“Don’t let them steal our beach.”

Mr Ichi wrote:@ RealLindaL.

I honestly apologize for my insensitive remarks. The beloved place of my birth and were I live is in free fall.  I am flustered and angry.  My children have left the area to find work and to live in a better part of the country.  In that aspect, I have failed them.  The value of my house has dropped to near zero due to a inept government and lack of action by government officials that have failed in their duties.

Sometimes I use these forums to vent my frustrations.  But I think many times I am just a Don Quixote jousting at wind mills.

You are a good person and are tiring hard to solve a issue that is very important to you.   I will not hinder your efforts or cause you any more undue duress with my comments.

Take care and continue your rage against the machine......Maybe you will win....


“Destiny guides our fortunes more favorably than we could have expected. Look there, Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich ourselves. This is nobel, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such an evil race wiped from the face of the earth."
"What giants?" Asked Sancho Panza.
"The ones you can see over there," answered his master, "with the huge arms, some of which are very nearly two leagues long."
"Now look, your grace," said Sancho, "what you see over there aren't giants, but windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and turn the millstone."
"Obviously," replied Don Quijote, "you don't know much about adventures.”

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

PB: For the most part I am an infrequent poster and consequently not a personality 'known' for any particular attribute (good or bad) but reading your reply to LL was inspirational and heartwarming. I've enjoyed your posts in the past but like I said your reply here deserves our respect and appreciation . . . . your own life journey is interesting and compelling. It has had successes and failures . . . . . you were courageous enough to be honest with your reply(s) to LL about the beach v. everyone else bruhaha so I say to you 'Thank You', my own view of you was elevated even more. Have a great day . . .

I also try to stay away from this forum but this is a topic close to heart and far too long suffered for far too many of us. Neko, you knew you'd get me, right?

I agree with KH on so much, but the arguments are moot at this point, I fear.

I did, at one time find an attorney who was actually excited about taking the case on knowing it was bait and switch to the nth degree and a glorious example of bad faith.

UNTIL:  He learned Escambia County has a $100,000 liability limit per suit.  It would mean filing 3,000 + - suits.  Again, a fine example of their ethics.

They are loathsome and we have been screwed.  No doubt.  While a little butterfly sometimes tells me it will be decided for what is fair and good, I know better.

What is a given is:

We are not now taxed on the land.  Fee simple would open that up without question. Chrissy has held off on that for now, why?

As leaseholders, "they" are responsible for storm damage and restoration of our lots.  In fee simple, we will be.  I know as I've endured it in SR County waterfronts.

I had a conversation with the County Attorney several years back, sorry, her name eludes me.  My question was with fee simple would we not be free to build duplexes, triplexes and such.  Her answer was a vague yes, but it was a yes.

PB is unlike NB in that we have residential sections.  Personally, I like that.  With fee simple that will certainly change.  I, myself, would rebuild to at least a duplex after the next storm rather than try to manage the monster house I have.  More flexibility for rentals, etc.

With fee simple, I'm in agreement, we will build fences and not the sand fences we are currently allowed.  Yup, they will only go back 130' but they will go back that far and at last measure it takes it to the berm.  Sorry, but I will.

Sand fences are routinely cut and as I'm on an access, my outside shower is public domain.  It should not be, but it is.

There will be changes with fee simple and I'm not sure they are changes that we bargained for many years ago.

You do have to ask why none of us insisted the no tax provision be put into our leases.  Were we all that stupid or was it misrepresented?

I'm just not sure we were all stupid.

No, Linda, I've always been Stormwatch, no other monikers.

I wish I hadn't stopped in to take a quick  peek at this forum right now because I don't have time to write, and I see that I really, really need to, first off to properly thank Hallmark for his very fine apology (and I absolutely will), and secondly to respond to what I perceive as several inaccuracies in Storm's post, starting with the statement that we're not being taxed on the land.  Oh yes, we most certainly are, and have been since 2011 -- ever since SRC's taxation of the land on NB was upheld in the courts.  How did Storm get away without being so taxed, I'm wondering??

Knot, a post of mine from late last night, responding to one of your points/questions, in which I also rather gleefully announced I had figured out who you were (even though I would NEVER, EVER, reveal or even guess a name here), has disappeared.  I would just like to know whether or not you read it, so I know whether or not to try to duplicate the response to your question.  I have no idea what's going on with some of these posts.

