This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

PETITION: Save Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

RealLindaL wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The truth is simple.  This bill is an equitable means of correcting the never anticipated double dipping tax and lease payments as a result of the courts finding equitable title in the leaseholds.

Just so you know, Sea, the "equitable title" concept was only found in the Navarre Beach case, by SRC county judge Rasmussen.   In the Pensacola Beach cases the rulings were based on entirely different findings.  The result is the same, except as to the Pensacola Beach leaseholds found not to be virtually automatically renewable as the Navarre Beach leases are; in those cases, only the improvements are taxable, not the land.  Long story I don't have time to get into, and it's boring.

cheers cheers cheers

Spot on Linda . . . . dead cinch correct . . . .

View user profile
Actually, Gregg Brown was the first to file for taxation under equitable title theories, and was successful. The very thing I argued when our association wanted to raise money to pay lawyers, which I said was futile and the outrageous legal fees they were asking for a freshman in law school would have laughed at them considering the nationwide precedent on equitable title and government owned land leaseholds.

Appellate cases complied with the Navarre precedent, and the most recent appeal separating the land does not change in the slightest the concepts of equitable title as the impetus for the success of government to get additional payments by real estate taxation. A distinction without a difference. The simple fact remains. Leaseholders had virtually all the indices of ownership of fee simple and they would pay real estate taxes. So to transfer fee simple was simply not taking anything away from anybody, just recognizing those long established principles of equitable title. Again, a distinction without a difference. Fee simple is the right answer.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Actually, Gregg Brown was the first to file for taxation under equitable title theories, and was successful.  The very thing I argued when our association wanted to raise money to pay lawyers, which I said was futile and the outrageous legal fees they were asking for a freshman in law school would have laughed at them considering the nationwide precedent on equitable title and government owned land leaseholds.

 Appellate cases complied with the Navarre precedent, and the most recent appeal separating the land does not change in the slightest the concepts of equitable title as the impetus for the success of government to get additional payments by real estate taxation.   A distinction without a difference.  The simple fact remains.  Leaseholders had virtually all the indices of ownership of fee simple and they would pay real estate taxes.  So to transfer fee simple was simply not taking anything away from anybody, just recognizing those long established principles of equitable title.  Again, a distinction without a difference.  Fee simple is the right answer.

You can go on and on all you want about a distinction without a difference, but if the tables were turned you would argue ad infinitum to prove yourself correct.  All I'm telling you is that, other than the very first tax case brought against Brown, as to ad valorem tax on the improvements on Navarre Beach, no other judge in any of the other cases as to either beach used equitable ownership as the principle on which the decisions were based.  That's the simple truth.

And yes, fee simple is the best answer -- even though one Pensacola attorney (Ed Fleming, who's represented Portofino in their recent suits) apparently insists that lawsuits will continue in attempts to collect taxes wrongly imposed in the past for various reasons.   Probably wishful thinking on his part, and/or an attempt to cloud the title issue, as he's always been against it.  In any event his threats are NO reason not to proceed with title, even though the protesters have tried to use them as such.



Last edited by RealLindaL on 8/6/2017, 1:18 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
knothead wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The truth is simple.  This bill is an equitable means of correcting the never anticipated double dipping tax and lease payments as a result of the courts finding equitable title in the leaseholds.

Just so you know, Sea, the "equitable title" concept was only found in the Navarre Beach case, by SRC county judge Rasmussen.   In the Pensacola Beach cases the rulings were based on entirely different findings.  The result is the same, except as to the Pensacola Beach leaseholds found not to be virtually automatically renewable as the Navarre Beach leases are; in those cases, only the improvements are taxable, not the land.  Long story I don't have time to get into, and it's boring.

cheers cheers cheers

Spot on Linda . . . . dead cinch correct . . . .  

Thanks, Kentucky. Smile Always good to have your support!!

View user profile
no other judge in any of the other cases as to either beach used equitable ownership as the principle on which the decisions were based. That's the simple truth.

