Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Answering Emerald Ghost's questions re fee simple title

+3
Floridatexan
knothead
RealLindaL
7 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

RealLindaL



(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.   Laughing )  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.  

RealLindaL



OK Emerald, continuing in the attempt to answer the balance of your multi-part question No. 5 above, as follows:

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)


Yes, yes, of course I understand the property belongs to Escambia County (and thus its citizens), to the exact same extent as any other property under county ownership (even though the courts have called us leaseholders 'owners' for tax purposes).   And I guess it must be a "feel good" thing for those citizens to sit up on the mainland and enjoy knowing they own our land and homes and other buildings, even though not one acre of leased land nor one brick of a leased building does them any good to "own" whatsoever, since it's all private and unavailable for their use or passage, and since the real estate value itself is determined by, and accrues to the sole benefit of, the leaseholders in their decades-long buy/sell transactions on the market.

(And I'm not sure why you think mainland Santa Rosa County citizens should be compensated in any way; they don't own bupkus on Navarre Beach, at least not until Escambia County freely grants title to that portion of the island to SRC - which, btw, it currently can't do without this title legislation. But see more on the 'compensation' issue farther below.)

As for how the leaseholders are "further harmed" by not having title?  Well we can begin with the well-known fact that leaseholders are now paying both property taxes and lease fees of varying amounts.  Do mainlanders have to pay both?  Of course not.  Can the lease fees simply be abolished, or reduced to $1 a year, as some have suggested? Nope, at least not according to a recent past Florida AGO (Attorney General's Opinion) stating that the offset of taxes in that manner would be strictly illegal.   People are not allowed to "get out of" paying any or all of their property taxes by being 'reimbursed' via the back door, so to speak.  

(I'm not sure how SRC got away with reducing all lease fees to a flat $250 a year, at least for non-commercial properties.  Escambia cut our lease fees in half but that was justified by the county's taking over 50% of the SRIA budget, formerly funded 100% by lease fees and now half by the county, ostensibly via our property taxes.)

But to me and most other leaseholders who are passionate about title, that remaining "double taxation" (as some call it) is the least of it -- even though it's often played havoc with housing budgets, especially for us retirees.  No, for many of us, it's the principle of having to pay property taxes on something we can never truly and legitimately own, court rulings or no court rulings.  It's just wrong, Emerald.   And the easiest way to gauge how wrong it is is to ask any honest mainland property owner whether he would trade his title for a lease.

We all know the answer is absolutely not.   It's a jarring thought for them, isn't is?  Yes it is.  Titles MEAN something, indefinable though it may be.  Are you a homeowner? Can you understand that?

You remind me that if we have title we'll have to pay taxes on land and improvements.  Yes, and let me tell you just how important title is:  my family's property on PBeach is one of those recently exempted from land tax due to a court ruling regarding the non-perpetual renewal language in our lease.   We are willing to pay those taxes again, in addition to the improvements taxes (which are higher, btw, than on the land, as is true in many cases), in return for the privilege of holding title.  Yes, the land taxes will be partially offset by the end of lease fees once the lease is vacated, but only partially.  

Not everything is about money.

As an aside, you and anyone else worried about any supposed over-development resulting from the passage of title (thanks to all those developers waiting in the wings, even though nobody has ever named even one), should take comfort from the fact that the main body of folks pushing for title are homesteaders.  All those absentee owners and investors and LLC's apparently couldn't care less.   They're obviously NOT expecting a windfall from this, and have no interest in pride of ownership; they can enjoy that at their homes, not their rental properties.  Think about that, please. These investors are the precise ones who'd be pushing for this if there was a likelihood of major market profits due to this supposed "land grab" or "beach theft" or whatever other baloney label the protesters love to stick us with.  I'm telling you, the developer threat is a complete myth, and I could write another complete essay on the origins of that myth in this effort, but, lucky for you, I won't.  lol

Anyway, while we're on pluses or minuses for leaseholders, all of the above is aside from the fact that there are some rather onerous provisions in the lease agreement itself, aside from the one that says title to what we build, improve, and maintain vests "forthwith" in the county as soon as built.   For instance -- and though it hasn't been enforced in recent years -- there's a requirement to replace one's building within a certain amount of time if it's destroyed.   I'm not just talking about clearing a lot of debris; I'm talking about putting up a new building on a deadline, or risking the cancellation of the lease, with no compensation for monies paid to obtain it.  Do mainland taxpayers have anything like that hanging over their heads, whether or not currently enforced?  And that's only one provision.  There are others.  

Now I must remind you that we took leases in lieu of titles under the clear understanding that we'd never pay property taxes.  That county promise has been broken big time.  Even newer arrivals on the island have believed the efforts to gain title would prevail, though I suppose they have somewhat less of a leg to stand on.

Meanwhile we pay property taxes (and lease fees, which in some cases are substantial), and live under the threat of some onerous lease terms and conditions, but are denied the pride and privilege of true home ownership, a treasured value as American as apple pie (even though some like Deus like to ridicule that value.).