Gotta go -- more later tonight.

Zoning issues are separate and apart from how title is held. However, if upon the terms of the lease, or a covenant and restriction in a deed, the USE of property can be controlled by those in a contractual relationship through explicit restrictions in the lease, or deed restrictions. These PRIVATE restrictions are not zoning, which is set by a public body where certain classifications are given to property, and to change the classification requires a petition for variance, special use, or change in zoning classification.

I do not see zoning changing. I do see deed restrictions on the conveyance yet to be determined.

RealLindaL wrote:I wish I hadn't stopped in to take a quick  peek at this forum right now because I don't have time to write, and I see that I really, really need to, first off to properly thank Hallmark for his very fine apology (and I absolutely will), and secondly to respond to what I perceive as several inaccuracies in Storm's post, starting with the statement that we're not being taxed on the land.  Oh yes, we most certainly are, and have been since 2011 -- ever since SRC's taxation of the land on NB was upheld in the courts.  How did Storm get away without being so taxed, I'm wondering??

Knot, a post of mine from late last night, responding to one of your points/questions, in which I also rather gleefully announced I had figured out who you were (even though I would NEVER, EVER, reveal or even guess a name here), has disappeared.  I would just like to know whether or not you read it, so I know whether or not to try to duplicate the response to your question.  I have no idea what's going on with some of these posts.

Gotta go -- more later tonight.

Linda,  I just received 2 notices of proposed property taxes and the land tax is zero.  The structure tax is significant.

I also sold a gulf front lot this year, again, the tax liability was zero. Are we talking PB or NB?

Dunno, but I'm not mistaken.  Again, confirming the absurdity in the whole situation.

I would just like to know whether or not you read it, so I know whether or not to try to duplicate the response to your question.

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

No I evidently missed it . . . . . must have been when I was recovering from carpet cleaning! LOL

If you know I appreciate your confidentiality as, like SO, I prefer to be a ghost . . . . re-post at your convenience please!

knothead wrote: I would just like to know whether or not you read it, so I know whether or not to try to duplicate the response to your question.

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

No I evidently missed it . . . . . must have been when I was recovering from carpet cleaning! LOL

If you know I appreciate your confidentiality as, like SO, I prefer to be a ghost . . . . re-post at your convenience please!

SO has no game in this party and I guess that's what disturbs me so. His opinions are at best. gone by.

Yet, he insists on intruding his arrogance in what he has sold and we hold onto.

Mr Ichi wrote:@ RealLindaL.

I honestly apologize for my insensitive remarks. The beloved place of my birth and were I live is in free fall.  I am flustered and angry.  My children have left the area to find work and to live in a better part of the country.  In that aspect, I have failed them.  The value of my house has dropped to near zero due to a inept government and lack of action by government officials that have failed in their duties.

Sometimes I use these forums to vent my frustrations.  But I think many times I am just a Don Quixote jousting at wind mills.

You are a good person and are tiring hard to solve a issue that is very important to you.   I will not hinder your efforts or cause you any more undue duress with my comments.

Take care and continue your rage against the machine......Maybe you will win....

Hallmark, I just want to thank you most sincerely for your apology, which is humbly accepted.  You were a stand-up guy to write this, and I won't forget it.  I do hope things turn around for you soon; it sounds as if you have some real challenges and a lot of sadness.  I can't fix it for you, but I can certainly wish you all the best in the days and years ahead -- and I truly do.  I would just add that I hope you won't continue blaming yourself for the fact that your children had to go elsewhere for jobs - I don't see how you can say that means you've failed them, but then of course I don't have the whole story.  
My one and only son also lives a long way away, has a great job, and would never be able to find similar work here.  That's his choice, his life, and I can't take on any guilt on that account.   Hope you'll give yourself a break, too.       __LL

knothead wrote:[Thank you for framing the complex nuances, tangible or intangible, translating those nuances in a condensed form . . . . your words were truthful and eloquent.  There are a lot of people on these forums who make their case by castigating others and I have been guilty of that infraction on occasion . . . . . it's a fool's game but your comments reveal the ability to communicate without castigating . . . . . excellent and inspirational!Thanks . . .  

