(NOTE: Moved as OT from thread entltled, "5 big problems the Senate Republican tax bill creates."
EmeraldGhost wrote:RealLindaL wrote:EmeraldGhost wrote: (but I am fully cognizant that nobody that matters cares or even listens to what I think .. not even Matt Gaetz who I just wrote to this morning about the Navarre Beach giveaway)
It's not a "giveaway." It's merely changing the form of ownership of already private, perpetually renewable leaseholds -- which do no Santa Rosa County citizen any good except for taxes and tourism -- from leases to titles, to put Navarre Beach taxpayers on equal footing with mainland property owners. SRC citizens lose nothing. They can't lose what they never had nor ever will.
Granted it's a shame the Santa Rosa County elected commissioners refused to sign onto the Preservation clause as Escambia County's BCC did for Pensacola Beach -- and hopefully Senator Nelson may remedy that somehow -- but even in its present form the bill does nothing whatsoever to change the existing conditions in that regard.
The pass is an entirely separate matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with the main purpose of the bill, which is to facilitate conveyance of fee simple title to leaseholders who opt to take it. It was some Congressional rep from a Southwestern state years back, when a similar bill had been intro'd by Jeff Miller, who decided to tack on an amendment preventing the re-cutting of the pass, that first stalled this effort. A form of blackmail, almost, penalizing leaseholders for no valid reason.
It's a shame because, again, one has nothing to do with the other, nor with who has title to the leaseholds. The re-opening of that pass has been dreamed about ever since it first closed in 1965, and that effort always should stand or fail on its own merits (or lack of same, see USAF for one), and should never have gotten tangled up in consideration of a title bill.
Well, we're off-topic here ... but let me just say I think this is really more about Navarre Beach than it is Pensacola Beach .. .and it's really not about property tax. Personally, I believe some big-money investors/developers have cast their collective eye upon Navarre Beach in particular as a potential gold-mine. And Matt Gaetz is their go-to guy to give them the figurative mineral rights. It's really kind of virgin territory for development. A juicy ripe plum to be picked. So yes, I'm skeptical. Highly skeptical.
As far as being "more about Navarre Beach" I'll agree only to the extent that a prior title bill initiated under Jeff Miller's watch, minus the new and important Preservation clause as to Pensacola Beach, had languished in recent past years' Congressional archives, unpassed, until Gaetz revived it -- and Gaetz owes a lot to the folks in Santa Rosa County who helped him in his political efforts. Gaetz and Rob Williamson did opt not to include themselves in Grover Robinson's Preservation clause, presumably because a certain amount of undeveloped land would not be preserved but rather would be eyed for development surrounding, say, the entrance to a pass, were it ever re-cut. (Aside: That's something that's been dreamed about ever since the first pass was closed by Betsy, and it ain't likely to ever happen, but, as you say later, that's a topic for another day.)
But that's as far as I'll go on the "more about Navarre Beach" concept, as you stated it. For one thing, PBeach is the far bigger piece, especially when it comes to preserving undeveloped public lands, beaches and accesses. Our piece of that totals something like 2,000 acres, whereas NBeach has only about a tenth of that or less available. We also have the far greater population. Example (speaking from memory): the plaintiff properties in the original NBeach improvements tax case numbered 800; PBeach's plaintiff properties on improvements, around 2,400.
And there's one huge fly in the ointment, a major flaw in the logic, if you will, that undercuts the entire concern about any of this being a boon for developers, and that is this one, very simple, very true fact: Anything, and I do mean anything, that people say they fear or dislike, whether it's a pass being cut or condo canyons, could happen just as easily under the leasing system as under ownership. The leasing system -- leases vs. titles -- is NOT protective against any of it. I could spend an entire page validating that statement but here's the easiest way to back up what I'm saying: Look around: every single bit of development that has transpired on both beaches since 1947 has been accomplished on leased, not owned, property -- and that includes the 1965 pass, which was cut after NBeach was leased to SRC in 1956. Think about it. Lack of title makes not a whit of difference to developers. Not one whit. See more on that below.
A few questions for you.
OK, Emerald, am going to try to answer them for you to the best of my ability, with the following caveat and a small request:
The caveat is I've made the mistake of starting this at bedtime, so my brain is not its sharpest (sorry) -- not to mention the fact that my enthusiasm is naturally somewhat curbed tonight by what looks like the apparent stall of this effort (yet again) for at least another year, probably longer. I can only hope that you and/or anyone else reading this may take something away from it to help you further understand and thus perhaps not fear the move to fee simple if/when similar legislation is once more introduced.