Sorry, you are simply incorrect.
I argued the airport cases on the PNJ and had the mob tell me I was full of chit, which you were one of the same for five years. When I argued the same as a sole voice against the insanity of raising obscene legal fees, I was laughed at in my association as they were going to win and never had to pay taxes because they were advertised as not having to pay taxes. I asked a simple question...."show me in your lease where there is language you do not have to pay taxes and bear your responsibility for schools and public works and safety"

Sebring Airport Authority v. McIntyre
, 783 So. 2d 238, 250
(Fl
a. 2001) (
“[The statute] attempts to create an ad valorem tax exemption for
private, profit-making ventures conducted upon property leased from a
governmental entity
–a result which the Florida Constitution does not allow.”
).
Given
at least ten consistent
appellate opinions from this Court and the First
District on the taxability of these interests
on Santa Rosa Island,
this
Court should
not accept this case. The question alleged to be of “public importance” has been
subsumed
by
larger, constitutional issues, as expounded upon in prior learned
opinions of this Court.
This Court has held in these prior
opinions
that,
irrespective of the outcome of the questions alleged to be of public importance, the
Florida Constitution mandates local government taxation
at parity for these
privately held interests
on Santa Rosa Island. Accordingly,
Respondents
respectfully request that this matter be laid to rest
without further review
.
CONCLUSION
Because there is no basis for jurisdiction, this appeal should be dismissed
and
the application for discretionary review should be denied.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/11/11-2231/11-2231_JurisAns.pdf

In 2011 the Supreme Court denied review based on the prior precedent of equitable title on the Navarre Beach and the airport cases........this is not about me being right, it is simply about what the court decided. The current case and the distinction between the leasehold land versus improvements has zero bearing on the underlying principle of equitable title which brought taxation to Santa Rosa Island in the first place. It is what it is and it is exactly what I argued a decade ago as a single voice against a mob of ignorance.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:In 2011 the Supreme Court denied review based on the prior precedent of equitable title on the Navarre Beach and the airport cases........this is not about me being right, it is simply about what the court decided.   The current case and the distinction between the leasehold land versus improvements has zero bearing on the underlying principle of equitable title which brought taxation to Santa Rosa Island in the first place.  It is what it is and it is exactly what I argued a decade ago as a single voice against a mob of ignorance.

Did I refer to airport cases?  No, I believe it was clear I was saying that none of the subsequent ISLAND tax cases was decided based on the principle of equitable ownership. (Specifically, I said, BBM, "...no other judge in any of the other cases as to either beach used equitable ownership as the principle on which the decisions were based.  That's the simple truth.")   And just because you've cited a brief filed in the airport case that mentions the Navarre Beach improvements case doesn't prove anything as to what the Court's actual ruling in the airport case was based on.  But don't bother looking up the ruling,  because, again, it can't prove me wrong in what I stated regarding the local island cases (NB and PB).

As for my saying in the past that you were full of chit as to taxation, that's a gross oversimplification.  What I ALWAYS said was that the mindset of the recent courts was to impose taxes on the leases, whether or not I considered taxation valid -- which wasn't the point -- and that's precisely why I didn't waste time arguing against taxes -- not that I begged for them, certainly -- as much as I instead worked/argued in favor of title, which you agreed with.  My fellow leaseholders wouldn't support me in the title push then, as they were adamant they didn't/wouldn't owe taxes in the end, and/or that asking for title was an admission they were losers.  Pitiful.  We could've had title long ago and been done with this crap.

What "current case" are you referring to??

Taxation of the land on Navarre Beach was ruled valid specifically because the language of those particular leases virtually guaranteed perpetual renewability.  That was the principle cited in the ruling that stood.

The major Pensacola Beach land tax suit was withdrawn due to lack of participation by the leaseholders following the ruling as to Navarre Beach land -- it never even went before the courts -- and PB leaseholders paid tax on the land until the more recent, separate Portofino case which took a gratis hint from the Supremes to look into renewability.   Since the Navarre land tax decision was based on "automatic renewability" (my words), the savvy attorneys for Portofino argued that their lease did not provide for such perpetual renewability at all, but only some vague "negotiability" that did not constitute a forever guarantee -- and they won.  

After that, the Escambia property appraiser (Chris Jones) looked at every PB lease agreement and, for those whose renewal language approximated Portofino's non-guaranteed renewal, provided an exemption for taxation on the land -- mine included.  Again, equitable ownership per se -- with all the factors defining such as originally put forth by Judge Rasmussen in the Navarre Beach improvements case -- was not the stated basis of the Navarre land tax ruling -- only the principle of perpetual renewability.