Thank YOU, Knot, for posting this.  Can't recall any nicer words being said to me, and you really made my week.   I'm seeing from this and other posts that you're more than generous with your praise, and that's a rare trait that surely endears you to those around you.

2seaoat wrote:Zoning issues are separate and apart from how title is held.  However, if upon the terms of the lease, or a covenant and restriction in a deed, the USE of property can be controlled by those in a contractual relationship through explicit restrictions in the lease, or deed restrictions.   These PRIVATE restrictions are not zoning, which is set by a public body where certain classifications are given to property, and to change the classification requires a petition for variance, special use, or change in zoning classification.

I do not see zoning changing.   I do see deed restrictions on the conveyance yet to be determined.

Agree with Sea here.  Zoning is a separate issue entirely, and anyone who told Storm, even with some hesitation, that passing title to leaseholders would mean we can build multifamily units on lots now zoned single family, is just plain WRONG.  The entire lengthy, cumbersome rezoning process would need to take place, and there would be one heckuva fight to keep that from ever happening on PBeach.   Not to say it could never, ever happen, but it's FAR from a given.  Great fodder for scare mongerers, tho.

knothead wrote: I would just like to know whether or not you read it, so I know whether or not to try to duplicate the response to your question.

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

No I evidently missed it . . . . . must have been when I was recovering from carpet cleaning! LOL

If you know I appreciate your confidentiality as, like SO, I prefer to be a ghost . . . . re-post at your convenience please!

Knot, I will of course not reveal your identity -- which I guessed as a result of your statements about having to pay for a bridge pass to your own residence.   (I could still be wrong but I don't think  I am. hee hee)  And I have no earthly idea why anyone would've deleted my post in the first place, as it was quite innocuous.  Who's the moderator here these days?    

Well anyway, the first half of the post was an answer to one of your earlier stated points, and I'll try to go back and figure out what it was -- though perhaps that will have to wait 'til tomorrow, if that's OK.

stormwatch89 wrote:Linda,  I just received 2 notices of proposed property taxes and the land tax is zero.  The structure tax is significant.

I also sold a gulf front lot this year, again, the tax liability was zero. Are we talking PB or NB?

Dunno, but I'm not mistaken.  Again, confirming the absurdity in the whole situation.

Storm, I'm talking PB, and presume you are, too, since  you refer to "Chrissy" (Chris Jones, I gather).

I have to tell you, if you're talking PB, that I am totally and completely confused by your saying your notices of proposed property taxes show zero land tax.  Maybe we're not communicating here, but again, I'm mystified.  Are you talking condominiums or something?  Because I don't know what they look like/how it works for condos, but the notice I am looking at right in front of me, recently received for my single family home, has no indication whatsoever anywhere on the form of what portion of the taxable value is land and what portion is structure.  It simply shows the TOTAL property valuation, for last year, and for this year, as modified by any applicable exemptions as recognized (or not) by the various authorities receiving the taxes (County, Schools, etc.).  

Where on the form do you see structure vs. land, or do you?  The only place I find the data on that split for my leasehold is at escpa.org.  And what I see as the total market value on my property card there (land and improvements) is the exact same number I see on my TRIM notice as total market value prior to exemptions.  I am most definitely being taxed on the land and house.

Perhaps you can clarify further, to assist my apparently addled brain??

As for the lot you sold this year (presuming on PB), are you saying you had never received a property tax bill for that location, or only that there was no liability at closing?  If the latter, perhaps that was on the buyer's account? If not, all I can say is you must have some kind of magical powers or have somehow been overlooked.  I don't get it.  Both land and structures on both PB and NB are being taxed, and have been for some time now.  Make an anonymous call to Chris Jones' office and I guarantee that's the answer you'll get - we've  been taxed on land here since the 2011 tax year.  That's why we were asked to fork over more money for a new lawsuit against the county -- which suit is apparently being held in abeyance pending the Supremes' ruling on land tax on NB, or so I opine.  

Can anybody else back me up on this, please?  Because I'm not mistaken either.  LOL

stormwatch89 wrote:

As leaseholders, "they" are responsible for storm damage and restoration of our lots.  In fee simple, we will be.  I know as I've endured it in SR County waterfronts.