And taking a much larger view, what we end up with. Emerald, is a situation that's divisive for the entire area.  When I first moved here, the mainland mantra was "All those rich fat cats on the beach don't pay their fair share" (because we weren't paying ad valorem taxes).  People loved to hate us. Now we simply trade one resentful group for another.  How is that conducive to county harmony and unity?  It's not.  It's bad for everyone.

And speaking of nuts, in Escambia, the years-long, still-ongoing tax suits and resultant varying court decisions have created one royal mess when it comes to who pays property taxes on what, and this situation has played havoc with county budgeting -- which hurts everyone in the county.  I could write an entire treatise just on that negative result of keeping this archaic, dissonant leasing system in place.  It just no longer makes sense, Emerald, it truly doesn't.  

Since the leaseholds are private, doing no mainlander any good whatsoever except for taxes and tourism, and since it's apparent to anyone who thinks about it that leases will be renewed (and are already being renewed), regardless of variations in renewal terms from house to house, as Grover says, we may as well grant title.  

Emerald, this is just the right thing for the county to do for its island citizens, to put them on equal footing with their mainland counterparts.

We need to make the paperwork match the reailty, and be done with it.

Now you ask about compensation for non-island citizens.  The first question they have to ask themselves is, what, exactly, are they losing?  Can you define that?  This is my question for you, and I ask that you seriously consider your response.  

Also please keep in mind that, aside from the fact that no county citizen has nor likely ever will have beneficial use of any leased property, the federal deed you've cited above forbids Escambia County (and thus, by your definition, its citizens) from ever reaping "windfall profits" from the sale of the gifted land.   Further, the legislation that was under consideration apparently until this week, carries the same provision.  

The bottom line, Emerald, is that you can't lose what you never really had -- and, once more, what exactly are you losing, how can it possibly hurt you, and why do you expect compensation?

And  here it is after two a.m. again - nope, going on three.  Good grief. Gotta wrap this up.

I can only hope this helps clarify a few things for you and perhaps others.  The subject is huge and far-reaching, and the protest groups have done the public a major disservice by condensing it all into the the deeply misleading and entirely false category of a land grab, playing on fears instead of facts.

Meantime the unprecedented protections that would've been afforded at least one of the beaches (PBeach) under the legislation's new and excellent Preservation clause, have been effectively quashed by those who pretend to be "saving our beaches."   BULL.

Please let me hear your comments, Emerald.   I'm telling you, I'm speaking truth here -- not rumor, supposition, conspiracy theory, fears or feelings --  just the facts, pure and simple.  I hope you can see that.

Please also forgive the jumbled nature of all the above; again, this is a very complex issue and it's hard to even know where to start, much less where to finish.

Goodnight again,
LindaL

knothead

knothead

RealLindaL wrote:OK Emerald, continuing in the attempt to answer the balance of your multi-part question No. 5 above, as follows:

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)


Yes, yes, of course I understand the property belongs to Escambia County (and thus its citizens), to the exact same extent as any other property under county ownership (even though the courts have called us leaseholders 'owners' for tax purposes).   And I guess it must be a "feel good" thing for those citizens to sit up on the mainland and enjoy knowing they own our land and homes and other buildings, even though not one acre of leased land nor one brick of a leased building does them any good to "own" whatsoever, since it's all private and unavailable for their use or passage, and since the real estate value itself is determined by, and accrues to the sole benefit of, the leaseholders in their decades-long buy/sell transactions on the market.

(And I'm not sure why you think mainland Santa Rosa County citizens should be compensated in any way; they don't own bupkus on Navarre Beach, at least not until Escambia County freely grants title to that portion of the island to SRC - which, btw, it currently can't do without this title legislation. But see more on the 'compensation' issue farther below.)

As for how the leaseholders are "further harmed" by not having title?  Well we can begin with the well-known fact that leaseholders are now paying both property taxes and lease fees of varying amounts.  Do mainlanders have to pay both?  Of course not.  Can the lease fees simply be abolished, or reduced to $1 a year, as some have suggested? Nope, at least not according to a recent past Florida AGO (Attorney General's Opinion) stating that the offset of taxes in that manner would be strictly illegal.   People are not allowed to "get out of" paying any or all of their property taxes by being 'reimbursed' via the back door, so to speak.  

(I'm not sure how SRC got away with reducing all lease fees to a flat $250 a year, at least for non-commercial properties.  Escambia cut our lease fees in half but that was justified by the county's taking over 50% of the SRIA budget, formerly funded 100% by lease fees and now half by the county, ostensibly via our property taxes.)

But to me and most other leaseholders who are passionate about title, that remaining "double taxation" (as some call it) is the least of it -- even though it's often played havoc with housing budgets, especially for us retirees.  No, for many of us, it's the principle of having to pay property taxes on something we can never truly and legitimately own, court rulings or no court rulings.  It's just wrong, Emerald.   And the easiest way to gauge how wrong it is is to ask any honest mainland property owner whether he would trade his title for a lease.

We all know the answer is absolutely not.   It's a jarring thought for them, isn't is?  Yes it is.  Titles MEAN something, indefinable though it may be.  Are you a homeowner? Can you understand that?