The small request has to do with the fact (NOT your fault) that I've spent literally hours of my time on and off writing about this topic on this forum, and have had little or no response in many cases. So since you're asking, I'm answering, but I only ask that you please do me the courtesy of responding in kind to at least some small extent, whether you agree, disagree, or remain neutral, if only so I'll know you read it. Any resultant, further questions, of course, are always welcome, but preferably after at least some comment on what's already been said. Fair enough? I hope so, 'cause here goes:
1. Will gulf/sound front leaseholders now "given" fee-simple title own their property down to the high-tide line?
I can't speak to the Sound side because I haven't personally researched it, mostly because what most people worry about is the Gulf front. It can easily be looked at another day. Also, I don't know how NBeach was laid out as to the Gulf front, though you can probably pretty easily find out yourself by looking at Greg Brown's maps. What I do know for certain is that the Gulf-front lots east of the fishing pier on PBeach have specific, defined lot lines on all four sides, the south boundaries ending at or north of the dunes -- so NO, those lots definitely do not extend to mean high tide, and granting title will be as to the lots as currently drawn. (This, btw, is why the Pensacola News Journal's recent big. scary spread about arguments between beachgoers and adjacent property owners on other Florida beaches was entirely bogus. It doesn't apply here; what makes us special is our layout, not our leases. I know for a fact the PNJ editorial board knows all this, but they've been on a righteous rant against this bill from the outset and will not use logic, as it doesn't suit their agenda.)
But to continue: There are a few large parcels west of the PBeach pier (examples: Margaritaville Hotel; Sans Souci condos) where, for some unknown reason, the lot lines were drawn to extend to mean high water. As I understand it from Grover, the intent of the Escambia BCC, if and when fee simple is offered, is to condition the proffering of title to those properties upon a re-draw to include a defined south lot line, and/or (whichever the attorneys et al agree upon) a deeded restriction against impeding public access.
But Emerald, once more there's a major flaw in the logic of worrying about adjacent property holders' impeding access upon being granted title. Look: Even as leased, if their lot lines did extend to mean high tide, they'd arguably have a case for attempting to impede access behind their lots right now. And in fact that's the situation with those westernmost properties this very minute (they do arguably have that right); it's their forbearance that has kept the beaches open. Here's the thing I'm trying to say (remember, it''s late: Leaseholders have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property and can put up no trespassing signs to their hearts' content (and some do, right now, as you'll notice here and there if you travel the streets on PBeach). If arguments and legal entanglements such as are happening elsewhere were going to happen here, Emerald, they'd already be happening. Again, leases are NOT the protective factor here, and no one can prove they are. It's lot lines in most cases; individual forbearance in others.
It's the same factor I brought up above: anything that's feared from titles could just as easily happen today, or anytime in the past many decades, under the leasing system. You can say that ownership gives people some sense of entitlement so they'll do worse things, but that's pure speculation. The lots are the lots are the lots.
(And while we're talking about entitlement, the apparent sense of ownership of the island that mainland visitors feel is sometimes nastily expressed; I have Gulf-front acquaintances who've had to install surveillance systems because of surfers' and others' helping themselves to the leaseholder's outside water - sometimes 'forgetting' to turn off the faucet when they leave, so you can imagine the bill if the leaseholder's away -- or, even worse, urinating and/or defecating on the leaseholder's under-piling slabs. I kid you not. Just saying.)
2. Do you think the value of properties will go up because once they become fee-simple title rather than a leasehold?
Beach properties (at least in Escambia County) are already the hottest ticket on the market, so no, I don't see an appreciable difference, though I suppose there could be a modest uptick over time. But neither I nor any other leaseholder I know is looking for that to happen. It's just not a consideration in this entire effort. And I'm not saying this is you, Emerald, but, frankly, any title naysayer who considers us leaseholders to be looking for big gains while (in their eyes) risking the cut-off of access to the very beaches where we ourselves dwell, is deeply misguided -- not to mention insulting as hell. How stupid or insane do they think we are??
3. Do you think real estate investment groups will begin buying up all of the individual properties they can in order to later convince (buy) local officials into allowing them to consolidate lots and rezone them for hotels, high-rises, and commercial? Or consolidate lots to build gulf-front mega-mansions?
Absolutely no, I don't think that. That's all part of the rather paranoid hysteria that's been encouraged by the protesting groups and others.
BTW, you use the "buy" word above as to local officials in an obvious intent to convey that our officials are subject to bribery. If you have specific evidence of corruption of any such currently serving official, I'd sure like to know about it.
Meantime, once more, the answer to your question is a resounding no, for the same reasons cited above: Any of this could've happened already if it were going to. Leasehold interests are bought and sold daily, so any developer wanting to make such an attempt could do so today. Again, remember: leases or titles, makes NO difference to developers, as has clearly been demonstrated. And if county officials as to PBeach, say, were open to changing the very successful land use plan and zoning regs, raising bed count limits, etc., and otherwise changing the face of this award-winning beach destination, they could've done it already, but they'd be nuts to do so and they know it.