I don't know if this is what you're speaking of, Storm, but SRC assesses leaseholders for general beach restoration whereas Escambia County doesn't.  That has nothing to do with fee simple (which neither has in place, of course) but rather with the way the SRC commissioners deal with fund sourcing.  Escambia has been a whole lot smarter.  And they're also right not to assess the leaseholders -- or even fee simple owners in future --  unless they're going to assess every single resident of the county, since they are ALL free to use those same restored beaches.

As for any sand removal off your lot (if that's what you're talking about, after big storms), you could be right that an owner would have to pay -- but you also could be wrong, because removing the sand from leaseholds after Ivan, for example, benefitted the county and all beachgoers, as they sifted all that sand and used it to restore the beachfront, remember?

stormwatch89 wrote:  PB is unlike NB in that we have residential sections.  Personally, I like that.  With fee simple that will certainly change.  I, myself, would rebuild to at least a duplex after the next storm rather than try to manage the monster house I have.  More flexibility for rentals, etc.

I presume you mean NB has no exclusively single family residential sections -- though they certainly do have some single family houses, and of course they certainly have multifamily residential.   But when you say as to PB's [single family] residential sections that "with fee simple that will certainly change," I challenge that statement.  No one can be certain at all that this will happen.   Presuming you're not already in a multifamily zoned area of PB such as Ft. Pickens Rd, without a zoning change you would never receive a permit to rebuild as a duplex, owner or no owner.  I know this repeats what Sea and I have already said; am just reiterating as to this specific section of your prior post.

stormwatch89 wrote:
With fee simple, I'm in agreement, we will build fences and not the sand fences we are currently allowed.  Yup, they will only go back 130' but they will go back that far and at last measure it takes it to the berm.  Sorry, but I will.

Sand fences are routinely cut and as I'm on an access, my outside shower is public domain.  It should not be, but it is.

I don't know what the current island building codes are as to fences where your property is/are located, Storm, but whatever the codes are now, they'll doubtless be the same after fee simple unless the county opts to change the code, because they have nothing to do with the form of ownership. (Some codes are, as you know, necessitated by FEMA flood plain regulations and will not likely be changed - don't know if Gulf-front fences fall under that category, but seems to me it's a distinctl possibility.)  In any event I can't see that you'll have any more or less freedoms in this regard as an owner.   (Forgive me -  I'm probably misunderstanding you again (the problem with written communications) -- but just in case, thought I would clarify that.

As for your outside shower, forgive me but have you tried enclosing it and/or posting it as private?  Just wondering.   I, too, am on a public access walk, but no one uses my shower -- on the other hand, I'm not Gulf front, so not much temptation, I suppose.  Doubtless your location presents more problems for you.  Tradeoff for those gorgeous views, perhaps?

And on that note, I'm off to bed.  Goodnight all.  __LL  
 
P.S.  I don't think Sea is all that arrogant - sometimes, like the rest of us, he purports to know a lot more than he actually does, but generally I find him reasonable, interesting, and on occasion just plain educational.    

Gosh, Linda, I fear to say more as NO, I do not pay property tax.  I do receive 2 forms for 1 property.  One is for the land, zero tax and one is for the structure.  The lot I sold was sold because I knew land tax was coming as well as their ability to force rebuild.  Again, no, there was no land tax.

Really.  I do know how to read a tax bill!  

The attorney I spoke with did say that we couldn't automatically build 10 bedrooms rather than 6 or 7, but that there would be little they could do if we added two entrances (duplex) to answer your zoning questions.  There were certainly ways to get around the zoning according to her.

Lot restoration?  I bought a bunch of sand after Ivan and fenced it off only to have the county take and use it.  Yes, I remember.  Be assured that if I am taxed and own the land, that will not happen again.  There will be fencing as I'm sure getting the required authorization will be much easier.

I had to giggle about your suggestion re: the shower.  It is absurd the way people utilize gulf front homes.  Many is a time I've invaded people having a party on my deck and have actually felt to be the intruder!

I'm done fighting for the beach.  Like many, this was to be my home, my retirement, my joy in life.  That has long ago been destroyed and I, unfortunately, look at it now as simple investment until I can bail.

The memories when I lived there, my kids at the beach school etc. will always be with me and I treasure those years, but the bad faith displayed by Escambia County leaves a bitter taste that lingers.

Thinking beyond the emotionals, Linda, do you think it might have something to do with "original" leases?

