikvah in West Palm Beach); Orange County Register, Holocaust Survivors
Gather in Remembrance, Apr. 11, 2010 (gathering of 500 Holocaust survivors);
Chicago Breaking News Center, Holocaust Survivors: Don’t Let World’s Memory
Dim, www.chicagobreakingnews.com, Apr. 11, 2010 (reporting that hundreds
gathered for Holocaust memorial service).
F. The Temple Shifts to Orthodox Judaism in 2005,

Angering Some of its Politically Active Longtime
Conservative Members, Including Mayor Edelcup
49. In 2004, Issac Franco, the then-President of the Temple, approached
Rabbi Aaron Lankry, who was the Rabbi of a nearby synagogue in Aventura, for
assistance in increasing the membership of the Temple and for help in raising
funds.
50. Rabbi Lankry, being Sephardic5 and more closely tied with what is
regarded as Orthodox beliefs, could tap into a different prospective congregant.
51. With Rabbi Lankry’s assistance, the Temple’s dwindling membership
nearly doubled to 175 members within one year. In addition, due to Rabbi
Lankry’s efforts, the Temple received a significant amount of new donations to
5
A Sephardic Jew is a Jew descended from, or who follows the customs and traditions followed
by, Jews who lived in the Iberian Peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal) before their expulsion
in the late 15th century.
18
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
help support its now-growing congregation. Presently, the Temple has in excess of
400 associate members.
52. The influx of new members slowly transformed the Temple into a
more religious congregation, which is typically viewed as Orthodox Judaism.
53. Orthodox Judaism is a formulation of Judaism that adheres to a
relatively strict interpretation and application of the laws and ethics canonized in
the Talmudic texts. In synagogues adhering to Orthodox Judaism, men and
women must be seated in separate sections. In addition, the alignment of the
synagogue must be with the main prayer room on an east-west axis, with the ark on
the east end, thereby enabling congregants to pray east towards Jerusalem.
54. Although the Temple removed some of the more obvious symbols of
Christianity when it purchased the Property from the Lutheran Church in 1977, the
Temple’s new Orthodox congregation still faced four major impediments in its
ability to adhere to its religious precepts. First, the seating area of the main
sanctuary was configured to face west. Second, the floor plan, as it was originally
designed for a Lutheran church, was in the form of a crucifix, which is contrary to
the building envelope form for a Jewish synagogue. Third, the seating area of the
main sanctuary lacked separate sections, thereby forcing men and women to sit
together. Fourth, the entire building envelope is shaped like a triangle symbolizing
the Trinity.
19
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
55. Upon visiting the Property, Rabbi Rav Shlomo Amar (the Chief Rabbi
of Israel) and Rav Yoram Abergel expressed great concerns over these
impediments, and recommended that the Temple should be completely demolished
and reconstructed in accordance with the precepts of the Orthodox Jewish faith.
56. As such, the Temple, in 2006, hired renowned Miami Beach architect,
Kobi Karp (“Karp”), to design a new Temple building which would be consistent
with Orthodox Jewish precepts, by re-configuring the main prayer room to face
east towards Jerusalem and having separate seating sections for men and women.
57. Since the Temple’s membership had already doubled within one year,
it became apparent that the Temple would soon outgrow its current space. The
Temple asked Mr. Karp to design an iconic building that would accommodate its
growing congregation and correct many of the structural impediments that violated
the congregation’s Orthodox Judaic precepts. Mr. Karp did not disappoint,
designing a multi-level building in the form of a Star of David and facing east,
consistent with the tenets of Orthodox Judaism.
58. Although the City and its constituents welcomed the sudden
transformation of Motel Row, many longtime members of the original
Conservative Temple, including Mayor Edelcup, were openly displeased with the
Temple’s new direction (i.e., the shift from Conservative to Orthodox Judaism),
and were hostile to the Temple’s expansion plans.

20
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
59. In 2006, Mr. Karp met with City staff to unveil the Temple’s
expansion plans, including its proposed new building. The meeting did not go
well, as City staff indicated that they would not support the Temple’s plans.
60. Rabbi Lankry then met with Mayor Edelcup on several occasions to
see if their differences could be worked out. These meetings likewise did not go
well. In fact, Mayor Edelcup belittled Rabbi Lankry, and told him that the
Sephardic Jewish community was “a bunch of pigs.” When Rabbi Lankry asked
the Mayor if he could quote him on his derogatory comments, Mayor Edelcup,
whose face had turned red, responded “I don’t care what the f___ you do.”
G. The City is Rebuffed in its Quest to Purchase the Property, and at Mayor
Edelcup’s Urging, Begins Citing the Temple for a Slew of Code Violations
61. The City has long had an interest in acquiring the Temple’s property,
which is located adjacent to its Government Center. In the mid-2000’s, the City
had several meetings to discuss long-term planning objectives. During these
meetings, it became known that the City had an interest in acquiring the Temple’s
property in furtherance of a proposed “Town Center” concept and also to prevent
competition for a proposed Charter School. Although approached, the Temple
rebuffed the City’s overtures to purchase the Property, whereupon it was
immediately targeted by the City for numerous code enforcement violations.
21
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
62. Mayor Edelcup met with Robert Solera, the City’s Director of Code
Enforcement, and expressed his view that the Temple had committed multiple code
enforcement violations that immediately needed to be investigated. Mayor
Edelcup ordered Mr. Solera and Clay Parker, the City’s Chief Building Official, to
inspect the Temple’s property and to cite it for: (a) seating that had been placed
outside; (b) rickshaws that had been placed outside to help transport infirmed
congregants during the Sabbath; (c) grass overgrowth; and (d) some allegedly
faulty electrical work.
63. Upon receiving this directive from the Mayor, Mr. Solera immediately
sent a memorandum to the City Manager advising him what he had been ordered to
do by the Mayor. Shortly thereafter, the City’s code enforcement officers
inspected the property and cited it for all of the code violations identified by Mayor
Edelcup. The Mayor personally attended the code enforcement hearings to ensure
that his orders had been carried out. In fact, as soon as the Mayor walked into the
hearing, the matter was immediately moved to the top of the agenda.
64. Despite these aggressive tactics, the Temple refused to sell the
Property to the City, and it subsequently cured every single alleged code violation.
22
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
H. The City Targets the Temple for Historic Designation, Bypassing Several
Older and More Historically Significant Iconic Properties in the Process
65. On March 28, 2006, City’s Historic Preservation Board met for the
purpose of considering several properties within the City for possible designation as a
historic site, including: (a) the Ocean Palm Motel (the first two-story motel in the
United States, built in 1949, and designed by renowned architect Norman Giller6); (b)
the Golden Strand Hotel (the first hotel in Sunny Isles, built in 1946, and designed by
renowned architect Igor B. Polevitzky7); (c) the Sahara Motel (built in 1953); (d) St.
Mary Magdalen Catholic Church (built in 1961); and (e) the Temple (built in 1964
and designed by William Conrad Kreidt8). Of the five properties considered for
designation at that time, the Temple was the most recently-built property.
66. According to the minutes of the March 28, 2006 meeting,
representatives of St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church were opposed to having their
church designated as “historic.” As set forth in the City’s own minutes, “Richard
Schulman [the City’s historian] said that he visited Father Harold from St. Mary
6
Mr. Giller was one of the originators of Miami Modernist Architecture, better known as MiMo,
which became very popular in the post-war period. Considered one of MiMo’s most influential
architects, Mr. Giller worked on over 10,000 buildings in his illustrious career. The extremely
prolific designer contributed such hallmark MiMo buildings as the Carillon and Diplomat Hotels.
7
Mr. Polevitzky was also at the forefront of Miami Modernism. He was a major contributor to the
architectural styling of Miami Beach hotels, residences and the development of the tropical
modern home in South Florida. The constant theme in the Mr. Polevitzky’s work was termed as
an “envelope for living,” which was characteristic of the many projects throughout his career.
8
An internet search of Mr. Kreidt yielded very little information about this relatively little known
architect, other than the fact that he designed Temple B’Nai Zion and is a member of the
American Institute of Architects (“AIA”).
23
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Magdalen Church which is the oldest church in Sunny Isles Beach built in the late
1920’s, and he said Father Harold has respectfully declined to have the Church
designated as an historic site, and that he lives in the rectory.”
67. Acceding to the church’s desire, the City’s Historic Preservation Board
did not pursue the historic designation of St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church.
68. Likewise, the owners of the Golden Strand Hotel advised the City’s
Historic Preservation Board that they did not wish to have their hotel property
designated as “historic.” Acceding to the owners’ expressed wishes, the Historic
Preservation Board declined to designate this landmark property as historic.
69. The Temple also opposed the designation of its property as “historic.”
70. The owners of the Ocean Palm Motel and the Sahara Motel did not
provide any written comments to the Historic Review Board. Nonetheless, the
Historic Preservation Board did not recommend these properties for designation.
71. Based upon the fact that the owners of most of these properties had no
interest in having their properties designated as historic sites, the Historic
Preservation Board chose to take no action at that time.
72. In 2008, the City decided to forego its original list and asked the
Historic Preservation Board to once again determine if the Temple should be
designated as a historic site.
24
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
73. To the City’s chagrin, once again, the Historic Preservation Board
chose to take no action.
74. In 2009, the City and Mayor Edelcup once again asked the Historic
Preservation Board to designate the Temple as a historic site.
75. The City’s historian, Richard C. Schulman, expressed his belief that
the Temple met the criteria for historic designation, but noted that the owners of
the property were against it. In response, Mayor Edelcup interrupted the meeting
and stated that this “is a legal issue, and again, if the Board wants to carry it
forward, you will never find an owner that is willingly going to want their site
made historic because they can’t do anything with it other than to maintain it as a
historic site. We just have to go through the legal process, and the courts will
determine whether or not there is enough justification, whether the owner wants it
or not.”
76. As a result of Mayor Edelcup’s outburst, the Historic Preservation
Board reluctantly agreed to explore further whether the Temple should be declared
a historic site.
The City Redoubles its Efforts to Designate the Temple in 2010
77. In 2009, another Orthodox Jewish congregation, Beit Rambaum of
Miami Beach, approached the Temple about using a portion of its Property for
religious services since many of its congregants had moved closer to Sunny Isles.
25
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Since there was tremendous commonality between the two Orthodox Jewish
congregations, the Temple’s Board of Directors approved a lease agreement,
pursuant to which Beit Rambaum would be permitted to use the main sanctuary
and the two congregations would share other portions of the Property, such as the
social hall. Such arrangement continues to this day. In fact, many of the Temple’s
congregants also joined Beit Rambaum due to its similarity in religious practice.
78. The two congregations combined have in excess of 400 members,
which is well in excess of the current seating capacity of the Temple’s main
sanctuary (which is approximately 300 seats). In fact, over 500 people attempted
to attend the Temple’s 2010 Passover service, but due to space constraints, many
could not be accommodated.9 In addition, the Temple receives an influx of visitors
during the winter months, when tourists flock to South Florida to escape the cold
weather in the north. Since the combination of the two congregations (and influx
of tourists) dramatically increased the overall usage of the Property, the Temple
revisited its earlier plans to redevelop and to expand the Property consistent with
Kobi Karp’s previously-submitted building design. The redevelopment of the
Temple’s Property, which contemplated the demolition of the existing main
sanctuary and construction of a taller building (with a larger prayer room), was
necessary to satisfy the needs of the Temple’s growing congregation.