The major Pensacola Beach ruling in favor of taxation of improvements -- handled by earlier, less skillful attorneys -- was based entirely on the old legal principle (probably, according to Ed Fleming, derived from old WWII barracks leases) -- the name of which legal precedent I forget at the moment -- that the owner (the County) would never have the opportunity of reclaiming -- i.e., having beneficial use -- of the improvements because they would deteriorate before the lease ended, such that beneficial use resided to a greater extent in the lessee than the lessor.  This is B.S., of course, because the leases require not only that any improvements be maintained for the life of the lease, BUT that they be rebuilt if destroyed.  But our early attorneys never argued the latter points, and lost.  

Thus all PB improvements, even though built by the leaseholders and titled forthwith to the County (terrible!), are forever taxable to the leaseholders.  Equitable ownership, again, was not the principle cited in the decision.  

Many people of course feel that there should be no difference in rulings as to  land vs. improvements, but that's not how it went down.  Different attorneys, different arguments, different lower court judges reviewing the differing legal principles/precedents cited -- it all ended up one big mish mash -- another reason why title will be a boon, presuming many if not most leaseholders opt for it -- even those, like me, who would now have to pay taxes on currently exempt land.

My point is that you don't know the half of it, sir, despite pretending to, as you so often do.   So we may as well drop all this.  Or keep rehashing, if you prefer.  I think I've said all I can say.  (Thanks again, knothead. Smile )



Last edited by RealLindaL on 8/6/2017, 3:10 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile
What I want to know is, have we clarified anything for FT and others as to the title bill?

It was truly gratifying on last night's WEAR-TV late news to see Matt Gaetz's submitted statement that the protesters are misinformed.

View user profile
protesters are misinformed.

They are not the only ones. I just provided you with the Supreme Court Case which denied cert based on the Navarre Beach case in 2011 which considered equitable title and you argued that was not the case. I gave you the Supreme Court case and the cite, yet you act like none of what I predicted a decade ago is relevant, and my memory is not weak but correct. You denied the right to taxation like the rest of the sheep who thought the lawsuits had merit as if living on the beach gave people some special privilege(Stormy), and then when everything I predicted became reality, you changed your argument. I will give you that you were one of the first among the sheep, but you completely forget where your arguments began.....I always remember you asking me, what was my interest in this tax issue......like my arguments lost validity because I had sold my leasehold. Yes, folks have been misinformed on the beach, and I was not one of those people as I predicted all leaseholds would be taxed, and that beach property would suffer a decade long price decline and stagnation which prompted me to sell because of the idiocy I was surrounded by, which when the light bulb went off, people who were speculating on the beach would be consumed by the dropping prices. Everything I predicted and argued on the PNJ, to the point I was getting PM from leaseholders as to what to do, yet you forget where your argument started.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:protesters are misinformed.

They are not the only ones.  I just provided you with the Supreme Court Case which denied cert based on the Navarre Beach case in 2011 which considered equitable title and you argued that was not the case.

I DID NOT.  Where is your brain today?  I held ONLY that NONE OF THE RULINGS ON THE SANTA ROSA ISLAND TAX SUITS THAT FOLLOWED UPON THE FIRST ONE -- AS TO IMPROVEMENTS ON NAVARRE BEACH -- WERE BASED ON THE EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP PRINCIPLE.  Can't you read, or aren't you bothering to read what anyone besides yourself writes??? As to the 2011 date, by your own wording that's when the court denied cert on the airport case, NOT when the Navarre Beach improvements case was heard, which was years earlier.

The rest of your post is dust in the wind, or, more accurately stated -- especially as to this statement of yours, "...then when everything I predicted became reality, you changed your argument" -- total and complete B.S. Put your arrogance back in your pocket and sit on it. I'm not playing your aggravation game today.

View user profile
How do you not expect a backlash from those so called protesters who are misinformed when for almost a decade arrogant beach folks accepted public services and schools without paying taxes and filed lawsuits to not meet their responsibility. I was regularly insulted about not knowing what I was talking about for close to a decade until everybody wanted to talk to me in PM's, which is very similar to the arrogance I see here. Pay back is a bitch, and it is entirely foreseeable. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Fee simple is the right solution despite the original arrogance of leaseholders, and the backlash of uninformed Escambia residents who think their beach is being stolen in a back room deal.

