Perhaps the most pronounced miss of the 2026 legislative session was the House chamber’s failure to pass a companion bill that would have revised Senate Bill 180. Sponsored by Republican Sen. Nick DiCeglie, SB 180 was intended as an emergency measure to expedite hurricane recovery following Helene and Milton in 2024.
The bill, which was passed into law in 2025, fast tracked permitting and limited local planning authority in storm-impacted areas, effectively curtailing elements of constitutional home rule while also opening municipalities to potential lawsuits.
Since its passage, municipalities have challenged the law. Orange, Manatee and Deltona counties, along with 1000 Friends of Florida, a nonprofit smart growth advocacy group, represent roughly 25 counties suing the state over SB 180. Pinellas is not among them.
DiCeglie, to his credit, addressed the issue this session, sponsoring an amendment bill, SB 840. The bill would have narrowed land use constraints to areas more directly affected by hurricanes, reducing the radius from 100 miles to 50, and focusing on rules that delay or prevent rebuilding of storm-damaged property. It also shortens the duration of certain restrictions and scales back enforcement provisions that exposed local governments to litigation.
Litigation remains a major risk because SB 180 allows municipalities to be sued for being too “restrictive or burdensome” toward development. That ambiguity is where the red flag is planted. While the Senate did its part to address the ambiguous language by passing SB 840, the House did not.
“Clearly, there are developers that are benefiting from that preemption,” House Rep. Lindsay Cross told Poliverse. Cross is not alone – SB180 has been widely criticized for favoring developers, whether inadvertently or not, giving them the ability to sue frivolously.
Pinellas County Commission Chair Dave Eggers echoed those concerns, too. While Pinellas has not yet been sued, he said, the county is anticipating it.
According to Eggers, the commission has received some development proposals that “implied a different path option, if their normal request was not acceptable.” In other words, an individual or developer’s ability to threaten legal action is already shaping how projects are presented.
Eggers, who holds a commercial real estate license, said he supports property and development rights “without too much interference,” but cautioned, “The problems come in when you want more rights than zoning calls for.” Under SB 180, he suggested, a light industrial area could end up accommodating heavier industry, creating conflict near residential zones.
The law could also complicate resiliency and infrastructure planning – especially in areas that learned hard lessons after the 2024 hurricanes.
Kim Dinkins, policy director for 1000 Friends of Florida, said, “What SB 180 does is limit what governments can do to respond to [storm-damage] impacts.
“Things in a city’s interest, like expanding water or sewer, cannot move forward. Say a local government wanted to prioritize wastewater treatment, a developer could sue over that.”
Dinkins predicts that more local governments will become increasingly leery about approving much-needed city projects because they could be interpreted as “restrictive or burdensome” under the language of SB 180.
Though on the subject of storm recovery, the 2026 session was not a total wash. DiCeglie and Cross successfully passed House Bill 1109 and its Senate companion, SB 1260, which expands building inspection and permitting support to reduce bottlenecks following major disasters – a major prohibitive factor for rebuilding after Helene and Milton. The measure allows the governor to bring in additional inspectors and plan examiners from other states during emergencies.
“I was grateful to pass policy to expand options for building inspectors and permitting staff to improve efficiency of rebuilding following disasters and get people back in their homes,” Cross said.
For now, counties within the 100 mile radius tied to the 2024 hurricanes remain under SB 180’s scope and are bracing for potential lawsuits, with no immediate fix in place unless the Legislature revisits the issue next session.