9
Unlike other religious institutions, Orthodox Judaism requires that certain services be
conducted at sundown, which prevents multiple services from being conducted on the same day.
26
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
79. To plan for the future of this combined congregation, the Temple
began to develop both short-term and long-term plans.
80. In the short-term, the Temple needed to bring the Property into
compliance with Miami-Dade County’s 40-year certification requirements and to
retrofit the Temple as much as possible to address the religious restrictions
associated with the existing space, including the necessity of facilitating prayer
towards to the east and the need to separate men from women in the sanctuary.
81. In the long-term, the Temple needed to commence the demolition of
the existing space and to seek site plan approval for the new main sanctuary.
82. On May 5, 2009, the Temple applied for a building permit in order to
address its short-term plans, and, a few months later, it submitted an application for
a demolition permit in furtherance of its long-term plans. The City denied both
permit applications.
83. Following the City’s denial of the Temple’s initial application for a
building permit, the City renewed, and ramped up, its efforts to have the Temple
designated as a historic site. On January 13, 2010, the City retained the services of
Ellen Uguccioni, a historic preservation officer with the City of Miami,10 to assist
10
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Uguccioni abruptly resigned her position with the City of Miami after
being questioned about her personal use of a City of Miami e-mail account in connection with
her consulting work for the City of Sunny Isles Beach. See Miami Herald, Miami Historic
Preservation Board Director Resigns, June 13, 2010.
27
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
the Historic Preservation Board in evaluating the historical significance of the
Temple B’Nai Zion and in determining whether the Temple’s Property met the
criteria for historic designation set forth in Section 171-5 of the City’s Code of
Ordinances. The City and Ms. Uguccioni entered into a non-procured Consulting
Agreement, pursuant to which Ms. Uguccioni agreed to visit the Property, attend
any necessary Board meetings and prepare a formal historic site designation report.
84. Upon information and belief, the City’s retention of Ms. Uguccioni
represented the first time that the City had retained a professional consultant to
evaluate the historical significance of a particular property and prepare a detailed
report thereon, even though the City had previously considered designating several
other properties--such as the Golden Strand Hotel, the Ocean Palm Motel, the
Sahara Motel and St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church--as “historic” sites. Upon
information and belief, the City did not retain any professional consultants to
evaluate the historical significance of these other properties.
85. Without any notice to the Temple, Ms. Uguccioni quickly prepared a
Historic Landmark Designation Report, and submitted it to the Historic
Preservation Board sometime in January 2010. This report, relying principally on
the March 28, 2004 gathering of Holocaust survivors (spearheaded by Mayor
Edelcup) parroted Mayor Edelcup’s contention that this is the first, and to date
only, historic site in the City.

28
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
86. On February 9, 2010, the City notified the Temple that a meeting of
the Historic Preservation Board would be held on March 19, 2010 to review the
Designation Report filed by Ms. Uguccioni and to discuss the possibility of
designating the Temple as a historic site. This represented the fourth time in the
last four years that the City had targeted the Temple for historic designation.
Notably, no other property was being considered for this designation even though
the City had earlier considered designating the Golden Strand Hotel, the Ocean
Palms Motel, the Sahara Hotel and St. Mary’s Magdalen Catholic Church as
historic sites, until their owners had made clear that they opposed designation.
87. On March 9, 2010, the Historic Preservation Board held a public
hearing to review Ms. Uguccioni’s Report. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Board accepted Ms. Uguccioni’s Report and directed the City staff to schedule a
public hearing to consider the designation of the Temple as a “historic site.”
88. On April 29, 2010, the Temple re-applied for a demolition permit
from the City. The City, once again, refused to process the Temple’s application.
89. Not only did the City refuse to process the Temple’s application, but it
went one step further. On May 20, 2010, the City Commission adopted a
Resolution declaring a “temporary moratorium” on the acceptance and processing of
any application for the demolition of any non-residential building or structure
pending the City’s study of “potential additions” to the existing designations of