I gather you are not waterfront and as I was told and somehow remember as a child the waterfronts had the original leases, I know that I have/had those. If you are inland, perhaps your lease is different? Just a thought.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The people living at the beach are double dipping on the tax payer dime in many ways. They need to pay their fair share. Try looking at your home taxes and see that you are also PAYING for them to live on the island with your state mandate Citizens insurance premiums. They aren't even paying their own way. It's socialism at its finest.

K- this one bothered me a bit, PD.

My rental pays approximately $14,950 a year in bed tax.  Plus I also host weddings to the tune of 10-15 a year.  When the wedding house was an issue I did go to the SRIA hearing.  It was presented then, that each wedding brings in approximately $100g.......all taxable.

I also do NOT use Citizens, so no, you're not paying my tab.

I don't think Sea is all that arrogant - sometimes, like the rest of us, he purports to know a lot more than he actually does, but generally I find him reasonable, interesting, and on occasion just plain educational. Wink


Actually, I am arrogant, I actually know much more than I ever post, and I am seldom reasonable, and if you find me to be reasonable, it is a temporary reprieve from my role as the Devil's advocate, and yes besides having fun on the forums, I like to be educational and thrive in an environment where people exchange information and I learn. My deal with Stormy is that I have promised to be positive when interacting with her on the forums, and will acknowledge that in the past I have played hardball with her, and sometimes my anger over how I was treated on NB after challenging the assumptions on the tax issue were insensitive to her personal situation. I have not posted anything negative when conversing with Stormy, and that is our deal.

Thank you, SO. I will take that as an apology whether or not it was meant.

You cut me to the quick at times and are the reason I dropped this forum, truthfully.

All is good. Not many people can cut me as you had.

Not many people can cut me as you had.


You are one of the people who if I was healthy and had more time, I would have enjoyed sitting on a deck overlooking the Gulf and meeting you in person and sharing an evening of conversation. On some of these beach issues I looked at issues analytically and hard nosed, and was very insensitive to your personal situation. Once you communicated the same was bothering you and were hurt, I respected your request and have simply not discussed politics, estate tax, or beach issues with you where I am my normal caustic attack dog on an issue. The truth is this place should be enjoyable, and although we both know we fundamentally disagree on many issues, I was being a bully with you on these very personal beach issues which I have my own issues from eight years ago which often made you the recipient of some of my venom which I had directed at those who advocated the tax litigation.

I always enjoyed your sharing of your father's life, and I still smile about that nine year old girl getting her first horse. However, I am arrogant, over confident, defiant, a rebel, stubborn, and just plain contrary most of the time, but I have hundreds of friends who despite my shortcomings have stayed close since grade school because of all of the above. You should know.....old male dogs do not change.

2seaoat wrote:Not many people can cut me as you had.


You are one of the people who if I was healthy and had more time, I would have enjoyed sitting on a deck overlooking the Gulf and meeting you in person and sharing an evening of conversation.  On some of these beach issues I looked at issues analytically and hard nosed, and was very insensitive to your personal situation.  Once you communicated the same was bothering you and were hurt, I respected your request and have simply not discussed politics, estate tax, or beach issues with you where I am my normal caustic attack dog on an issue.  The truth is this place should be enjoyable, and although we both know we fundamentally disagree on many issues, I was being a bully with you on these very personal beach issues which I have my own issues from eight years ago which often made you the recipient of some of my venom which I had directed at those who advocated the tax litigation.

I always enjoyed your sharing of your father's life, and I still smile about that nine year old girl getting her first horse.  However, I am arrogant, over confident, defiant, a rebel, stubborn, and just plain contrary most of the time, but I have hundreds of friends who despite my shortcomings have stayed close since grade school because of all of the above.  You should know.....old male dogs do not change.

Thank you.  I have shared more than is excusable on this forum, but do thank you for understanding.

All is good and thank you.

Thank you. I too, have shared more than is excusable on this forum, but do thank you for understanding.

No, the sharing is important. It allows each of us to touch our souls where in person and with real people we might be reserved or not prone to share. Please understand over the years Linda and I have had quite heated debate, and many times she has been frustrated with my persistence and stubborn nature, but I celebrate her ability to conceptualize complex issues and communicate the same, and her sharing of these issues on PB, and her courage to express her opinions in viewpoints only goes to my core belief that this forum and the old PNJ has some remarkable people and I am very happy that they have chose to share with all of us. We can all grow.

knothead wrote:"pay for the right to come to your house and maintain that property in an inhospitable environment" - what do you mean?  And why would that be any different from today?