You remind me that if we have title we'll have to pay taxes on land and improvements.  Yes, and let me tell you just how important title is:  my family's property on PBeach is one of those recently exempted from land tax due to a court ruling regarding the non-perpetual renewal language in our lease.   We are willing to pay those taxes again, in addition to the improvements taxes (which are higher, btw, than on the land, as is true in many cases), in return for the privilege of holding title.  Yes, the land taxes will be partially offset by the end of lease fees once the lease is vacated, but only partially.  

Not everything is about money.

As an aside, you and anyone else worried about any supposed over-development resulting from the passage of title (thanks to all those developers waiting in the wings, even though nobody has ever named even one), should take comfort from the fact that the main body of folks pushing for title are homesteaders.  All those absentee owners and investors and LLC's apparently couldn't care less.   They're obviously NOT expecting a windfall from this, and have no interest in pride of ownership; they can enjoy that at their homes, not their rental properties.  Think about that, please. These investors are the precise ones who'd be pushing for this if there was a likelihood of major market profits due to this supposed "land grab" or "beach theft" or whatever other baloney label the protesters love to stick us with.  I'm telling you, the developer threat is a complete myth, and I could write another complete essay on the origins of that myth in this effort, but, lucky for you, I won't.  lol

Anyway, while we're on pluses or minuses for leaseholders, all of the above is aside from the fact that there are some rather onerous provisions in the lease agreement itself, aside from the one that says title to what we build, improve, and maintain vests "forthwith" in the county as soon as built.   For instance -- and though it hasn't been enforced in recent years -- there's a requirement to replace one's building within a certain amount of time if it's destroyed.   I'm not just talking about clearing a lot of debris; I'm talking about putting up a new building on a deadline, or risking the cancellation of the lease, with no compensation for monies paid to obtain it.  Do mainland taxpayers have anything like that hanging over their heads, whether or not currently enforced?  And that's only one provision.  There are others.  

Now I must remind you that we took leases in lieu of titles under the clear understanding that we'd never pay property taxes.  That county promise has been broken big time.  Even newer arrivals on the island have believed the efforts to gain title would prevail, though I suppose they have somewhat less of a leg to stand on.

Meanwhile we pay property taxes (and lease fees, which in some cases are substantial), and live under the threat of some onerous lease terms and conditions, but are denied the pride and privilege of true home ownership, a treasured value as American as apple pie (even though some like Deus like to ridicule that value.).

And taking a much larger view, what we end up with. Emerald, is a situation that's divisive for the entire area.  When I first moved here, the mainland mantra was "All those rich fat cats on the beach don't pay their fair share" (because we weren't paying ad valorem taxes).  People loved to hate us. Now we simply trade one resentful group for another.  How is that conducive to county harmony and unity?  It's not.  It's bad for everyone.

And speaking of nuts, in Escambia, the years-long, still-ongoing tax suits and resultant varying court decisions have created one royal mess when it comes to who pays property taxes on what, and this situation has played havoc with county budgeting -- which hurts everyone in the county.  I could write an entire treatise just on that negative result of keeping this archaic, dissonant leasing system in place.  It just no longer makes sense, Emerald, it truly doesn't.  

Since the leaseholds are private, doing no mainlander any good whatsoever except for taxes and tourism, and since it's apparent to anyone who thinks about it that leases will be renewed (and are already being renewed), regardless of variations in renewal terms from house to house, as Grover says, we may as well grant title.  

Emerald, this is just the right thing for the county to do for its island citizens, to put them on equal footing with their mainland counterparts.

We need to make the paperwork match the reailty, and be done with it.

Now you ask about compensation for non-island citizens.  The first question they have to ask themselves is, what, exactly, are they losing?  Can you define that?  This is my question for you, and I ask that you seriously consider your response.  

Also please keep in mind that, aside from the fact that no county citizen has nor likely ever will have beneficial use of any leased property, the federal deed you've cited above forbids Escambia County (and thus, by your definition, its citizens) from ever reaping "windfall profits" from the sale of the gifted land.   Further, the legislation that was under consideration apparently until this week, carries the same provision.  

The bottom line, Emerald, is that you can't lose what you never really had -- and, once more, what exactly are you losing, how can it possibly hurt you, and why do you expect compensation?

And  here it is after two a.m. again - nope, going on three.  Good grief. Gotta wrap this up.

I can only hope this helps clarify a few things for you and perhaps others.  The subject is huge and far-reaching, and the protest groups have done the public a major disservice by condensing it all into the the deeply misleading and entirely false category of a land grab, playing on fears instead of facts.

Meantime the unprecedented protections that would've been afforded at least one of the beaches (PBeach) under the legislation's new and excellent Preservation clause, have been effectively quashed by those who pretend to be "saving our beaches."   BULL.

Please let me hear your comments, Emerald.   I'm telling you, I'm speaking truth here -- not rumor, supposition, conspiracy theory, fears or feelings --  just the facts, pure and simple.  I hope you can see that.