29
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Historic Landmarks under Chapter 171 of the City Code. Since the Temple was the
only property then under consideration for designation as a historic landmark, it is
plainly obvious that the “temporary moratorium” clearly targeted the Temple.
90. Further, in anticipation of the June 22, 2010 meeting of the City’s
Historic Preservation Board at which the proposed designation of the Temple as a
“historic site” was being considered, the Temple submitted several public records
requests to the City, seeking essential documents from the City concerning prior
historic designation efforts. With only minor exceptions, the City did not timely
comply with any of these requests, and, in fact, withheld documents which were
clearly delineated in the minutes of the Historic Preservation Board meetings.
I. The June 22, 2010 Historic Preservation Board Hearing
91. On June 22, 2010, the Historic Preservation Board conducted a public
hearing to determine whether to designate the Temple as a “historic site.”
92. At the hearing, the City’s consultant, Ellen Uguccioni, gave an oral
presentation of her Report. One of the criteria cited by Ms. Uguccioni in her
Report (and at the June 22nd hearing) was Section 171-5(B) of the City Code of
Ordinances, which addressed whether the property under consideration was “the
site of an historic event with significant effect upon the community, City, state, or
nation.” Ms. Uguccioni opined that this criterion was satisfied by the occurrence
of a single event at the Temple, a mere six years ago. Specifically, Ms. Uguccioni,
30
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
who admitted she knew very little about the Holocaust or even a single Holocaust
survivor, pointed to the fact that the Temple hosted a gathering of approximately
200 Holocaust survivors on March 28, 2004. She testified that this one-time event,
which routinely occurs at synagogues and other venues throughout Florida and the
United States, was a “once-in-a-lifetime event” that “has had a lasting effect on
the community.”
93. Such an event does not by itself make the Temple’s property
historically significant. First, this event was held only six years ago. Second, this
event was not held in any of the buildings later designated by the City as
“historic,” but, rather, was held in the Temple’s social hall (which, ironically, was
excluded from the historic site designation). Third, a large gathering of Holocaust
survivors is the type of event which can take place in many different types of
structures, such as in a hotel ballroom, at City Hall, or even in a condominium
association meeting room. Fourth, such events are frequently convened all over
the world, many of them annually. During the June 22nd hearing, the Temple
presented evidence of several other large gatherings of Holocaust survivors at
locations throughout Florida and the United States. Fifth, at the present time, there
are approximately 16,000 Holocaust survivors residing in South Florida. See Lois
K. Solomon, South Florida Holocaust Survivors Seek Payment From Germany,
Sun-Sentinel, June 26, 2010 (estimating that “approximately 16,000 Holocaust

31
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
survivors live in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties.”). Given the
large number of Holocaust survivors residing within the tri-county area, this event
was not particularly well-attended. Sixth, although the City now believes this
event to be historic, there is no mention of the event in the portion of the City’s
website entitled “History of Sunny Isles Beach” (http://www.sibfl.net/history.asp.)
(emphasis supplied). It simply cannot be that each time a property owner consents
to hosting a Holocaust-related event that the consequence of such a gracious act
would be to subject the owner’s property to potential designation as a historic site
(over the owner’s objection). Under such circumstances, few, if any private
property owners would be willing to allow such events to occur on their property.
94. The next criterion addressed by Ms. Uguccioni at the hearing (and in
her Report) was Section 171-5(c) of the City Code, which looks to the “historical,
cultural, political, economic, or social trends of the community.” Ms. Uguccioni
testified that this criterion was satisfied solely by virtue of the fact that the
Temple’s property (when it was owned by the Sunny Isles Epithany Lutheran
Church) was “the first to serve congregants along ‘Motel Row.’” Such testimony
was factually inaccurate, as the testimony adduced at the hearing established that
St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church was constructed at an earlier date, thereby
making it (and not the Temple) the first house of worship to serve the tourists on
Motel Row.
32
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
95. The only other “trend” that Ms. Uguccioni identified in her analysis of
Section 171-5(c) was “social.” As to this element, Ms. Uguccioni made several
nonsensical and inappropriate observations, including her oral testimony equating
the Temple’s population to “pastrami.” Ms. Uguccioni also pointed to the fact that
Miami’s Jewish population has grown substantially over the last several decades.
Despite such rapid growth, she further points out that, by 1983, “there were 22
synagogues located in Miami Beach, but many of them were seeing a decline in
membership.” Ms. Uguccioni observed that the Temple, despite the general
decline experienced by other synagogues in Miami-Dade County, “flourished as a
Conservative temple, and by 1986, “had grown to 400 families and was the largest
in Sunny Isles.” While all this may be true, it is of no relevance to Section 171-
5(c). The Temple’s growth at a time when other synagogues experienced a sharp
decline “exemplifies” no social trends in the City. To the contrary, it bucked a
trend--one of declining membership experienced by Miami-based synagogues.
96. Finally, in both her Report and at the June 22nd hearing, Ms.
Uguccioni placed great emphasis on the supposed “architectural significance” of
Temple B’Nai Zion. See Report at pp. 12-15 (concluding that Temple B’Nai Zion
“is a tour de force of modern architecture that exhibits outstanding ecclesiastical
design in both its exterior and interior.”). Architectural significance, however, is
not one of the enumerated criteria set forth in Section 171-5 of the City’s Code.
33
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
97. Following the presentation by Ms. Uguccioni, the Temple presented
several witnesses in opposition to the proposed designation. These witnesses
included: (a) Joseph Kaller, an architect and historic preservationist, who testified
as to the historical significance of “Motel Row” to the City of Sunny Isles Beach,
the demolition of many of these properties to make way for new high-rise
residential construction (without so much as preserving any of their historical
elements), and the lack of any historical or architectural significance associated
with the Temple’s property, which was designed in a “modern” style; (b) Marla
Dumas, the former Community Planning and Development Director for the City of
Sunny Isles Beach, who testified that the Temple’s property did not meet any of
the standards for designation set forth in Section 171-5 of the Code; (c) Robert
Solera, the former Director of Code Enforcement for the City, who, had he been
allowed to testify, would have testified as to the City’s and Mayor’s ulterior
motives in pursuing the Temple’s historic designation; and (d) Rabbi Aaron
Lankry, the President of the Temple, who gave testimony concerning the Temple’s
transformation from Conservative Judaism to Orthodox Judaism in recent years,
the City’s ulterior motives, and the obstacles preventing the Temple’s religious
practices.
98. Fearing this potentially damaging testimony, Hans Ottinot, the City
Attorney, thwarted the Temple’s efforts to have Robert Solera, one of the Temple’s
34
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
key factual witnesses, from testifying. Mr. Solera had planned to present fact-
based testimony about the City’s ulterior motives in designating the Temple as a
historic site, and was going to testify about conversations that he had with Mayor
Edelcup, in which the Mayor sought to ensure that the Temple was cited for Code
violations. Although he was presented with a witness list prior to the hearing, the
City Attorney waited until Mr. Solera was actually called as a witness before
objecting to his testimony. The City Attorney even threatened to file an ethics
complaint against Mr. Solera if he testified at the hearing, erroneously contending
that, as a former city employee, Mr. Solera was prohibited from “lobbying” the
City for a period of two years.
99. Contrary to the City Attorney’s erroneous statement, and as found by
the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics, Mr. Solera was not appearing as a
“lobbyist” before the Board. Rather, he was appearing solely for the purpose of
presenting fact-based sworn testimony in a quasi-judicial hearing. Section 33-2 of
the City’s Code clearly defines a lobbyist as someone “employed or retained” by a
principal. As advised at the hearing, Mr. Solera was neither employed nor retained
by anyone in connection with this matter. Mr. Solera attended the hearing under
his own volition and simply desired to testify under oath as to material facts. In
any event, Section 33-2(B) of the City Code specifically excludes from the
definition of “lobbyist” any person who appears as a representative of a not-for-