View user profile
NOT when the Navarre Beach improvements case was heard, which was years earlier.


I have given you far too much credit over the years.....you entirely did not understand the Supreme Court case. It was PB seeking relief from the a lower court decision against them, and the Supreme Court denied cert based on the Navarre appellate cases and their decision regarding the same. You denied any court case on PB used the Navarre Equitable title arguments, and you think the case is about airports....read the damn cite. Again, this has nothing to do with some kind of aggravation game, and it really is ironic you accusing me of not reading when you completely did not understand the cite I gave you. Again, it is not surprising that you argued against taxation for years....pretty much telling me the same thing.....that I cannot read......that leaseholders were promised not to have to pay taxes.....geeez, nobody has to get aggravated, just have to take the time to read a cite.....you cannot make this chit up.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:What I want to know is, have we clarified anything for FT and others as to the title bill?

It was truly gratifying on last night's WEAR-TV late news to see Matt Gaetz's submitted statement that the protesters are misinformed.

Sorry, Linda. I had to go to the beach to get away from this thread...and other things. Seaoat, you really are insufferably arrogant.

View user profile
Seaoat, you really are insufferably arrogant.

Being consistent, being correct, and knowing the same can be interpreted as lucky or arrogant. A decade of being told that the leaseholds would not pay taxes by arrogant and entitled folks on Navarre Beach, including Linda in the beginning on PB does not change the truth, or the fact I was dead cinch correct when it was not popular or the common belief of the mob. Folks paid hundreds of thousands of dollars listening to folks who were wrong, and I am arrogant. Yes I am. Linda would get angry at me eight years ago and even question why I had an opinion as I no longer owned a leasehold. Eventually, she saw the court's decisions and jumped on the fee simple bandwagon way late, but before most on the beach. So do I chastise the ignorance of folks who think the beach is being given away....you bet.....is that arrogance, yes it is like a child announcing that 2 plus 2 equals 4.....some will always judge that child as arrogant when without false modesty the answer is given, and that simply gets some angry. Of course Bob, T, Neko all would agree with your statement because nothing gave them more pleasure than proving me wrong.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:A decade of being told that the leaseholds would not pay taxes by arrogant and entitled folks on Navarre Beach, including Linda in the beginning on PB does not change the truth

This is nothing but a FLAT OUT LIE. YES, I believed taxation of unowned property (land AND improvements) was wrong, and I still do, and that was the only argument you and I had, FROM THE BEGINNING. You thought taxation of the leaseholds was right and proper, said you always thought the lack of taxes was an undeserved "gift" (your word at the time), and that you should've been taxed when you were a leaseholder on Navarre Beach. (And I replied, EASY FOR YOU TO SAY since you no longer leased property there -- THAT'S the "questioning" you recall, NOT "why were you interested.")

But NO, I NEVER believed we would not pay taxes; I had a good attorney friend here on the beach who quickly convinced me FROM THE OUTSET (early 2004) that the leaning/mindset of the courts was in favor of taxation and it was virtually inevitable. FROM THE BEGINNING.

And FROM THE BEGINNING, therefore, I was saying, in formal writings both in my opinion column on the website of the (now defunct) Pensacola Beach Residents and Leaseholders Assn. AND in opinion pieces in the PNJ, a couple entitled "TAX ME, TITLE ME", that if we're going to be taxed, then just give me fee simple title.

In late MARCH of 2004, I wrote the following as a postscript to one of those articles on the PBRLA website, after hearing that the first attempt at a title bill was stalled, largely due to the reluctance of our then-commissioner Tom Banjanin, who represented PB in his district but didn't like the idea of "giving" Navarre Beach to Santa Rosa County as the bill would require. And I've bolded for you in my email to the commissioners a sentence that clearly shows I never thought the leaseholders were likely to prevail in the tax suits:

An e-mail went out tonight to Banjanin and the other four Escambia County commissioners, urging them that:

“We thousands of Pensacola Beach leaseholders (and the many hundreds of others on Navarre Beach) need this legislation as a safety net against the prospect of paying taxes on what we don't own. And look, even if the current tax case by some stretch of the imagination should be successfully appealed by Navarre Beach leaseholders, the issue will only be raised -- and litigated -- again and again, as it has already been in the past, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and growing, plus much wasted time, aggravation, and continued ill will between county and beach residents.