Please also forgive the jumbled nature of all the above; again, this is a very complex issue and it's hard to even know where to start, much less where to finish.

Goodnight again,
LindaL

*****************************************************

Linda your command of the issues surrounding this controversy are indeed impressive, in fact, I would challenge anyone from Tommy Campanella to Grover Robinson to match your acumen on this topic, they would fail miserably. The resistance has always been an illusive and irrational fear of an imaginary thing being done to them or taken from them and this irrational fear stokes a resistance among mainlanders while being continually used as a fear tactic. Yes Linda I read every word and can feel and share your frustration even though your arguments address every single objection. I miss the island so much and I miss my dear friends but the level of ignorance ingrained among the populace is astounding . . . .

Lastly, you missed your calling . . . .

RealLindaL



knothead wrote:
Linda your command of the issues surrounding this controversy are indeed impressive, in fact, I would challenge anyone from Tommy Campanella to Grover Robinson to match your acumen on this topic, they would fail miserably.  The resistance has always been an illusive and irrational fear of an imaginary thing being done to them or taken from them and this irrational fear stokes a resistance among mainlanders while being continually used as a fear tactic. Yes Linda I read every word and can feel and share your frustration even though your arguments address every single objection. I miss the island so much and I miss my dear friends but the level of ignorance ingrained among the populace is astounding . . . .

Lastly, you missed your calling . . . .  

Knot, I can't tell you how much your post means to me.  Thank you most sincerely.

As for Thomas Campanella (he'd kill you for calling him Tommy - lol), the supposed representative of the leaseholders on the Santa Rosa Island Authority board, I can't recall if we've talked about this before but he's one of the WORST offenders, constantly battling title with false statements.   He's had the gall to continue purveying the misinformation that the leases actually contain the  zoning protections.   Yes, he actually SAID that to me, knot, and has also told similar untruths in the PNJ and elsewhere in the media.  

In fact I have in my files an angry email from Grover Robinson specifically chiding Campanella for spreading such untruths and, since it's a matter of public record, I'd be happy to share the text here if anyone wants to see it.   But Grover told me that Thomas never even responded to that email.  

(On the other  hand, I don't know anyone, including myself, who's ever had an email response of any kind from Campanella; many of us wonder whether or not  he even knows how to use a computer or a keyboard.  Of course he doesn't call, either, so obviously prefers to avoid any discussion of an uncomfortable issue.)

And while certain folks are insinuating that pro-title politicians are on the take, maybe Campanella's adamant protection of the leasing system (and thus, he apparently believes, the perpetuation of the SRIA), especially using blatant falsehoods, should also be considered suspect.   Heck, maybe some (like the PNJ's extremely biased anti-title reporter Melissa Nelson Gabriel, whom I've heard called a shill for Campanella) might want to ask themselves why Thomas is so dead set against title.   Could it be he fears losing his $800 a month salary as an SRIA Board member in his retirement, and/or maybe, more likely, his feeling of status and power, holding that seat for so long and being a big fish in that little sea?  

I still can't believe the leaseholders were idiotic enough last time to re-elect   a person who does NOT represent their best interests.  Of course he barely beat out pro-title Pensacola Beach Advocates president Terry Preston then, and I'm betting he'd lose to her today were the election held again.  (Sadly, she doesn't want to run again, and I don't blame her.)

Sorry, I do go on, as you've seen more than once.     Smile

Anyway, thanks once more, knot, for your deeply valued support.   I know our beach community misses you very much, too.   I feel you could've made a big difference in this effort, the way you grab hold of something and run with it, as demonstrated by your admirable efforts in bringing about the much needed LaFitte Cove dredging.

As for missing my calling, I'm not sure what you had in mind, but if it was politics, no way.  I would've been dead before I was 60 if I had to regularly deal with the kind of blatantly underhanded tactics I've seen from the opposition on this issue, and that includes the so-called journalists with our so-called newspaper, the Pensacola News Journal.   They are un-blanking-believable in their absolute refusal to embrace truth and fact, which I know for a fact they've been presented with six ways from Sunday, and not just by myself, but by the PBA board, and by Grover Robinson, including in his opinion pieces they love to ignore.  The PNJ also stated to the PBA that people's "feelings" on this issue trump the facts.   What kind of "responsible journalism" is THAT, Mr. Marlette?*

*(Knot, that's a reference to Andy's opinion column in today's paper, bashing   Matt Gaetz for bashing the PNJ's factless handling of the title issue.  No love lost for Gaetz in general, but he's absolutely right in this regard.)

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


The following conditions were specified in Escambia County's 1947 Deed of Conveyance:

…the above described land shall be retained by the said Escambia County and be used by it for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest or be leased by it from time to time in whole or in part or parts to such persons and for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest and upon such terms and conditions as it shall fix and always be subject to regulation by said county whether leased or not leased, but never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed by it;…[1]

http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/Ownership_of_Santa_Rosa_Island

********

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Not ignoring your thread, 'LindaL' .... just there's a lot you wrote to take in and address there, and it's not exactly on top of my reading list lately.