35
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
profit corporation without special compensation or reimbursement for the
appearance, to express support or opposition to any item. Since Mr. Solera clearly
fits within this exclusion, and does not otherwise meet the definition of “lobbyist”
under Section 33-2(B) of the City Code, the City Attorney’s interpretation of the
law was clearly erroneous. Even worse, his threat to file an ethics complaint
caused Mr. Solera not to testify, lest he be penalized for doing so. Such an
unwarranted and unjustified threat by the City Attorney deprived the Temple of its
main fact witness on the issue of selective enforcement, and, as consequence,
deprived the Temple of procedural due process.11
100. But even putting aside the City Attorney’s improper conduct, the
Temple’s witnesses (and, in particular, Mr. Kaller and Ms. Dumas) squarely
rebutted the conclusions drawn by Ms. Uguccioni in her Report and testimony.
101. At the conclusion of the hearing, however, the Historic Preservation
Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of designating Temple B’Nai Zion as a historic site.
102. The Historic Preservation Board memorialized its decision in
Resolution No. 2010-13, adopted on June 22, 2010, which provides that the main
sanctuary, portico and memorial tower of the Temple are hereby designated as a
11
In the aftermath of the Historic Preservation Board meeting, the City amended its Ethics Code
to permit former employees to testify about matters relating to the public interest or public
records. But, by then, it was too late to help the Temple. The damage had already been done.
36
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
historic site under Chapter 171 of the City Code, and such designation “shall take
effect immediately.” (A copy of the Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).
103. The Ordinance further provides that these portions of the Temple’s
Property are to be “preserve[d] . . . from modification in its exterior appearance,
including alternation and/or demolition,” and “no building permits shall be issued
to alter and/or demolish the aforementioned portions of Temple B’Nai Zion.”
104. Section 171-4 of the City Code provides that any aggrieved party may
appeal any decision of the Historic Preservation Board to the City Commission by
filing, within 14 days of the date of the decision, a written notice of appeal and an
appeal fee of $200 with the City Clerk.
105. On July 8, 2010, the Temple filed its notice of appeal of the Historic
Preservation Board’s decision.
J. The September 2, 2010 Commission Meeting Devolves Into a Hate-Fest

At Which City Officials Criticize the Rabbi’s Stewardship of the Temple
106. On September 2, 2010, the City Commission held a public hearing,
ostensibly for the purpose of considering the Temple’s appeal of the decision of the
City’s Historic Preservation Board designating its Property as a “historic site.”
107. The same witnesses who testified before the Historic Preservation
Board, including Ms. Uguccioni, Mr. Kaller, Ms. Dumas and Rabbi Lankry, also
testified before the City Commission, and provided essentially the same testimony.
37
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Indeed, Ms. Uguccioni again cited the March 28, 2004 gathering of some 200
Holocaust survivors at the Temple as the linchpin of her conclusion that the
Temple is a “historic site,” a conclusion rebutted by the testimony of Ms. Dumas.
108. From there, the meeting quickly devolved into a Mayor Edelcup-
orchestrated “bash-session” in which a number of citizens and City Commissioners
(several of whom were former members of the Temple) openly criticized Rabbi
Lankry about the changes recently instituted at the Temple, including its shift from
Conservative to Orthodox Judaism, and falsely accused the Rabbi of acts of
desecration concerning the Temple’s religious artifacts, including its Torahs and
memorial plaques.
109. One citizen after another went to the microphone and accused Rabbi
Lankry of removing original memorial plaques from the walls, not lighting candles
for deceased congregants, denying access to former congregants, and, of all things,
stealing Torahs. Leading off in this vicious assault was Issac Franco, the Temple’s
former President (when it was a Conservative Jewish congregation), who said he
was “insulted” by the Rabbi’s testimony and asked the following question:
I would ask if Rabbi Lankry is still here, there are plenty,

plenty, however many folks who are here like Sam and like
Abie, who are Holocaust survivors. They have plaques or
they had plaques on the walls. These people paid for those
plaques. . . .
38
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
[If] you could put those plaques back for these folks, that’s
their families, that’s their relatives, that’s family who they
never saw again one day. That’s what those plaques are for. I
believe that those plaques need to be put back in some fashion.
I don’t care where, I don’t care how, but I think it’s a terrible
thing that these folks have no place to go, nowhere to go to
remember their dearly departed. . . .
(Transcript of Hearing, at pp. 140-41)
110. The next speaker, Soretta Selstein (the daughter of two former Temple
members), accused the Temple of denying access to her 102-year old mother:
My mother passed away 4 years ago, and I do want to tell you

what happened then. What hurt my mother very much and
hurts me very much, 4 years ago my mother was . . . 102 years
old. We came to Rosh Hashanah services [at the Temple]. It
was extremely difficult for her to walk. I left her off at the
place. I helped her up the stairs with her walker and
everything else. The people in the synagogue refused to let
her in, absolutely refused to let her in. We walked into the
side. . . The men in the synagogue refused to turn their heads,
they refused to carry her up the stairs. Eight women from
there carried her up whatever number of stairs there were so
she could sit in the back. . . . That was no way to treat my
mother. . . .
111. Next up was Sam Gasson, a former employee of the Temple. He
accused the Rabbi of destroying the Temple and selling off its religious artifacts
for money:
Now the [new] members who came in took away the

synagogue. This was not right. There was a major mistake
from the beginning . . . .He brought people from all over
39
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
[who]. . . didn’t belong to us. . . . The only thing that he

brought in was [to] gave away everything, sold everything
whatever he could to make money from the synagogue. This
is the honest God’s truth. That’s not just talk or anything like
that. . . . But I cannot see that this synagogue should belong to
one person, that he should get paid money for a synagogue
which he had nothing to do with. He took everything, he
ripped everything apart. . . . The only thing that he was
looking for is to fill his pockets[.] . . . Like Issac said, he put
the candles out. They took everything apart. The synagogue
was not the same. You couldn’t walk in there. It was a
tragedy. . . . What bothers me [is] one thing. There was two
lions, very big lions that used to belong. There was also a
bird. The bird, he took the bird out from the flag he threw
down. That was a curse. Unbelievable what this man [did]. . .
Everything [is] gone.
112. Arnold Klein, the next member of the public to speak, accused the
Rabbi of allowing contractors to work in the Temple on the Sabbath, calling it a
shonda, and suggesting that it cast doubt on the veracity of the Rabbi’s testimony:
[H]ow orthodox can a rabbi be when he allows workmen to

work on the Shabbas in a shul? And this is what happened the
other day, last Saturday, in Temple B’nai Zion as I drove by
and saw workmen coming in and out of the temple. Why
yesterday – in Yiddish, it’s called a shonda, it’s a shame.
Now, how much veracity can someone have by blatantly not
obeying our own faith.
(Transcript of Hearing, at pp. 154-55).
113. Even the City Commission got into the act, which was not surprising
given the fact that three out of the five commissioners were disgruntled former
40
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
congregants who were unhappy with the new religious direction of the Temple.
Commissioner Gerry Goodman (a former board member of the Temple) devoted
the entirety of his public comments to criticizing the new regime of the Temple,
and peppered Rabbi Lankry with questions as to whether he had preserved the
memorial plaques and Torahs which had been a part of the Temple for many years:
Thirteen years ago I lost my wife, and I bought a memorial

plaque that goes on the wall. Her name is on the wall, and I
paid for a memorial plaque for myself. When the time comes
when I go to heaven, my name should be on the synagogue.
And every time I have yahrzeit for my wife, I go to the
Temple, and the Temple is closed. The temple is not in
business. And all the people that live in Winston Towers [a
condominium building in Sunny Isles Beach], some of the
survivors where I live, they come to me and they have their
families on the memorial plaques, and it’s the duty of a rabbi
or the people that operate the synagogue on the memorial of
their death are supposed to light those candles on there to
memorialize these people, and the synagogue is closed.
Under normal circumstances, when a synagogue goes out of

business, what they normally do is they take those memorial
boards and the money they have, if they sell the property, and
they give it to another synagogue, and they put those memorial
plaques on the wall.
Now, I don’t know who owns Temple B’Nai Zion. I don’t

know how Rabbi Lankry became owner of the temple. It was
always owned by the people.
RABBI LANKRY: It still is.
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I don’t know how he

became the president and rabbi.
41
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
RABBI LANKRY: Volunteer rabbi.
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: The synagogue has been

closed.
RABBI LANKRY: It’s open every Saturday.

COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Now, does he have the
records of the people who paid to have their names on the
memorial boards? Are the memorial boards still there? Are
they still hanging on the walls?
RABBI LANKRY: We have every single one of them.
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: Are you lighting the

candles?
RABBI LANKRY: We are under construction.
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I understand that you are

partners with these people that you lease the synagogue to or
you lease it for money. Did you lease the synagogue for
money to somebody else?
RABBI LANKRY: Do I have to respond or do I have to

keep quiet?
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: I’m just talking leisurely.
MAYOR EDELCUP: Focus on the issues.
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: When you took the

synagogue over, there were five Torahs. Do you still have the
Torahs? What did you do with the five Torahs that belonged
to the people? A Torah today is worth 50, 60, $70,000. Do
you still have the Torahs?
(Transcript of Hearing, at p. 157:2-160:14).
42
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
114. In one remarkable exchange, Commissioner Goodman actually
accused Rabbi Lankry of calling him an anti-Semite in a recent newspaper article:
COMMISSIONER GOODMAN: By the way, when you

published in the newspaper, who did you call an anti-Semite?
I would like you to answer that question. Did you call me an
anti-Semite?
MAYOR EDELCUP: Gerry, please. Try to sum up, Gerry
(Transcript of Hearing, at p. 160:15-160:21)
115. During his rambling diatribe, Commissioner Goodman did not make
any reference to the issue which was actually before the City Commission, that is,
whether the Temple met the criteria for historic designation under Chapter 171 of
the Code. The entirety of Commissioner’s Goodman’s comments was devoted to
falsely accusing the Rabbi of discarding the Temple’s memorial plaques and
Torahs, and challenging the Rabbi on whether he had called him an anti-Semite. It
is plainly obvious, from the tenor and subject matter of his public comments, that
Commissioner Goodman’s vote was motivated by a personal agenda.
116. The lone dissenting commissioner, George “Bud” Scholl, summed up
the poisonous atmosphere best when he opined that the focus on the Rabbi’s
actions “misses the point,” which is that the City is “burdening” someone’s
property rights, and that the City’s arguments appeared a “little flimsy” to him:
Okay. All I can say is wow. There is going to be some irony

in my comments because . . . I’m the only non-Jew on the
43
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Commission. . . . I think a lot of us are missing the point. The

fact is from my perspective the point is property rights. . . .
[T]he issue [of] whether we like the rabbi or don’t like the
rabbi, whether we like the owner of the property or don’t like
the owner of the property, it’s really not the issue. The issue is
if we are going to burden somebody’s property rights[.] . . . In
this case I really believe that if we are going to burden
somebody’s property rights, and this Commission is going to
make a ruling here, and it’s going to set a precedent, and you
have heard me say sometimes we are judge and jury up here,
and I think we need to be very careful when we are doing that
and really look at the core issue. . . . The core issue is are we
going to burden someone’s property rights and take something
away from them over some arguments that I think are a little
flimsy personally. . . .
I don’t really buy into the veracity of these arguments. . . . The

fact is if we are going to take somebody’s property rights
away, which is one of the fundamental rights in this country, I
think we should have overwhelming evidence that supports
doing that. . . . I think we have a lot of countervailing
arguments here. . . . We have to discount our perspective
toward the actual property and look at the fact that we are
going to take away somebody’s property rights, whether it’s a
Temple, a single-family home, a rich condominium developer.
I don’t care. Those things need to be protected, and I think we
have to hold them, you know, at a very high standard if we are
going to burden them.
(Transcript of Hearing, at p. 162)
117. Despite Commissioner Scholl’s impassioned plea to weigh the
evidence presented and the Temple’s property rights, the City Commission upheld
the Historic Preservation Board’s decision to designate the Temple as a historic
site by a 4 to 1 vote. Mayor Edelcup conceded that the sole basis for his voting to
44
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
designate the Temple as a “historic site” was the March 28, 2004 gathering of
Holocaust survivors, which was a City-sponsored event that he spearheaded, and
stated that he did not consider the architectural significance of the Temple (or lack
thereof) in casting his vote.
118. The outcome of the hearing was no great shock to those in attendance,
especially given the many vitriolic comments made about Rabbi Lankry at the
hearing (none of which had anything to do with the standards or criteria for historic
designation), and the fact that, in plain view, Vice-Mayor Thaler, the maker of the
motion, read the motion from a script drafted by the City Attorney, Hans Ottinot,
who handed out copies of the motion (which he drafted beforehand) approving the
historic designation of the Temple prior to the vote actually being taken.
119. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the City Commission passed
and adopted Resolution No. 2010-1597, affirming and consenting to the historic
site designation rendered by the Historic Preservation Board on June 22, 2010
(Resolution No. 2010-13) in all aspects, which resulted in the main sanctuary,
portico and memorial tower of the Temple being designated as a “historic site.”
(A copy of Resolution No. 2010-1597 is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).
120. Ironically, the City declared almost all parts of the Temple to be
historic, except that it never designated the middle portion of the Temple (the
45
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
connector building) as historic, which actually constituted the original Temple
building and where the March 2004 gathering of Holocaust survivors took place.
121. In a transparent effort to derail potential federal litigation against the
City, the City Attorney included language within the Ordinance “invit[ing] the
Temple to submit plans for expansion that are consistent with the designation of
the Temple as a historic site,” and stating that “if the structural integrity of the
items designated as historic are kept intact, the City Commission will not object to
expansion plans that maintain the structural integrity of the historic items.”
122. The problem with such vague assurances is that it ignores the fact that
the Temple has been seeking to modify and expand the main sanctuary (which is
part of the historic site designation) to accommodate its growing congregation and
to correct the improper configuration of the seating area therein, so that all seats in
the sanctuary face east towards Jerusalem, and men and women are kept separate,
as mandated by the Temple’s religious precepts. The main sanctuary cannot be
expanded in the manner desired by the Temple without altering the exterior of the
main sanctuary, which, under the terms of the Ordinance, is expressly prohibited,
despite the City’s hollow assurances that it will keep an open mind in the future.
Further, the Christian symbols including the main stained glass window, memorial
tower, the interior crucifix configuration, the exterior representation of The Twelve
Apostles, and the triangular Trinity design had to remain as part of the Temple.
46
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
123. The designation of the Temple’s site as a historic landmark prevents the
Temple from redeveloping the site and/or making any exterior alterations to the site--
including the ability to demolish the existing building, modify the interior of the
building, renovate, remodel, and improve the existing building--without the approval
of the Historic Preservation Board and the City Commission. These modifications
are necessary to comply with Orthodox Jewish precepts, and to satisfy the needs of
the Temple’s growing congregation. The Temple cannot raze or modify the exterior
of the main sanctuary without being subject to substantial fines and penalties.
124. The harm to the Temple (and its congregation) because it is forced to
maintain the existing building in its current condition is immediate and severe.
125. The City’s denial of the Temple’s applications for a building permit and
demolition permit, and the unwanted historic site designation, were based solely on
the City’s desire to place restrictions on the Temple’s property (in order to prevent its
growth) and to advance Mayor Edelcup’s own personal vendetta against Rabbi
Lankry and the Temple’s Orthodox Jewish Sephardic membership. The constraints
created by the historic landmark status not only inhibit the redevelopment of the
Property, but also decrease the Property’s market value, thereby inhibiting the
Temple’s ability to secure financing on its property or to sell the Property for a fair
and reasonable price.
47
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
126. The City’s improper designation of the Temple’s building as a historic
site, and denial of building and demolition permits, have restricted the Temple’s
ability to use its property in the full exercise of religious freedom guaranteed by
federal law and Florida law and the United States and Florida Constitutions.
127. The actions of the Defendants have denied the Temple its rights under
the constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida, as well as under federal
and state law.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