There was a recent exception request here to combine a couple of lots in the single family neighborhoods, and it was swiftly denied.
As for mega-mansions, as far as I'm concerned they're already being built on PBeach Gulf-side roads (Ariola and Maldonado), except I call them "Mini-Motel 6's". Plenty of room for them on single lots. Trouble is, they're businesses, not truly single family dwellings -- built for and advertised as event locales. But that's an annoying topic for another day, and, under current Florida law, unfortunately not much can be done to prevent them -- again, whether property is leased or owned.
4. What percentage of beach property owners do you think are not actual year-round Florida residents? What percentage are investment/rental properties? What percentage are owned by wealthy individual nonresident out-of-State persons? What percentage are corporate/LLC owned? What percentage are not homestead properties. (you can add all those up together in one number if you like ... my impression, having lived on Navarre Beach for a year and being a frequent visitor there for five more is that number is probably over 90%)
You live on Navarre Beach? So you're a leaseholder there, or a renter? Just wondering, especially as your avatar info says you're from Pace. But to your question, not being a walking encyclopedia (sorry) I don't have any stats for NBeach and, as to PBeach, all I can tell you is that there are approximately 4,000 property accounts on Chris Jones' books, and that the 2010 census showed 2,800 actual residents. Right now, as to new homes being built (and single family construction has been steady and widespread for several years now), it'd be a guess as to how many are homesteaded. In my immediate neighborhood there's a mix, slightly more homesteaded than not, and more of those than, say, in the years immediately following Ivan, as more beach dwellers lose their fear of storms and return. (They'll be sorry. lol) The percentage of non-homesteaded houses rises, of course, the closer one gets to the Gulf. That's where the real vacation rental money is, and, thanks in good part to taxation, fewer and fewer locals have been able to retain even long-standing family properties on the Gulf.
5. Since leaseholders knew the terms of the leases when they signed up for them, and the FL Supreme Court has ruled taxation of their improvements is allowable (something I disagreed with btw .. but so be it), how are they further harmed by not giving them fee-simple title?
Conversely ... how do leaseholders benefit? (they will still have to pay property tax on both the land and the improvements.) And if they do benefit ... where is the compensation to the residents of Escambia & Santa Rosa County for giving them this benefit? (the property belongs to the all of the residents of Escambia County, btw per the original land grant)
One thing at a time, please. First, I take strong exception to your first sentence, because it presumes that every leaseholder arrived here after the early 2000's (2004. as to PBeach; not sure when Greg Brown first imposed taxes on NBeach). Prior to that, especially because the Florida Supreme Court had ruled against taxation of four properties that went to court to fight a similar attempt in the mid-1980's (those four are still tax-free, believe it or not), everyone still relied on the long-standing quid pro quo promise of no taxes in return for no ownership (the ultimately phony carrot that the county used back in the day to lure people out here to develop this weed-and-bug-infested island). And that includes my family, who arrived in 2000. (Aside: Our realtor erroneously informed us long-distance buyers that we'd own the improvements, just not the land. Our bad for not reading the fine print until after taxation hit us, but no leaseholder on either beach has title to one brick of any improvements they or their predecessors built - something no one wants to talk about but it's 100% fact.)
As to the Florida Supreme Court's ruling on improvements, just fyi, if you read some of the more current appeals court proceedings as to taxes on the land -- which taxes, btw, are being successfully overturned in many cases on PBeach where some relatively newer lease renewal clauses were written to be non-perpetual -- the courts themselves are letting us know that the reason improvements were ruled taxable on PBeach was because our attorneys failed to present any evidence regarding "useful life" - a legal failing, but there you are, and another topic I can elaborate on another day. But that explains why, where lease renewal clauses are not perpetual and thus the courts are ruling against taxes on the land, the same doesn't apply to the improvements, which, after all, are part of the exact same leased property -- it's strictly because of the way that PBeach case was argued, and those 2,400 properties are locked into improvements taxes for the duration, regardless of whether or not the leases are perpetually renewable. Welcome to our wonderful justice system.
(Meanwhile, both land and improvements taxes are locked in 100% on NBeach, as you know, because all of those leases are automatically renewed ad infinitum.)
And now it's after 2 a.m., so if you don't mind, besides asking forgiveness for any typo's or other errors, which I'll try to correct another time, I must leave the rest of this multi-part question for sometime tomorrow or tomorrow night, as I most definitely have answers for you. (Hope you're not sorry you asked. ) So if you want to hold off any further questions/topics 'til I finish with these, that'd be great.
"The Pass" of course, is a separate (but related IMO) issue and I'll reserve discussion of that for the time being.
I'm all for that. Goodnight, LL.