I will get back to you on it though.

RealLindaL



EmeraldGhost wrote:Not ignoring your thread, 'LindaL' .... just there's a lot you wrote to take in and address there, and it's not exactly on top of my reading list lately.  

I will get back to you on it though.

Thanks for your note, 'EmeraldGhost'. I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Yes, there's a lot to take in, but you asked a number of questions and, like the entire fee simple issue, a proper understanding involves...well....understanding, and that takes time and effort. Much easier to wave a "Save our Beaches!" or "Don't sell to the highest bidder!" sign than to take the time to truly research the facts and realize there simply is no threat. But what fun is that, to the crusaders??

RealLindaL



Floridatexan wrote:
The following conditions were specified in Escambia County's 1947 Deed of Conveyance:

…the above described land shall be retained by the said Escambia County and be used by it for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest or be leased by it from time to time in whole or in part or parts to such persons and for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest and upon such terms and conditions as it shall fix and always be subject to regulation by said county whether leased or not leased, but never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed by it;…[1]

http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/Ownership_of_Santa_Rosa_Island

********

Thank you, FT, for cutting and pasting the deed language we've all read and heard about 15,000 times over the past few months.

Now here's a scoop for you: you can tell all your protesting friends and acquaintances about it, and they'll be amazed.

As it turns out, the language of the subject deed was not written by/required by the feds, but by little old Escambia County itself.  Yep, I kid you not.

See the 2008 book, "Deceit Beach," by local islander and historian Bill post, Pgs. 13 and 14.  With backup documentation (which I can't copy in total here) it reads, in part,

"A widely held misconception by the public and government officials is that the Federal Government required the provision, "leased but never to be conveyed," for turning over the property to Escambia County. It was, in fact, requested by the County Commissioners and the Island Board and not a requirement of the Federal Government. The verbiage requested by Escambia County Commissioners is identical to that found in the Deed of Conveyance."

How about them apples, eh?  Bet that won't see much of the light of day.

But that's really neither here nor there, is it?  The important thing is that, whoever wrote the language, it was incorporated as a federal deed restriction under an act of Congress, which is precisely why it will take an act of Congress to undo it --despite all the doom and gloom PNJ warnings about this being "federal overreach," which is pure hogwash.
 
And before you try to say that acts of Congress can't be undone, or should never be undone for any reason, think again.

Look, no one in 1947 had any idea what would become of these island communities and how things would change, but they sure did, and property taxation was the biggest trigger.  Times change, situations change, communities adjust as best they can to the exigent realities, and this change is for the better for reasons that have amply been shown here and on other threads.

Right now, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach are simply unincorporated communities of their respective counties, just like any other community, except we happen to be located adjacent to large public 'park' lands.   We enjoy the same access to those parks as any other citizen of the county, the state, or the world - no more, no less -- and converting the ALREADY PRIVATE leaseholds of the abutting community to fee simple title changes NOTHING for the island visitor.  NOTHING.

Yes, it really and truly is that simple.  Protection of access AND control of development are not dependent on the leasing system, period the end - in fact, have nothing to do with it.

But let's see whether FT wants to discuss things, or do another cut and paste, or just ignore me once again while she posts elsewhere.

As for me, I would've answered you sooner, FT, but had to attend to a medical procedure.  At least I answered  you -- and showed you the courtesy of spending some time doing it -- whether or not you like the factual nature of the response.

Telstar

Telstar

RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
The following conditions were specified in Escambia County's 1947 Deed of Conveyance:

…the above described land shall be retained by the said Escambia County and be used by it for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest or be leased by it from time to time in whole or in part or parts to such persons and for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest and upon such terms and conditions as it shall fix and always be subject to regulation by said county whether leased or not leased, but never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed by it;…[1]

http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/Ownership_of_Santa_Rosa_Island

********

Thank you, FT, for cutting and pasting the deed language we've all read and heard about 15,000 times over the past few months.

Now here's a scoop for you: you can tell all your protesting friends and acquaintances about it, and they'll be amazed.

As it turns out, the language of the subject deed was not written by/required by the feds, but by little old Escambia County itself.  Yep, I kid you not.

See the 2008 book, "Deceit Beach," by local islander and historian Bill post, Pgs. 13 and 14.  With backup documentation (which I can't copy in total here) it reads, in part,

"A widely held misconception by the public and government officials is that the Federal Government required the provision, "leased but never to be conveyed," for turning over the property to Escambia County. It was, in fact, requested by the County Commissioners and the Island Board and not a requirement of the Federal Government. The verbiage requested by Escambia County Commissioners is identical to that found in the Deed of Conveyance."

How about them apples, eh?  Bet that won't see much of the light of day.

But that's really neither here nor there, is it?  The important thing is that, whoever wrote the language, it was incorporated as a federal deed restriction under an act of Congress, which is precisely why it will take an act of Congress to undo it --despite all the doom and gloom PNJ warnings about this being "federal overreach," which is pure hogwash.
 
And before you try to say that acts of Congress can't be undone, or should never be undone for any reason, think again.