“I believe it's time to put this to bed, Tom, get behind the Miller legislation, and get this thing done once and for all, as was done for Okaloosa years ago! I urge you and your fellow commissioners to please see the urgency here and get this draft legislation OK'd and back to Miller's office right away. There may not be another chance to get this done in who knows how long, and meanwhile the Escambia appraiser's office is already making noise about assessing taxes here come November.”

Local readers, if you’re behind this legislation - and it’s hard to imagine who wouldn’t be, when it makes taking title completely optional - please contact the commissioners yourself right away and urge them to get off their collective duff! ___Linda L. 3/28/04



All this was written BEFORE HURRICANE IVAN (09/16/04), AFTER which (along with everyone else) I discovered the PNJ forums. So don't you dare try to tell me that I was EVER one of your "sheep", early on or otherwise!!!

You, sir, owe me an apology.

View user profile
You, sir, owe me an apology.


Are you smoking something? A sizeable number of leaseholders wanted the fee simple of Okalooska island since the beginning, and you send an email without the context of the taxing cases like every beach leaseholder thinking you deserved something more......of course that is consistent, but not a bit relevant to our past conversations over the last decade plus. You did NOT think that paying taxes while a leasehold was correct. You attacked me (nothing new) for saying that equitable title required folks to pay for schools, roads, and public safety. I argued that fee simple after taxation was the answer, and you denied the taxation, and despite your self serving email which has NOTHING to do with our discussion of taxes, you did not want to pay taxes or did you EVER bring up fee simple initially because you were afraid of the mob.....as it was the strategy of the lawyers not to discuss the same. The truth which I certainly am going to remind you of forever is that you were part of that mob initially. Your attempt at revisionist history that somehow you were good with taxation and in the midst of angry leaseholders attacking my comments on the Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach community sections of the PNJ you were not part of the same is amazing. Of course you wanted something for nothing. I wanted fee simple immediately upon leases on the beach, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what was said during the tax debate on the PNJ, and you like once before are calling me a liar as to what you said knowing full well that there is no archive of those exchanges from the PNJ, which unlike here, I was able to post your very words to prove your calling me a liar about self outing yourself.....the email however is hilarious.....you do like to send your letters to the commissioners.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:You did NOT think that paying taxes while a leasehold was correct.  That is true, but that's the ONLY thing you're saying here that's true.You attacked me (nothing new) for saying that equitable title required folks to pay for schools, roads, and public safety. Your bringing in schools, roads and public safety made NO difference in my opinion as to taxability of leased property and your bringing it up both then and now is merely an attempt to make me look like a bad person who doesn't want to support her community. I argued that fee simple after taxation was the answer, and you denied the taxation, and despite your self serving email which has NOTHING to do with our discussion of taxes, I have NOT DENIED to you then or now that I thought taxes were inappropriate. But YOU have said here (and reiterate it in your post immediately below) that I was not in favor of title "early on", and THAT IS THE LIE because I was in favor of it FROM THE OUTSET INCLUDING ON THE PNJ FORUM AND IN AT LEAST ONE VIEWPOINT published in the the PNJ itself. you did not want to pay taxes or did you EVER bring up fee simple initially because you were afraid of the mob.....LIE LIE LIE and PROOF that you can't read.  I BROUGHT UP FEE SIMPLE FROM THE OUTSET, and was NEVER afraid of what my fellow leaseholders thought about that - NEVER.as it was the strategy of the lawyers not to discuss the same. ANOTHER COMPLETE FABRICATION.  JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE, as I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread which you obviously did not read.  It was the anti-title LEASEHOLDERS who were terrified of discussing title because they were afraid it would mess up their arguments/positions in the lawsuit.  The PB attorneys stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that it would make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the outcome of the case nor influence the judges in any way.  I can't BELIEVE how you make things up out of thin air!! You are SUCH a PIECE OF WORK.    The truth which I certainly am going to remind you of forever There is NO TRUTH WHATSOEVER in the balance of this post of yours.  I ALWAYS PREFERRED TITLE and even told you that part of the reason was that my husband, who had  been misled by our realtor long distance, said he never would have bought here had he known we wouldn't even own the HOUSE. The balance of this post is pure CRAP, B.S., and LIES. is that you were part of that mob initially.  Your attempt at revisionist history that somehow you were good with taxation and in the midst of angry leaseholders attacking my comments on the Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach community sections of the PNJ you were not part of the same is amazing.  Of course you wanted something for nothing.  I wanted fee simple immediately upon leases on the beach, but that is not what we are talking about.  We are talking about what was said during the tax debate on the PNJ, and you like once before are calling me a liar as to what you said knowing full well that there is no archive of those exchanges from the PNJ You can go STRAIGHT TO  HELL. The fact that I mis-remembered that one incident about being outed is NO cause to imply that I am prevaricating on everything else.  Unlike you, I am honest to a FAULT. which unlike here, I was able to post your very words to prove your calling me a liar about self outing yourself.....the email however is hilarious.....you do like to send your letters to the commissioners.I send letters to commissioners, and to the PNJ, and to other leaseholders, and to all the media who get the facts wrong whenever they do, and am otherwise active on the title issue JUST AS I'VE BEEN ALL ALONG, FROM THE BEGINNING, you thorough and complete A**HOLE!