I have been terminally pissed about having to buy a pass for $50 to come to your property! At one time, lease holders could purchase their sticker at a reduced rate but people from the mainland bitched and moaned so the BOCC bowing to numerical superiority (as always) force the beach residents to pay the same as someone from Century or Walnut Hill . . . . you get the point.  What if the County put up barriers and charged a fee to cross the many bridges in our area . . . . why there would be a lynching but for those beach people . . . . . no problem . . .stick it to them . . . . . they deserve it! So, I may not be rational about paying to come to your own property but I'll forever have an attitude about that.

Maintenance of a beach house is probably 50% greater than on the mainland . . . . you should understand that . . . the salt, the wind and the storms.

As far as protecting one's leasehold from trespassers, I would presume everyone would be doing that now, but most beach visitors don't trespass on private leaseholds

Again, I've been here since 1972 . . . . I can remember when it was far more informal, e.g., people would drive and park on Ariola, find a parking place and cut through properties and go to the beach for fishing or swimming whatever.  Today, that is rapidly changing . . . . in my own case I will see complete strangers standing in my back yard looking very lost as they found themselves there purely by accident but I am always kind and tell them the directions to where they want to go . . . . I will always be welcoming and understanding of visitors.  Do residents in town have that problem?  It's just different living on this island or any island I suppose.

I won't bore you further but I want you to know I appreciate you taking the time for a thoughtful reply and I also appreciate M. Oats views as well.
 

Knot, you still around?  I just went back and re-read your above post, to see if I could figure out what I had responded to (besides the question of lease fees going away, previously covered) before my post disappeared in the ether.  

(Aside:  I did find a PM from Boards that I had missed; apparently this just happens from time to time.  Weird -- two lost posts in one week for me so far.)

Anyway,  I'm really not sure which of your above remaining points I'd responded to in that last lost post, except to say I did agree (though not sure if 50% is the exact number) that the environment on the island is very harsh on buildings and materials -- but that won't be any worse because of title either.  

As for the bridge pass, I understand your long-standing disgruntlement and resentment, so you probably won't like the fact that I see that as the least of our worries, and in fact am not reluctant at all to contribute toward a stash that funds transportation and pedestrian projects (including helping make bond payments on our beautiful four lane road that almost everyone was so up in arms over when it was built).   But I guess it's a lot easier for me to swallow the toll because it was at just about the same level when we moved here, so I knew what we were getting into.

As to trespassing or whatever one wants to call it, maybe because I don't live on the water I don't seem to have a problem other than the occasional renter next door who tries to park in our driveway.  But perhaps it's getting worse where you are in direct proportion to the increased island visitation, thanks to our having been "discovered" over the past decade, and now continually promoted by BP monies et al.   It's very good of you to be patient with folks who end up on your property.  I'm glad not to see the attitude that you're going to fence people out if/when you take title and/or have to pay taxes for sure.  That's the last thing we need when it comes to mainland relations.

All in all, I guess my basic. bottom line point was that, aside from the taxes themselves -- which is something we are possibly if not likely going to have to pay with or without title -- I don't agree with your basic premise that fee simple title would hasten the demise of the non-rich leaseholder out here.   All the existing heavy burdens of island living will remain with or without title, and if they worsen it won't be because of fee simple.  

At least that's MHO and I'm sticking to it.      __LL   P.S.  You're not boring me!  Not ever!  And I thank you in return for your interesting and well-measured posts.

2seaoat wrote:Thank you. I too, have shared more than is excusable on this forum, but do thank you for understanding.

No, the sharing is important.  It allows each of us to touch our souls where in person and with real people we might be reserved or not prone to share.  Please understand over the years Linda and I have had quite heated debate, and many times she has been frustrated with my persistence and stubborn nature, but I celebrate her ability to conceptualize complex issues and communicate the same, and her sharing of these issues on PB, and her courage to express her opinions in viewpoints only goes to my core belief that this forum and the old PNJ has some remarkable people and I am very happy that they have chose to share with all of us.  We can all grow.