Look, no one in 1947 had any idea what would become of these island communities and how things would change, but they sure did, and property taxation was the biggest trigger.  Times change, situations change, communities adjust as best they can to the exigent realities, and this change is for the better for reasons that have amply been shown here and on other threads.

Right now, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach are simply unincorporated communities of their respective counties, just like any other community, except we happen to be located adjacent to large public 'park' lands.   We enjoy the same access to those parks as any other citizen of the county, the state, or the world - no more, no less -- and converting the ALREADY PRIVATE leaseholds of the abutting community to fee simple title changes NOTHING for the island visitor.  NOTHING.

Yes, it really and truly is that simple.  Protection of access AND control of development are not dependent on the leasing system, period the end - in fact, have nothing to do with it.

But let's see whether FT wants to discuss things, or do another cut and paste, or just ignore me once again while she posts elsewhere.

As for me, I would've answered you sooner, FT, but had to attend to a medical procedure.  At least I answered  you -- and showed you the courtesy of spending some time doing it -- whether or not you like the factual nature of the response.




I hope the medical procedure was nothing very serious Linda.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Look, Linda, you have really gone past the mark here. I told you that I was dealing with serious medical issues with my husband. You chose to double down on your rants about how you're not getting a good deal on the beach. Eff off.

Telstar

Telstar

Floridatexan wrote:
Look, Linda, you have really gone past the mark here.  I told you that I was dealing with serious medical issues with my husband.  You chose to double down on your rants about how you're not getting a good deal on the beach.  Eff off.




I'm sorry to hear about your husbands medical issues tex.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Wishing Linda and FTex's husband well.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Joanimaroni wrote:Wishing Linda and FTex's husband well.

Thanks, Joani.

2seaoat



I hope things work out on the health front. This is a tough time of the year to have to deal with health issues. May God bless all the caretakers.......and hopefully relieve a little stress. Keep positive.

RealLindaL



Floridatexan wrote:
Look, Linda, you have really gone past the mark here.  I told you that I was dealing with serious medical issues with my husband.  You chose to double down on your rants about how you're not getting a good deal on the beach.  Eff off.

What a piece of work.  I told you before in that PM that I was very sorry about your husband, and that's still the case.  You know perfectly well I understand about medical issues with one's spouse.

But YOU, FT, keep choosing to just throw out your short, easy, negative "rants" yourself, first just flat out withdrawing your support for the title bill, and then throwing the old federal deed in our faces, again with absolutely no attempt at real discussion about that; in fact, rarely if ever any reasoned response to anything posted for you now or in the past, despite much effort on my part -- and I'm supposed to just ignore all that because your husband is ill this time?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  

Don't you see what you're doing? It's your habit to just throw out barbs and then withdraw, like hiding behind a tree, saying, "Don't expect me to respond to your responses, or ever really discuss anything.  I just want to trash the bill and not have to reply in any way whatsoever to whatever you have to say about any of it.  Don't bother me with facts and such!"   Well, that's just B.S., girl.   And you did the same thing on the previous thread months back.

Apparently you've never taken the time -- though you seem to have plenty of opportunities to continue cutting and pasting and starting threads all over this board, ill husband notwithstanding -- to read and understand what I've been carefully posting about title off and on over these past months, especially as you now say it's about my "not getting a good deal" on the beach.  HOGWASH.  It's about a much larger, better vision for the county and everyone in it  - certainly not just islanders - going forward.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't get that at all.

So eff off yourself, woman.  If you ever want to have a genuine DISCUSSION on the issue, let me know.  Until then, any similar posts of yours on this subject will, you'll be happy to know, thoroughly ignored by me, and others would be wise to do the same.

In the meantime, you and your fellow naysayers can be happy the title bill and its wonderful new sweeping preservation protection for existing public lands on PBeach (including the beaches themselves and all existing accessways) is apparently dead until at least 2019, if that, and thus BOTH beaches remain unprotected from any possible encroachment and/or further development by less responsible commissioners going forward -- since they're the ones that control all that, NOT the leasing system, and certainly not the citizens, except at the voting booth, and we all know how well that works.  Congrats.

And I still wish your husband well, as I always have, as you very well know.

Thank you for asking after my own medical procedure.  HA HA HA.

2seaoat



Fee simple or leaseholds, the plats remain the same. So this idea that the plats will expand to the high water line on the beach, therein taking public access is a damnable lie which feeds people who resent the development of a once pristine beach. The truth is simple. Some people do not want to lose the unfair extra payments the county is now getting in lease payments and property tax payments. They like the idea of screwing the people who were lied to about property tax payments. I have argued for ten years that fee simple is the only equitable resolution and that the propaganda and lies which attack the same is mostly about ignorance of property law. There is a reason that all the AGs who were fighting the constitutionality of the affordable care act chose the federal court in Escambia County, and there is a reason why President Trump chooses to repeatedly come to Pensacola to fill the civic center with mostly folks who buy propaganda and lies hook line and sinker. Ignorance abounds in Escambia and Santa Rosa County.