View user profile
you thorough and complete A**HOLE!

yep, the truth stings a little bit, I get it.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I have given you far too much credit over the years.....you entirely did not understand the Supreme Court case.  It was PB seeking relief from the a lower court decision against them, and the Supreme Court denied cert based on the Navarre appellate cases and their decision regarding the same.  You denied any court case on PB used the Navarre Equitable title arguments, and you think the case is about airports....read the damn cite.   Again, this has nothing to do with some kind of aggravation game, and it really is ironic you accusing me of not reading when you completely did not understand the cite I gave you.  Again, it is not surprising that you argued against taxation for years....pretty much telling me the same thing.....that I cannot read......that leaseholders were promised not to have to pay taxes.....geeez, nobody has to get aggravated, just have to take the time to read a cite.....you cannot make this chit up.

Unlike your proud and arrogant self, I know when an apology is due and offer it, which I do here.  It's true that I didn't follow your link (and how many times have YOU ignored links posted on this forum, hm?) and, based on your references to the airport case(s), made a rash assumption that the cite was from that case, and not from Ariola v. Jones.  
Further, it appears that, although I read many, many of the court opinions that came down on this and the other island tax cases over the years, the initial Ariola v. Jones ruling in the original Escambia County circuit court case was something I apparently skipped, either  because of its length or because I was just sick of the whole thing and/or only cared that the PB leaseholders lost -- just as I'd predicted along with you from the outset, based on my good education from my attorney friend about the courts' current mindset.  
I also now realize I was completely misled as the Ariola case, as a couple of hundred other leaseholders were last year, in a meeting called by Portofino developer Robert Rinke and chaired by their attorney Ed Fleming, to enlighten us on that Portofino land case I brought up here earlier which resulted in some leased land, along with theirs in the Portofino case, not being taxable due to the leases' not being automatically renewable as the Navarre Beach leaseholds were.  
At that time, Fleming specifically told us that there was no going back to argue non-renewability on the IMPROVEMENTS because that case, Ariola v. Jones, was set in stone forever on the concept of USEFUL LIFE.  Fleming never mentioned equitable ownership but went into detail about the useful life concept that he indicated was the basis of the court's ruling in favor of Jones.  Anyone else who was present at that meeting (knothead, were you there, or already in departure mode?) will recall exactly the same thing.
Well, I now find Fleming was absolutely wrong to tell us that.  I have just spent a good amount of time reading most of the original circuit's decision in Ariola v. Jones (link below - PDF file), and it's clear this case WAS decided on the basis of equitable ownership, and that useful life was "not a determining factor" (see pg. 37 of the ruling).
So, again, I apologize, Seaoat, and I'll do it in bold font, not only for not following your link, but for thereby misunderstanding what case you were referring to, and also for erroneously citing useful life, not equitable ownership, as the basis of the ruling in the Ariola v. Jones PB improvements case, and for accusing you of not reading.  Obviously, I was the one who wasn't reading.  
All that said, your posts on this thread that attempt to say I was not BIG TIME in favor of title early on, and/or that I was not VERY VERBAL in EVERY WAY in favor, INCLUDING on the PNJ forum and elsewhere, is a total fabrication and mis-statement of FACT.    I have many other documents in my files to prove otherwise, even though, no, of course I can't duplicate the PNJ forums -- but (1) it makes no sense that I would publicly declare for title in various venues but be afraid to support it on those stupid forums where very few even knew who I was -- although you MAY be remembering that I didn't want people to know who I really was any more than you ever have, and (2) you are welcome to visit me here at home and review all my documents - emails, published pieces, whatever -- whenever you wish.  Maybe then - although I won't  hold my breath because I don't think I've ever seen you apologize for anything-- maybe then you'll finally apologize for saying I was one of the "sheep" and afraid to ask for title early on.   I BEGGED FOR TITLE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING and THAT, sir, is the simple truth, along with my very clearly admitted position that I did not want to pay taxes without holding title, the same as the vast majority of leaseholders here feel, now that they finally realize, as I've said all along, that title is the only answer.  (Commissioner Grover Robinson, in his last Pensacola Beach town hall meeting, acknowledged in front of the crowd that I had been after him about title from the outset.)

