concurring in result.

I concur with the majority that the First District Court of Appeal’s decision below should be left intact, which the majority does by declining to answer the certified question. Majority op. at 1118. Our opinion in Hardee County v. FINR II, Inc., No. SC15-1260, 221 So.3d 1162, 2017 WL 2291004 (slip op. issued Fla. May. 25, 2017), “approve[d] the First District’s holding in [City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So.3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015),] that the-Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Protection Act does not apply to claims arising from government action that regulates property adjacent to the claimant’s property.” Ma*1119jority op. at 1118.1 Essentially, that opinion answered the certified question in this case. See majority op. at 1118. Thus, in this case, I would approve the decision below based on our opinion in FINR II, Inc.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 159 So.3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following question, which the eourt certified to be of great public importance:

MAY A PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAIN AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THE HARRIS ACT IF THAT OWNER HAS NOT HAD A LAW, REGULATION, OR ORDINANCE DIRECTLY .APPLIED TO THE OWNER’S PROPERTY WHICH RESTRICTS OR LIMITS THE USE OF THE PROPERTY?

Id. at 895. We originally accepted jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

The one-year statute of limitations for Bert Hands Act claims has expired for all plaintiffs similarly situated to Petitioners with claims which accrued prior to the October 2015 effective date of the 2015 amendment to the Act. See § 70.001(11), Fla. Stat. (2012); ch. 2015-142, § 1, Laws of Fla. Although we previously denied Respondent’s Suggestion of Mootness, we discharge jurisdiction because the certified question is not likely to recur. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n.1 (Fla. 1984).

It is so ordered.