knothead

knothead

2seaoat wrote:Fee simple or leaseholds, the plats remain the same.  So this idea that the plats will expand to the high water line on the beach, therein taking public access is a damnable lie which feeds people who resent the development of a once pristine beach.  The truth is simple.  Some people do not want to lose the unfair extra payments the county is now getting in lease payments and property tax payments.  They like the idea of screwing the people who were lied to about property tax payments.  I have argued for ten years that fee simple is the only equitable resolution and that the propaganda and lies which attack the same is mostly about ignorance of property law.  There is a reason that all the AGs who were fighting the constitutionality of the affordable care act chose the federal court in Escambia County, and there is a reason why President Trump chooses to repeatedly come to Pensacola to fill the civic center with mostly folks who buy propaganda and lies hook line and sinker.  Ignorance abounds in Escambia and Santa Rosa County.    


TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN!!! SO DILLY DILLY

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Look, Linda, you have really gone past the mark here.  I told you that I was dealing with serious medical issues with my husband.  You chose to double down on your rants about how you're not getting a good deal on the beach.  Eff off.

What a piece of work.  I told you before in that PM that I was very sorry about your husband, and that's still the case.  You know perfectly well I understand about medical issues with one's spouse.

But YOU, FT, keep choosing to just throw out your short, easy, negative "rants" yourself, first just flat out withdrawing your support for the title bill, and then throwing the old federal deed in our faces, again with absolutely no attempt at real discussion about that; in fact, rarely if ever any reasoned response to anything posted for you now or in the past, despite much effort on my part -- and I'm supposed to just ignore all that because your husband is ill this time?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  

Don't you see what you're doing? It's your habit to just throw out barbs and then withdraw, like hiding behind a tree, saying, "Don't expect me to respond to your responses, or ever really discuss anything.  I just want to trash the bill and not have to reply in any way whatsoever to whatever you have to say about any of it.  Don't bother me with facts and such!"   Well, that's just B.S., girl.   And you did the same thing on the previous thread months back.

Apparently you've never taken the time -- though you seem to have plenty of opportunities to continue cutting and pasting and starting threads all over this board, ill husband notwithstanding -- to read and understand what I've been carefully posting about title off and on over these past months, especially as you now say it's about my "not getting a good deal" on the beach.  HOGWASH.  It's about a much larger, better vision for the county and everyone in it  - certainly not just islanders - going forward.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't get that at all.

So eff off yourself, woman.  If you ever want to have a genuine DISCUSSION on the issue, let me know.  Until then, any similar posts of yours on this subject will, you'll be happy to know, thoroughly ignored by me, and others would be wise to do the same.

In the meantime, you and your fellow naysayers can be happy the title bill and its wonderful new sweeping preservation protection for existing public lands on PBeach (including the beaches themselves and all existing accessways) is apparently dead until at least 2019, if that, and thus BOTH beaches remain unprotected from any possible encroachment and/or further development by less responsible commissioners going forward -- since they're the ones that control all that, NOT the leasing system, and certainly not the citizens, except at the voting booth, and we all know how well that works.  Congrats.

And I still wish your husband well, as I always have, as you very well know.

Thank you for asking after my own medical procedure.  HA HA HA.

What did you buy, Linda? A leasehold or fee simple? I don't care who put the language in there; the fact is those are the terms of the conveyance. Like it or not; I don't care. I know only a few people who have opposed this move on FB. If the title situation is to be changed, it should be done by local county-wide referendum, not through an end-around at the federal level.

When I didn't immediately respond to your post, I took the time to tell you about my husband's medical problems. Instead of understanding, you dug in and became what I can only call rabid on the subject. I am not under any obligation here to respond to your posts; this isn't a debate...it's a forum.

Again...you bought a leasehold. Live with it.

2seaoat



Again...you bought a leasehold. Live with it.


That would be incorrect based on Florida court cases which ruled that in fact that these properties were more than leaseholds and that the owners had equitable title which is more than a simple leasehold. There is a spectrum of title. If in fact the courts ruled that it was a leasehold, nobody would be paying real estate taxes and the leaseholders would have no equal protection argument.

It is simply a question of fairness concerning double taxation. A platted lot of 200 x 200 is static. The zoning of that lot is dynamic. It can be changed by the County, and fee simple has nothing to do with the same.

This is very simple. It is about fairness and the courts determining that the PB and NB platted lots were not simply leaseholds, but that the tenants had acquired equitable title and were subject to real estate taxes. This is not some guy on the radio declaring something is being taken away from Escambia County by fee simple, rather it is a clear court decision which does not give leaseholder equal protection of the law when they are taxed and make lease payments.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:Again...you bought a leasehold. Live with it.


That would be incorrect based on Florida court cases which ruled that in fact that these properties were more than leaseholds and that the owners had equitable title which is more than a simple leasehold.  There is a spectrum of title.  If in fact the courts ruled that it was a leasehold, nobody would be paying real estate taxes and the leaseholders would have no equal protection argument.  

