2seaoat wrote:Some leaseholders will foolishly want to remain tenants and not owners. What is not clear is if the two counties can set a time limit to offer the fee simple option.
The only time limit imposed by the proposed federal bill is a requirement that Escambia County provide title to Navarre Beach to Santa Rosa County within two years of the effective date of the legislation. (Some folks still don't realize that Escambia County currently owns it all, and leases Navarre Beach to SRC for an annual pittance, who in turn subleases individual NB properties.)
What Escambia and Santa Rosa County commissions each do as to local regulations governing when and how fee simple will be offered to individual leaseholders is left entirely up to the counties by the bill's silence on these issues, other than the "no windfall" stipulation.
I personally agree that not taking title if/when it's offered is not a smart move -- and that's
even though in my own case it will mean paying more taxes than we already do, because, in accordance with the recent Florida Supreme Court ruling in the Portofino case, our particular lease language does not grant what constitutes perpetual renewability of the land lease, i.e., everything is subject to renegotiation at the end of the lease at the whim of Escambia County -- and thus the land is now not taxable, while the house is (and why THAT is, is another long story for another day).
So if we take title, the entire property -- land AND improvements -- will of course be taxed just as if it sat up on the mainland. Granted, that's a whole lot easier burden to swallow for us than for, say, a direct Gulf front leaseholder whose lease has the same language as ours and is thus exempt from taxation on their land -- but whose land is currently valued, on average, about five times higher than our non-waterfront location.
But in our case we see being put on the same footing as mainlanders as full taxpaying owners, along with the same rights to determine our own property's future -- such as the right to NOT rebuild after a hurricane or other total wipe-out, a right we don't currently enjoy -- as being worth the tax cost difference. Not all will agree.
Aside, partly in response to Seaoat's concern about future lease renewal rates' being jacked up by the counties: The exemption from land taxes does not apply to any Navarre Beach properties, since, according to the courts,
those leases -- similar to some but not all Pensacola Beach leases --are considered automatically renewable in perpetuity by virtue of their particular language, which virtually guarantees not only renewability but also lease rate stability other than for any extant escalation provision. Again, as seen above, not all Pensacola Beach leases are thus protected -- all the more reason for those leaseholders like myself to extricate ourselves from the "declining year asset" situation.
I would hope most leaseholders on either beach, whether or not their lease is considered automatically renewable, would opt for fee simple for all the other good reasons to do so, not the least being the value of self-determination, and the pride of ownership as a holder of a piece of the apple pie American dream.