Nice to see Storm and Sea getting along so respectfully now.  Good for you both for your exemplary behavior.  Thanks also to Sea for his kind words for me.  Yes, we've debated, fussed and fought over the years, but I've never felt any real animosity toward or from Sea, and in fact he's often had my back.  Others, now that was a different story, especially whenever I verbally supported beach restoration, another hot button topic entirely.  Surf and others (maybe even you, Sea?  I've forgotten) practically nailed me to the cross for that position.

Anyway, yes, Sea, I agree the sharing is the real treasure of this or any discussion forum, when it happens.  I'm glad Storm has been able to open up to you and others here, and sorry I've missed all that.

stormwatch89 wrote:Gosh, Linda, I fear to say more as NO, I do not pay property tax.  I do receive 2 forms for 1 property.  One is for the land, zero tax and one is for the structure.  The lot I sold was sold because I knew land tax was coming as well as their ability to force rebuild.  Again, no, there was no land tax.

Really.  I do know how to read a tax bill!  

Thinking beyond the emotionals, Linda, do you think it might have something to do with "original" leases?

I gather you are not waterfront and as I was told and somehow remember as a child the waterfronts had the original leases, I know that I have/had those.  If you are inland, perhaps your lease is different?  Just a thought.

Well, Storm, where to begin here.  Hope you'll bear with me as I say a few things.

First of all, I'm very sorry as I didn't mean to upset you over the question of reading your TRIM notice(s) properly.  I, too, would certainly have presumed that you were perfectly capable of that-- except that you totally threw me for a loop in saying  you're not being assessed taxes on the land.  It really shocked me, because it doesn't make any sense at all.  If, in fact (just to reiterate, you are indeed talking about a single family residence on Pensacola Beach, and not a condo  -- which I presume you are, based on everything you've said about your place - the situation seems a bit worrisome, for your sake.  I've also never heard of two separate notices on one property -- one land, one improvements -- but that doesn't mean it never happens, for whatever reason.

Look, Storm, as you may know, and I think we've already touched on it before in this thread, there are eight properties and eight properties only on this beach that, under the legal doctrine of res judicata, are entirely exempt from tax, and they are exempt as to both land and improvements.   As I understand it, they are the last remaining of those named in the 1970's tax suit when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the leaseholders.  A higher court ruling on the current big PBeach tax case exempted these eight alone because of the prior Supremes' ruling.  Not fair, but there you are.

It would seem obvious your property* is not one of those eight, because
(1) you would likely know it if you were thus 'grandfathered,' and
(2) you wouldn't be being assessed taxes on the improvements as you indicate you are.  

*(Aside, when I say "property" I mean the entire leasehold.  To me, "property taxes" means ad valorem taxes of any kind -- whether on land or buildings/improvements.  I know some construe "property" to mean land alone, but for the purposes of this discussion, to avoid confusion, I hope we can agree to consider it the whole ball of wax.

ANYWAY, the reason I stated above that the absence of land taxation in your case seems troublesome, is because it may be an oversight on the part of Chris Jones' office.  I'm sure that doesn't happen very often, but I did hear of at least one case on Navarre Beach where taxes were not assessed when they should've been.  Now don't take this as gospel because it's second hand, but I was told the assessor could go back up to three years and assess the missed taxes.  That would be one nasty surprise.

So I'm just going to respectfully suggest that, unless you think I'm entirely crazy, you may want to have a talk with the beach assessor at Chris Jones' office -- or even Chris himself if he's available -- and find out what's going on before something comes back to bite you.  I realize full well that you would probably rather leave a sleeping dog lie -- and/or that you may choose to believe I don't know what I'm talking about -- and that's all entirely up to you, of course.  Just offering this FYI - take it or leave it.

As for whether or not it has anything to do with your having an older lease - well, not that I know of; I can't imagine how.   Again, I could be wrong, and maybe the assessor's office knows something we don't know that would answer why you are escaping land taxation, even though you've been expecting it, and even though it's been levied on everyone else except the eight, since 2011).  Once more:  your call.

Comments on a couple of other of your points to follow -- maybe tomorrow.
I can't believe it's after 2 a.m. - good grief.   I thought I had a life, but maybe I need to get one.  Ha.  

Goodnight all,   LL