(Violation of “Equal Terms” Provision – 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1))
(Against the City of Sunny Isles Beach)
128. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-127
above as if fully set forth herein.
129. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(“RLUIPA”) was passed by Congress in 2000, mainly in response to concerns that
land use regulations were being increasingly utilized by local governments to
discriminate against religious institutions.
130. Pursuant to the “Equal Terms” provision of the RLUIPA, “[n]o
government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats
a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non-religious

48
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(b)(1). This statutory command
“requir[es] equal treatment of secular and religious assemblies.” Midrash
Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).
131. The City’s designation of the Temple as a historic site, through the
enactment of Resolution No. 2010-1597 and Resolution No. 2010-13, constitutes a
“land use regulation” within the meaning of RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5.
132. Plaintiff is subject to this land use regulation.
133. Through the adoption of Resolution No. 2010-1597 and Resolution
No. 2010-13, the City has treated the Plaintiff, a religious assembly or institution,
on less than equal terms than non-religious assemblies or institutions with respect
to the implementation of the City’s land use regulations, in that the City has
designated the Temple’s property as a “historic site,” and has considered but
ultimately refused to designate as historic sites several older and more historically
significant properties owned by non-religious assemblies or institutions.
134. By designating the Temple as a “historic site” (over its objection),
while considering and refusing to similarly designate, among other properties, the
Ocean Palm Motel, the Golden Strand Hotel, the Sahara Motel, the Golden Nugget
Motel, the Thunderbird Motel, and the Rascal House (each of which are older and
more historically significant), the City has implemented a land use regulation in a
manner which treats religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms
49
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
than non-religious assemblies or institutions, and, therefore, constitutes a violation
of the Equal Terms provision of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(b)(1).
135. For this violation of the RLUIPA, Plaintiff is entitled to appropriate
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a).
COUNT II

(Discrimination Based on Religion -- 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2))
136. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-127,
129, 131 and 132 above as if fully set forth herein.
137. RLUIPA also contains a general “anti-discrimination” provision in
Subsection (b)(2), which states that “[n]o government shall impose or implement a
land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the
basis of religious or religious denomination.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2). Thus,
under RLUIPA, the City cannot impose its land use regulations in a manner which
discriminates against the Temple based on its religion or religious denomination.
138. Through its adoption of Resolution No. 2010-1597 and Resolution
No. 2010-13, the City has implemented a land use regulation, namely, the “historic
designation” framework embodied in Chapter 171 of the City’s Code of
Ordinances, in a manner which purposefully discriminates against the Temple on
the basis of its religion or religious denomination, which is Orthodox Judaism.

50
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
139. Although the Historic Designation provisions of the City Code appear
to be facially neutral, they have been selectively enforced against the Temple. The
designation of the Temple as a “historic site” is the first such original designation
of a site and/or building in the City’s history, which is remarkable given the fact
that there are several older and more historically significant properties which have
not been designated as historic sites by the City, such as: (a) St. Mary Magdalen
Catholic Church (built in 1961 and a classic example of Modern Mid-Century
Architecture); (b) the Ocean Palm Motel (the first two-story motel in the United
States, built in 1949, and designed by renowned architect Norman Giller); (c) the
Golden Strand Hotel & Villas (the first hotel in Sunny Isles, and designed by
renowned architect, Igor B. Polevitsky); (d) Sahara Hotel (built in 1953); (d)
Golden Nugget (built in 1956); and (e) the Thunderbird Motel (built in 1955).
140. In refraining from designating these older properties as historic sites,
the City acceded to wishes of the property owner. For example, when the City
sought to designate St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church as historic, the Church
objected to the proposed designation, and, consequently, the City withdrew it.
Similarly, when the City sought to designate the Golden Strand as a historic site,
the owners objected, and the proposed designation was withdrawn. Likewise, here,
the Temple opposed the designation. Yet, the City proceeded over the Temple’s
objection, even though it treated the other objecting properties more deferentially.
51
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
141. The City’s disparate treatment of the Temple resulted from an
improper motive, namely, purposeful religious discrimination.
COUNT III

(Unreasonable Limitation on Religious Assembly – 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3))
144. The RLUIPA also forbids a governmental entity from “impos[ing] or
implement[ing] a land use regulation that-(A) totally excludes religious assemblies
from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions,
or structures within a jurisdiction.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3) (emphasis supplied)
145. The City’s designation of the Temple’s property as a historic site
constitutes an unreasonable limitation on the Temple’s religious assembly,
institution and/or structures, and unreasonably prevents the Temple from using its
property in the full exercise of religious freedom guaranteed by federal law.
146. The foregoing constitutes a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3).

52
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
COUNT IV

(Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise – 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1))
149. The “substantial burden” provision of the RLUIPA states as follows:
No government shall impose or implement a land use

regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on
the religious exercise of a person, including a religious
assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates
that imposition of the burden on the burden on that person,
assembly, or institution--(A) is in furtherance of a compelling
interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling government interest.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). Congress has mandated that the RLUIPA “shall be
construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum
extent permitted by the terms of [the RLUIPA] and the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc-3(g).
150. The Temple’s intended, desired and/or proposed use of the Property for
Orthodox Jewish religious prayer and services qualifies as “religious exercise” within
the scope of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(7).
151. By imposing and implementing the City’s land use and zoning laws
and regulations in the manner described above, and by the conduct described
53
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
above, the City has imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the
Temple in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).
152. The imposition of this substantial burden on the religious exercise of the
Temple is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, nor is it the least
restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, as required by
§2000cc(a)(1).
153. This substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Temple is
imposed by the City through the implementation of a system of land use regulations
under which the City makes, and has in place formal and informal procedures or
practices that permit it to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for
the property involved, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(c).
154. This substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Temple, and the
removal of that burden, will affect commerce among the several States, as
contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(c).
155. By virtue of the foregoing conduct, the City has violated the Temple’s
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a).
54
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment)
(Against the City and Edelcup, Individually)
157. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-127 and
139-141 above as if fully set forth herein
158. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 imposes liability on one who, under color of state
law, deprives a person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws.”
159. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
160. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement of the
law based on improper motives, such as bad faith, race, religion, or any other
arbitrary classification, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person.
161. Defendants have selectively interpreted and enforced the Historic Site
provisions of its Code, and unfairly singled out the Temple for designation as a
“historic site” (the first such original designation in the City’s history), while
refraining from designating other similarly-situated properties, such as the Ocean
Palm Motel (built in 1949), the Golden Strand Hotel (built in 1946), the Sahara
Motel (built in 1953), the Golden Nugget Motel (built in 1956), the Thunderbird
55
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Motel (built in 1955), and St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church (built in 1961),
each of which are older and more historically significant than the Temple.
162. The aforementioned non-designated properties are similarly situated
to the Temple in all relevant respects, in that (a) all are within the jurisdictional
limits of the City, (b) all were constructed prior to 1965, (c) all were considered for
historic designation by the City’s Historic Preservation Board at or around the
same time that the Temple was considered for designation as a historic site, and (d)
the owners of these properties opposed, or did not consent to, the designation.
163. By virtue of the foregoing, the Temple was treated differently and less
favorably than similarly-situated property owners.
164. The City unequally applied the Historic Designation provisions of its
Code for the specific purpose of intentionally discriminating against the Temple.
165. The selective and disparate treatment of the Temple was also based on
impermissible considerations, including (a) Edelcup’s longstanding personal
grudge against the Temple, (b) the Defendants’ desire to restrict or inhibit the
Temple’s growth, (c) baseless community opposition to the Temple, (d) the nature
of the Temple’s religious beliefs, and (e) the City’s desire to acquire the Property.
166. There was no rational basis for such different treatment.
167. The foregoing constitutional deprivation occurred under color of state
law. The City Commission, in affirming the historic site designation rendered by
56
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
the Historic Preservation Board in all respects, acted in its capacity as a final
policymaking authority pursuant to the City’s Code of Ordinances. Defendant
Edelcup acted under color of state law in that he abused his power as Mayor of the
City and as a City Commissioner in (a) directing the Historic Preservation Board to
designate the Temple’s property as a “historic site” in order to retaliate against, and
harass, the Temple; and (b) ordering the City’s chief code enforcement officer and
chief building official to cite the Temple for code enforcement violations in order
to harass the Temple. Edelcup would not have been able to take such actions
against the Temple but for the fact he is clothed with governmental authority.
168. Defendants, acting through and in concert with each other, under color
of state law and in their respective official positions, and in furtherance of a custom
or policy of the City, have deprived the Temple of its constitutionally-protected
right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
169. By virtue of the foregoing conduct, Defendants have caused the
Temple immediate and irreparable harm.
170. For this deprivation, Plaintiff is entitled to appropriate relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
57
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
COUNT VI
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment)
172. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is
made applicable state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment,
provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I.
Temple.
restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
175. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of its right
to the free exercise of religion, guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment,
by substantially burdening Plaintiff’s religious exercise without a compelling
governmental interest.
58
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT VII
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Substantive Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment)
178. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides, in part, part, that “[n]o State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
179. The doctrine of substantive due process embodied in the Fourteenth
Amendment prohibits “‘deprivation of a property interest for an improper motive
and by means that were pretextual, arbitrary and capricious, and . . . without any
rational basis.’” Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256, 258 (11th Cir.1989)
(quoting Hearn v. City of Gainesville, 688 F.2d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir.1982)).
180. The City’s designation of the Temple’s property as a historic site was
arbitrary, capricious, and without any rational basis. Further, it resulted from an
improper motive on behalf of both the City and Edelcup, namely (a) Edelcup’s
personal grudge against the Temple , (b) the City’s and Edelcup’s desire to restrict
or inhibit the Temple’s growth, and (c) the City’s desire to acquire the Property.
59
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
181. The City and Edelcup have thereby deprived the Plaintiff of due
process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT VIII
Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998

(Chapter 761, Florida Statutes)
184. The Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, Fla. Stat. §
761.01 et seq. (“FRFRA”) provides that “[t]he government shall not substantially
burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability,” unless the government demonstrates that the burden “[i]s in
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest . . . and is the least restrictive
means for furthering that . . . interest.” Fla. Stat. § 761.03.
185. The City qualifies as a “government” within the scope of § 2(1) of
Florida RFRA, § 761.05, Florida Statutes.
186. The Temple’s intended, desired and/or proposed use of the Property for
Orthodox Jewish religious prayer and services qualifies as the “exercise of religion”
within the scope of § 2(3) of Florida RFRA, § 761.02(3), Florida Statutes.

60
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Temple.
189. The foregoing constitutes a violation of the FRFRA.
190. For this violation, the Temple is entitled to appropriate relief under
Fla. Stat. § 761.03(2).
COUNT IX
Florida’s Free Exercise Clause

(Fla. Const., Art. I, § 3)
192. Article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides, in part, that,
“[t]here shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or
penalizing the free exercise thereof.”
61
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Temple.
195. The City has deprived and continue to deprives the Temple of its right
to the free exercise of religion, guaranteed and protected by Article I, section 3 of
the Florida Constitution, by substantially burdening the Temple’s religious
exercise without a compelling government interest.
196. For this deprivation, Plaintiff is entitled to appropriate relief under the
laws of the State of Florida.
COUNT X
Declaratory Judgment – Section 171.5 is Void for Vagueness

(28 U.S.C. § 2201)
144 and 178 above as if fully set forth herein.
198. This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2201.
199. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Section 171.5 of the City’s Code of
Ordinances is unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, void for vagueness, because it

62
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
vests the Historic Preservation Board and City Commission of the City with
unbridled and unreviewable discretion in designating a property as a “historic site.”
200. The City of Sunny Isles Beach’s Historic Preservation Board derives its
power from the National Historic Preservation Act, which was enacted in 1966. It
established the right for states and local governments to create a Historic Review
Board which would have the authority to designate historic landmarks.
201. Subsequently, the City Commission of the City adopted Ordinance No.
2004-197, enabling the formation of the Historic Preservation Board, and codified
Chapter 171 of the City’s Code of Ordinances vesting the Board with the power to
“[d]esignate individual sites . . . with the consent of the City Commission.”
202. The City’s Historic Preservation Board has broad discretion to designate
(or not designate) any individual site as a historic landmark. Section 171-3 of the
Code gives the Historic Board the power to “[d]esignate individual sites . . . with the
consent of the City Commission” and to “recommend to the City Commission
properties for designation as historic landmarks and historic landmark districts . . . .”
203. Section 171-5 of the City Code of Ordinances purports to set forth the
standards for designating a particular property as a historical landmark, but they
are general and vague, and any building with even mild historical significance
could potentially satisfy the discretionary criteria. Section 171-5 states as follows:
63
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
Properties may be designated as archaeological sites only if they

have significance in the archaeological heritage of the area, state
or nation; and meet one or more of the following criteria:
A.
Are associated in a significant way with the life of a person

important in the past; or
B.
Are the site of an historic event with significant effect upon the
community, City, state, or nation; or
C.
Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economic, or social

trends of the community; or
D.
Have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in

prehistory or history; or
E.
Contain any substance remains of historical or archaeological

importance or any unusual ground formations of archaeological
significance; or
F.
Are designated in the City of Sunny Isles Beach Comprehensive

Plan/or Florida Master Site File.
64
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
City Code, § 171-5 (emphasis supplied) (The City’s Code of Ordinances is available
on-line at General Code Publishers, a direct link to which is provided through the
City Clerk page on the City’s website, at http://www.sibfl.net/clerk-ordinances.asp).
204. The City’s reliance on this provision to designate the Temple as a
“historic site” was improper because, by its express terms, Section 171-5 only
applies to the designations of “archeological” sites. See City Code, § 171-5
(stating that “[p]roperties may be designated as archeological sites only if they
have significance in the archeological heritage of the area, state, or nation . . .”).
While the title of Section 171-5 includes the word “historical,” the language
actually employed in the body of the section omits the word “historical” from its
application. Under well-settled principles of statutory interpretation, the “title” of
a particular statute or ordinance is not considered part of the statute or ordinance.
See Patterson v. Eudora, 190 U.S. 169, 171, 23 S.Ct. 821 (1903); United States v.
Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., Inc., 166 U.S. 290, 353, 17 S.Ct. 540, 563 (1897);.
See also Bautista v. Star Cruises, 286 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2003)
(“‘[t]he descriptive heading immediately preceding the text of a code or statutory
section does not constitute part of the statute and is not controlling regarding its
construction or interpretation.’”).
205. As such, Section 171-5 does not contain any standards or criteria
governing the designation of a property as a “historic” site (as opposed to an

65
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
archeological site), and, therefore, is void for vagueness. See, e.g., Everett v. City
of Tallahassee, 840 F. Supp. 1528, 1546 (N.D. Fla. 1992) (“An ordinance which
lacks sufficient standards against which the zoning authority's actions may be
measured vests unreviewable discretion in the zoning authority and is void for
vagueness.”).
206. But even putting aside the absence of the word “historical” from the
first paragraph of Section 171.5, the six enumerated criteria are so vague and
general (not to mention easy to satisfy) that virtually any property in the City may
be found to meet “one or more” of the enumerated criteria for historic designation.
Providing the Historic Preservation Board and City Commission with such
unbridled and unreviewable discretion makes Section 171.5 void for vagueness.
207. Further, the designation of a property as a “historic site” is approved
or denied without regard to the consent or approval of the property owner.
208. In addition, Section 171.5 does not include a minimum age for the
designation of any building. By contrast, the federal rules for the National Register
of Historic Places, created by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, require
that a building be at least 50 years old before it can be included in the National
Register of Historic Places. The Temple’s building was completed in 1964, making
the building too young to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
66
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
209. For each of these reasons, Section 171.5 is void and invalid on its
face.
210. There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a
declaration of the parties’ rights as it pertains to the validity of Section 171.5 of the
City Code. Plaintiff contends that such provision is unconstitutionally vague and
unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions or structures within the City.
The City contends otherwise, as evidenced by its recent application and
enforcement of Section 171.5 to designate the Temple’s property as a historic site.
211. Therefore, an actual controversy exists between the parties hereto as to
whether and to what extent such provisions are enforceable.
212. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the
following relief:
a. A declaration that the City’s actions in designating the Temple’s
building as a historic landmark, and denying building and demolition permits, is in
violation of the RLUIPA and deprives the Temple of its right to the free exercise of
religion, equal protection of the law, and due process of law under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violates Plaintiff’s
right to the free exercise of religion under the FRFRA and the Florida Constitution;
67
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
b. A declaration that City Commission Resolution No. 2010-1597 and
Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2010-13 are invalid and void ab initio;
c. The entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the
City and any of its agencies, boards, divisions, commissioners, officials, officers,
employees and servants, from, directly or indirectly, enforcing City Commission
Resolution No. 2010-1597 and/or Historic Preservation Board Resolution No.
2010-13 or otherwise enforcing the designation of the Temple’s property as a
historic site;
d. The entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the City
to rescind the historic site designation embodied by City Commission Resolution
No. 2010-1597 and Historic Preservation Board Resolution No. 2010-13;
e. A declaration that Section 171.5 of the City Code of Ordinances is
unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and is, therefore, void ab initio;
f. The entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the
City and any of its agencies, boards, divisions, commissioners, officials, officers,
employees and servants, from, directly or indirectly, applying and/or enforcing
Section 171.5 of the City Code of Ordinances or otherwise attempting to designate
the Temple, or any portion of its property, as a historic site or landmark;
g. An award of compensatory and nominal damages to the Plaintiff
against the City and Edelcup, individually.

68
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550
h. An award of punitive damages to the Plaintiff and against Edelcup,
individually;
i. An award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees against the City and
Edelcup, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable statute;
j. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on each
and every one of its claims as pled herein.
Dated: December 20, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
3111 Stirling Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
(954) 965-5049 (telephone)
(954) 985-4176 (facsimile)
By: _s/Gary C. Rosen____________

Gary C. Rosen
Florida Bar No. 310107
Daniel L. Wallach
Florida Bar No. 540277
ACTIVE: 3187039_1
69
LAW OFFICES
TELEPHONE (954) 987-7550

The Tempe v. Sunny Isles

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Tempe v. Sunny Isles

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Case 1:10-cv-24549-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2010 Page 1 of 69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TEMPLE B’NAI ZION, INC., a

CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH,

(the “City”), and NORMAN S. EDELCUP (“Edelcup”), in his individual capacity,

and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief

2. As alleged herein, the Defendants have singled out and selectively

Holocaust survivors at the Temple in a ceremony sponsored by the City and

City, clearly advancing the personal agenda of Mayor Edelcup (a disgruntled

3. This isolated historic designation is quite remarkable (not to mention

considered designating another house of worship, St. Mary Magdalen Catholic

designation. Instead, in a surprising move, the City has chosen a non-descript,

4. The City’s disparate and unequal treatment of the Temple resulted

from an improper motive, namely, purposeful religious discrimination, and was

based upon impermissible considerations, such as (a) Edelcup’s longstanding

September 2, 2010 City Commission hearing (approving the historic designation)

Temple’s former congregants, including several of the City Commissioners, who

and memorial plaques.

5. By designating the Temple as a historic site (over its objection), while

considering and refusing to similarly designate a number of iconic “Motel Row”

Amendment. The unwanted historic site designation, which essentially prohibits

Sephardic Orthodox Jewish congregation, also substantially burdens and unduly

relief, as well as an award of nominal damages, compensatory damages, punitive

6. In addition, the Temple seeks a declaration that Section 171-5 of the

property as a historic site, is unconstitutionally vague because it vests the Historic

discretion in designating property as a “historic site.” The six enumerated criteria,

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

10. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as

are residents of the State of Florida.

12. All conditions precedent to the commencement and prosecution of this

civil action have been satisfied, complied with and/or waived.

14. Plaintiff TEMPLE B’NAI ZION (the “Temple”) is a Florida non-profit

Temple is a “religious assembly or institution” within the meaning of the RLUIPA.

15. Defendant, CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA (the “City”),

16. Defendant, NORMAN S. EDELCUP (“Edelcup”), is the Mayor of the

intimidating or otherwise wrongfully utilizing City resources, including the building

transformation of the Temple into an Orthodox, or more religious, house of worship.

A. The Historical Significance of “Motel Row” to Sunny Isles Beach

17. In 1920, Harvey B. Graves, a wealthy businessman from Rochester,

resort. He named it “Sunny Isles--the Venice of America.” Sunny Isles is located

on a barrier island in the northeast corner of Miami-Dade County, bounded by the

shuffleboard tournaments, and beachside jukeboxes--was paradise enough.

epitomized the promise of escape to “far-away” lands--metaphorically at least.

were designed with theatrical abandon, as epitomized by the leaping prospector at

industrialists such as the DuPonts, the Guggenheims and the Vanderbilts;

entitled “History of Sunny Isles Beach.” See http://www.sibfl.net/history.asp

Motel’s famed Wreck Bar on Collins Avenue . . .”).

and the owners of the building converted it to an Epicure Gourmet Market,

signaling the end of a historic era in Sunny Isles.

been designated as a “historic site” by the City. By contrast, the Plaintiff’s

B. Following the City’s Incorporation, the City Approves the Demolition of

a municipality, becoming Miami-Dade County’s thirtieth municipality.

29. Following its incorporation, the City began a major redevelopment

up to 55 stories tall. In a May 1994 magazine article, Mayor Norman Edelcup

view corridors.” (emphasis supplied) In an obvious reference to “Motel Row,”

buildings . . . . It allows us to accommodate developers.” (emphasis supplied)

and-two story motels to luxury high-rise condominiums. The Introduction to the

Sunny Isles Beach is heading towards a tax base of $5 billion, propelled by a

31. Focusing on the phenomenal rise of new multi-million dollar high-

residents. The sky’s the limit.”

Beach is in the thick of it – to the tune of thousands of residential units coming