What moved in Florida development this week

Corrected edition — rebuilt 2026-07-31. The edition originally published at this URL on 2026-07-29 was withdrawn. Its "Largest permits issued" table ranked county data errors and trade sub-permits as if they were projects: a $230,000,000 single-family house, a $125,703,562 government reroof, and duplicate $80,000,000 / $84,000,000 / $70,280,680 electrical sub-permits counted once per filing at the same address. Two rows in "On upcoming agendas" were ADA/TTY accommodation boilerplate typed as "Capital project". The tables below are rebuilt from the same permit feed files that existed on 2026-07-29, run through the quality and citation gates now applied to every issue. The permit rows are therefore the same source week as the original; the agenda rows are rebuilt from the archive as it stands on 2026-07-31, so they reflect what is known today rather than what was known on 2026-07-29. Nothing was edited by hand.

Read this before you trust it. This is machine-extracted from public records and published unedited. It is a lead on where to look, not a substitute for the file. Nothing here is legal, planning or investment advice.

What we dropped, and why. Valuations are as declared on the permit. We drop rows above $60,000,000 as county data errors, drop government-owned parcels and owner-builder rows, keep only master building permits, and collapse trade sub-permits to one row per project — 3,277 of the 4,231 permit rows read this week were removed on those rules, 10 of them duplicates of a project already counted. Among the removed: a $230,000,000 owner-builder permit on 6,500 sqft, a $125,703,562 county-owned reroof, and two identical $80,000,000 electrical sub-permits at one address. What survives is a value the applicant declared, which still often understates real project cost.

Citations are tested, not asserted. Each of the 12 agenda items below was re-opened from its own source document on 2026-07-31 and its text re-found in that file before this page was written — 12 of 12 passed, and 0 candidate items that failed were dropped. The check is verify-citations.py in the pipeline; it runs before this page is written and blocks publication on failure.