It is simply a question of fairness concerning double taxation.   A platted lot of 200 x 200 is static.   The zoning of that lot is dynamic.  It can be changed by the County, and fee simple has nothing to do with the same.  

This is very simple.  It is about fairness and the courts determining that the PB and NB platted lots were not simply leaseholds, but that the tenants had acquired equitable title and were subject to real estate taxes.  This is not some guy on the radio declaring something is being taken away from Escambia County by fee simple, rather it is a clear court decision which does not give leaseholder equal protection of the law when they are taxed and make lease payments.

I don't know how they justified imposing property taxes on these leaseholds. I discussed this with my BIL who lives in Navarre (when he's in town). He says the lease fees were reduced, but the property taxes more than made up the difference. I do believe this is unfair; I just don't understand why some provision wasn't built in to the lease fees. It was different when most of the PB and Navarre buildings were concrete block or modest structures on pilings, or townhomes/condos/vacation rentals. Imposing property taxes, IMHO, was the wrong approach.

2seaoat



The justification was largely upon the legal precedent across the nation where a governmental unit leases their tax free property to a private entity should that property that uses the schools, roads, police protection, and all the government services not contribute by real estate taxes under the theory of equitable title.. I became intimately familiar with this issue about twenty years ago when the fire chief of our volunteer department threatened to take the airport authority to court for not having all the private hangers which used the roads, fire department, and police protection. A big airline who rents facilities at most government owned airports also pays real estate taxes even though they have leaseholds under the theory of equitable title. So when the courts declare that we are going to tax you, they are basically saying those tenants almost have a full glass of property rights.

I always believed taxing the leaseholds was fair, but I vehemently believe that the lease payment is double taxation and wrong. The fee simple proposal is simple and adversely impacts nothing. Plats stay the same. Zoning stays the same. Again, beach access is NOT impacted. I also believe that there is an element that relishes the double taxation. It is an irrational resentment toward furenurs buying places on a local beach where most of the locals are priced out of the market. It does not matter. Rational thought and sound policy seem to escape a good many citizens in Santa Rosa and Escambia County who listen to the propaganda which is untruthful and mean spirited.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:The justification was largely upon the legal precedent across the nation where a governmental unit leases their tax free property to a private entity should that property that uses the schools, roads, police protection, and all the government services not contribute by real estate taxes under the theory of equitable title..   I became intimately familiar with this issue about twenty years ago when the fire chief of our volunteer department threatened to take the airport authority to court for not having all the private hangers which used the roads, fire department, and police protection.   A big airline who rents facilities at most government owned airports also pays real estate taxes even though they have leaseholds under the theory of equitable title.  So when the courts declare that we are going to tax you, they are basically saying those tenants almost have a full glass of property rights.

I always believed taxing the leaseholds was fair, but I vehemently believe that the lease payment is double taxation and wrong.   The fee simple proposal is simple and adversely impacts nothing.   Plats stay the same.  Zoning stays the same.  Again, beach access is NOT impacted.  I also believe that there is an element that relishes the double taxation.  It is an irrational resentment toward furenurs buying places on a local beach where most of the locals are priced out of the market.  It does not matter.  Rational thought and sound policy seem to escape a good many citizens in Santa Rosa and Escambia County who listen to the propaganda which is untruthful and mean spirited.

I'm not being mean spirited and not buying into anything false. I just believe some lease fee adjustments and MSTU's could have been used so that beach residents pay for the value of their leaseholds. I believe the imposition of property taxes was putting the cart before the horse. I was never a fan of the SRIA...I attended a meeting in the 80's and was told by someone in a position to know that nothing passed without a payoff. I watched as beach residents protested Portofino to no avail. I watched as 4 of 5 county commissioners were fired and replaced. I voted for Banjanin, not Robinson, who is a commercial developer. I'm trying to have a rational discussion here and it really makes me angry to have my arguments dismissed out of hand and to be treated as some kind of unhinged lunatic.

2seaoat



I'm trying to have a rational discussion here and it really makes me angry to have my arguments dismissed out of hand and to be treated as some kind of unhinged lunatic.

If we want to discuss feelings, I defer to your right to express feelings and emotion about any issue. I just got burned out arguing for a decade with leaseholders who were telling me they never would be taxed, or mainlanders who had these strange theories about property law which were about opinion and feelings, but had little or any semblance to the law.

This issue is not that complex. The property law concepts are not that difficult. The fair resolution is simple. However, as long as folks have opinions which defy court cases which define the issues, whether it is those folks who think paying property taxes is wrong, or those folks who think something is being given away or that the public is losing something,,,,those opinions and feelings are their absolute right, but I would prefer to stay within the law and case summaries on these issues. The deviation from the law does not make somebody a lunatic. I was considered a lunatic for a decade on the PNJ arguing why the courts would approve taxation. I was ridiculed at HOA meeting that we would never have to pay taxes. I was ridiculed by mainlanders that I did not know what I was talking about that fee simple would change the property lines and beach access. I guess ignorance has abounded on both sides of the argument, and I personally am so sick of stupid on these issues that I sometimes do not even post on these threads because it is like groundhog day.......

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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