Ethics Quiz

Fact pattern:

Read the attached articles about homeowners not wanting to sell their homes for the development
of bigger projects. Answer the questions below:
1. Two parts to this question:
a) Define the term “dilemma” and
b) Identify the ethical dilemma facing the developer of the Coral Gables project.

Dilemma: is when there is a situation in which we must take a hard decision between more than
two options, especially selecting unwanted choices.
The developer of the Coral Gables project faces an ethical dilemma because he has to choose
between two alternatives, on the one hand, this is the one that will bring him benefits, it is part of
his job, and on the other hand, if he is ordered to close the streets to continue with his project, it
could have serious consequences for the Capote’s family. We can see that he did not care at all
what it would mean for Capote and his mother to close the roads, in which they not only have to
transit, but also as it was presented in the story, in case of an emergency or risk situation, it is
difficult for the rescue to reach their home and this in turn can cause serious damage. He looks
like he takes advantage of everything and the actions he is doing are not correct. He cares more
about benefiting than people's lives. An example of this is when Capote's mother suffered a fall
and the rescue members had to carry her for more than 200 meters because since the streets were
closed, they were prevented from entering with the truck. For all this I think that the attitude of
the developer of the Coral Gables project is completely headless and only looks out for his
benefit. He and the officials of the City of Coral Gables are violating the laws and Capote's rights
as a citizen and resident of the City of Coral Gables.

2. Three parts to this question:

a) What are stakeholders?
b) Who are the stakeholders (not limited to shareholders)?
c) Evaluate the stakeholders and how the various stakeholders would be affected by the
dilemma indicated in question #1
Stakeholders: is the individual, organization of group of persons which interest is based
in a business and can affect or be affected for that. They are directly involved in the
project that is being made.
Stakeholders: Shareholders, executive management, employee, employee’s family,
government, groups, social activists, suppliers, customers, distributors.
 In this case the most important stakeholder in this situation would be the management,
that is the group of people that direct the work, employees that are in front of the
construction, doing the job. On the other hand, we have the shareholders that are the
people who will invest in the project, and government that play an important role,
watching that all rules and laws are fulfilled. Also, the neighbor (Capote) is another
stakeholder.
Executive management: if the company does not finish the project, there will be a loss of
money and benefits for the organization.
Employees: if the project cannot be finished, they will lose their jobs, and could have
problems in their personal life.
Shareholders: if the project is not completed, they will not pay for that and it would mean
a loss of money for them, since they want to invest in the project.
Government: if the project is not completed, they lose credibility for their citizens, also
they would lose money because the project would be a fountain of benefits for the city.
Neighbor (Capote): if the project is not following the rules and the government does not
oppose it, nor is he aware of the arbitrary measures that the construction companies are
carrying out, Capote will have consequences in his social and personal life.

3. Discuss alternative courses of action to solve the dilemma indicated in your answer to
question #1 including the pros and cons of each.
As the article from Fracisco Alvarado mentions, the massive development for mix-use
swallowed Mr. Capotes and his mother’s home. Agave Holdings, the developer in charge
of completing The Plaza Coral Gables, surrounded Mr. Capotes property all around with
the construction. The homeowner did not want to give up his rights to the property for
personal reasons and as long as he is paying the property taxes he cannot be removed
from his property. However, the living conditions for his mother and himself got
progressively worse over the years of construction around the property. Now legally Mr.
Capote has continued to escalate his case and try to find a resolution, but his concerns
have been pushed around. After conducting some research on the case and its legal
implications, we’ve found two possible courses of action for Mr. Capote.
The homeowner can file a lawsuit under the grounds of Private Nuisance. For Mr. Capote
to file this type of lawsuit he will first have to prove that the plaintiff, which in this case
is himself, is the owner of the property. Secondly, he needs evidence that the developers
actions in this case, Agave Holdings neglected his basic rights over the property, robbing
him of the possibility of enjoying the property. Thirdly, Mr. Capote will have to
demonstrate that Agave Holdings’ actions were substantial and unreasonable. Property
owners have the right to enjoy their land. However, we can easily see how that hasn’t
 been the case for the Capote family. A court can provide injunctive relief under nuisance
law. Injunctive relief can be given to the plaintiff to protect their enjoyment of the
property or to prevent prime real state being lost or misused. Injunctive relief can even be
granted by the court based on avoiding a potential injury of any of the parties involved
due to continuous nuisance. Considering the details provided in the article related to
Capote’s dilemma we can conclude that filing under Private Nuisance will be a good
approach for the case, considering that his claim overall meets all three elements for a
Nuisance claim. Nevertheless, its is important to mention that the court might not rule in
favor of the plaintiff because it will be necessary to demonstrate that the developers
actions were intentional and negligent, and secondly that the interference of the
homeowners enjoyment of the property was substantial. Generally, the court might apply
two procedures to determine whether the interference was substantial and if the conduct
of the developer was unreasonable, the standard of an ordinary person and a balancing
test. Now, both tests can end up demonstrating that developer Agave Holdings did
everything in its power to not limit the homeowners rights over the property and
conducted their business reasonably.
Also, Mr. Capote can file the lawsuit under Constructive Taking grounds. Which means
that the homeowners rights are being restricted, that’s why it’s also called regulatory
taking and can be considered an equivalent of physical seizure. The term constructive
taking in law also means depriving the homeowners right to freely enjoy their property
and that’s exactly what Mr. Capote is claiming, however the government needs to be
implicated to be able to file under these grounds. The property in Corals Gables was
surrounded by the construction of The Plaza, limiting the visibility and access to the
property. In this case the plaintiff can claim that the zoning regulations deprived him of
easy access to his property and also that the developers actions had an impact on the
property’s economic value. The court might rule in favor of the defendant because maybe
the licenses and permits issued for the developer were backed up by governmental
institutions.

4. Recommend one of the alternatives indicated in your answer to #3 and provide a rationale
for your decision.
As stated in the previous question, considering all the details of this case, the recommended
alternative to solve this dilemma would be to file a Private Nuisance Lawsuit. Florida’s nuisance
statute, codified § 60.05, explains that Private nuisance occurs when someone else's substantial
and unreasonable actions make it impossible for the owner to use or enjoy his home or property.
The action cannot be an isolated interference, or minor inconvenience because it would not be
enough to constitute a private nuisance.
Nuisance is considered illegal activities including, but not limited to: illegal activity, excessive
light and loud noise, water contamination, noxious odors, fencing, vibration, and constant
barking, all of which can rise to the level of a private nuisance.
The case of the capote family would meet the fundamental requirements to base its defense on
this law. Under a private nuisance, a plaintiff generally must prove under state law that the
defendant actually acted in a manner that interferes with the plaintiff's enjoyment and use of his
property rights and that this interference was unreasonable and substantial.