http://www.newmediaserver.net/fapa/resources/Order.12.09.1108_Ariola_v._Chris_Jones.pdf

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:you thorough and complete A**HOLE!

yep, the truth stings a little bit, I get it.

What stings is knowing that I've wasted so much time over the years and now, trying to communicate with such a person as you.

And your short attack response here is obviously a cover so you can continue refusing to admit even the slightest error in your position about where I was coming from about title, and when, on the PNJ forums. TYPICAL.

View user profile
Whatever.....fee simple is the right answer.

View user profile
In 2011 the Supreme Court denied review based on the prior precedent of equitable title on the Navarre Beach and the airport cases........this is not about me being right, it is simply about what the court decided.

I have read and enjoyed both Mr. Oats and Linda's points here and they both obviously are passionate in their own positions.  I won't belabor the points further but feel that after witnessing and living through the decades old dispute between main landers and islanders where the petty jealousies were lying just below the surface and manifested itself occasionally when folks from the mainland would get all huffy proclaiming the "beach" was as much theirs as the scalawags who had invested in the island and actually called PB home.

I will not set the stage further but Linda and Oatie are both cognizant of what I am saying . . . . . the tax-the-beach-movement originated within the power structure of Escambia County and after years of frustration on both sides the strategy of equitable ownership emerged as the latest legal vehicle to achieve the political bases' ultimate goal . . . . . tax the islanders. They won but was it fair in a strict legal sense? Hell no . . . . not at all but good lawyers outplayed the islanders.

When the Court allowed ruled stare decisis in 2011 regarding equitable ownership the Court, because of precedent of a previous case in NB, the Court turned their back on all those leaseholders on PB who had no language whatsoever regarding renewal after lease expiration . . . . this is a departure from the literal concept of [i]equitable ownership . . . . . every fee simple owner understands the difference and those leaseholders on PB were summarily disregarded.  It was wrong and I will always feel that the fixi] was in . . . . the good ole boys won the day . . . . . not something I will ever celebrate but it is now the reality.
[/i]

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Ya'll oughta change the title of this thread to "Rich White Peoples' Problems". Jesus, give it a rest!

Ya'll oughta change the title of this thread to "Rich White Peoples' Problems". Jesus, give it a rest!


ok, if you say so....

View user profile
Frenger, Freddie Jr. wrote:Ya'll oughta change the title of this thread to "Rich White Peoples' Problems". Jesus, give it a rest!

Welcome to the forum.   If you don't like this thread, which is a continuation of a years-long discussion, on and off, about an issue that's very important to some of us (obviously not to others), please feel free not to read it.  



Last edited by RealLindaL on 8/8/2017, 1:54 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
knothead wrote:
When the Court allowed ruled stare decisis in 2011 regarding equitable ownership the Court, because of precedent of a previous case in NB, the Court turned their back on all those leaseholders on PB who had no language whatsoever regarding renewal after lease expiration . . . . this is a departure from the literal concept of [i]equitable ownership . . . . . every fee simple owner understands the difference and those leaseholders on PB were summarily disregarded.  It was wrong and I will always feel that the fixi] was in . . . . the good ole boys won the day . . . . . not something I will ever celebrate but it is now the reality.
[/i]

Thank you for your thoughts and comments, knot. Appreciated as always. And you're right -- what it is, it is, but we can make the reality more palatable with the title option. As I've long said, no sense trading one resentful group (mainlanders) for another (islanders). We need county unity.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum