FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS MOTIONS FOR REHEARING IN BEACH TAX CASE

The First District Court of Appeals released a ruling Wednesday rejecting an attempt by the Escambia County Property Appraiser (Chris Jones) and Tax Collector (Janet Holley) to rehear a case holding that land at Pensacola Beach is owned by Escambia County, and thus is notsubject to ad valorem taxation. Jones and Holley had asked a three-judge panel to reconsider its unanimous opinion that it was improper to tax leased land at Pensacola Beach as if it were owned by the tenants.   In the alternative, Jones and Holley asked that the issue be certified to the Florida Supreme Court as an issue of great public importance.   Both requests were summarily denied.Jones and Holley also asked that if the three-judge panel denied rehearing, it be heard “enbanc” – by all 15 judges of the First District Court of Appeal.   That Motion also was denied in the ruling released Wednesday.Ed Fleming and Todd Harris, attorneys for Island Resorts, said Wednesday that they werepleased by the First District Court of Appeals’ rulings.   “The First District’s ruling was well-founded in law and fact and no basis was shown for rehearing the case,” Fleming said.  Jones and Holley will have 10 days to petition the Florida Supreme Court to review the decision, Harris said, adding that there is a very limited basis for high court review.   “We do not see any reason for the Florida Supreme Court to grant discretionary review,” Harris said.   “The First District’s opinion is consistent with the legal analysis applied by the Florida Supreme Courtin the recent decision of Accardo v. Brown.   There is no conflict.”Fleming said the ruling in the Island Resorts case constitutes controlling law as to taxation of leasehold interests at Pensacola Beach and will have broad application to thousands of leases at Pensacola Beach.  As a result of a different title history, Fleming said, all of the leases on Navarre Beach flow from the same perpetual master lease. “A lease without an end is treated as a conveyance,” Fleming said.  “That is the distinction recognized by the Florida Supreme Court and is the distinction that controlled in the Island Resorts case.”

This actually happened on Wed., May 11.   Now we're waiting to see if Chris Jones will appeal directly to the FL Supreme Court, which he promised (or threatened) to do.

Some unique legal interpretations. I have read Accardo and Island resort. The appellate court is trying to foreclose the Assessor from appealing a change in statute in 2007 after the Ward case was decided by the Supreme Court. They argue that the Assessor has no standing, which appears to me to simply be smoke an mirrors, because elected officials have always had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute which makes it difficult to perform their duties, and will often have the Attorney General file the same.

So the red flag that this is questionable starts with the attempt to foreclose an appeal to the Supreme Court. Of Course immediately another party like the Attorney General would have standing and could file a new lawsuit. However, I found it interesting that the first District three judges, took a very narrow view of Florida's equitable title cases, and completely ignored the law throughout the United States. What will be particularly relevant on review will be the Hilalea case which is closer to the national equitable title doctrine, but the first district conveniently cherry picks provisions of that case, and then ignores the trial court and hears de novo the evidence which it decides has no equitable title. They base that on the changes to the 2007 statute which appears to have cleverly included language which appears to limit equitable title after the Ward case:

(Emphasis added). Section 196.199(2)(b) was first adopted in 1980 and has not been materially altered since then. Accardo v. Brown, 139 So.3d 848, 851 (Fla.2014) (hereafter “Accardo ”). The statute is tied to section 199.023(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), which was repealed effective January 1, 2007, and defined intangible personal property as including “ ‘all leasehold or other possessory interests in real property owned by [governmental entities], which are undeveloped or predominantly used for residential or commercial purposes and upon which rental payments are due.’ “ Id. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1729643.html#sthash.4PE17gcO.dpuf

However, the Supreme Court has clearly defined equitable title as NOT having to meet this standard, yet the three judge banc has attempted to De Novo replace the trial court which did find equitable title consistent with Ward and in fact Accardo, yet the first District cherry picks by giving clear agreement with the Supreme Court imposition of equitable title but then uses Accardo which FOUND EQUITABLE TITLE controls, to argue I guess the undeveloped portion of the statute, which in fact Island resort has in fact at the time of the suit not developed.

Conclusion, is that this will be appealed and it is extremely strange and really makes no sense, because if the Supreme Court was clear in Ward, and I do agree my lease on NB was perpetual as almost all the leases on Navarre are, but this distinction is a distinction without a difference where the Supreme Court found equitable title in a 30 year lease, and all over this country airport leases are less than a 100 years as they pay taxes under equitable title findings. There is Zero chance of somebody on NB not having to pay taxes, but there might be a handful of leases which are short term, but the 100 year mark is clearly not the indicator, and I will have to look at the legislative history of the statutory language changes in the above statute. My opinion is that at best, it might have some impact on very short term leases which I am not familiar with all leases on PB, but I can say with certainty most leases on NB will not be impacted, and this will be appealed.

The court noted in a footnote that the appellants “point out that some of the subleases are not perpetually renewable, but they do not make an argument that is specific to those leases”; thereafter, the court made no mention of the non-perpetually renewable leases and based its analysis and conclusion on the perpetually renewable nature of the subleases. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1729643.html#sthash.4PE17gcO.dpuf

What bothers me is that the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment, and found that no facts were in contention, but in fact if the their lease is unique and falls in the cracks of the above Supreme Court general ruling, then why did the first district not send it back to the trial court for hearings on the merit of the lease in light of Accardo, yet they De Novo do their thing.......I thought Chicago had politics attempting to influence the courts, but I think the Island Resort decision requires more dicta as to the the particular lease as to why it does not meet the Supreme Court guidelines in Ward......was it the perpetual component......was it undeveloped land......was it that the petitioner had no right to purchase this, because the Supreme Court of Florida I do not think will agree with the cherry picking of the equitable title cases in Florida which pretty much is arguing that equitable title can only apply if the tenant can purchase the property in the end.....that is not the law in this country, and it is not the law in the State of Florida, but if the first is interpreting the statutory change in 2007 as the same, it is contrary to what the Supreme Court ruled and they will take this case to clear up their absence of dicta in their earlier cases, and although there are ample cases which agree that an assessor may not have standing for appeal, certainly the attorney general does, and the usual procedure for a constitutional officer is to request the AG to appeal the same. Way more information is needed to understand if this case can be expanded beyond the 12 acre undeveloped parcel on PB.

The entire basis upon which this first current-day land tax case on PBeach was won was the fact that the Portofino land lease is not, for all intents and purposes, perpetual (as are many if not all of the Navarre Beach leases, at least as presented in those cases).   As with a large percentage of other leases on PBeach (including mine), there is provision for renewal but only upon such terms and conditions as are "negotiated" at the time -- and that, of course, is tantamount to no guarantee of renewal at all.  

This decision will potentially affect Pensacola Beach leases like mine, but only as to the land (and may still require additional litigation naming each separate property, depending on the outcome of any FL Supreme Court appeal of the instant case and on how tough Chris Jones wants to get/how much additional taxpayer money he wants to spend on yet further litigation).  

The Pensacola Beach improvements, for the time being, based on what the current attorneys term "bad precedent," are and likely will remain taxable based on the prior PBeach improvements case's judgment that the buildings won't survive the term of the lease, and thus can't be returned to the County, and thus the County will never truly "have" them, so the leaseholder owns them.  All of which I call highly arguable for several reasons, but what do I know?? That's another story for another day and we shall see if anything changes on that score, but for now the only litigation planned -- subject to what happens as to this one Portofino land case that was won -- is as to the land portion only of PBeach leases containing the non-perpetual renewal language.

As Sea will recall back when these taxes were last initially levied (2004-ish), I was convinced (as was he) that the then-current mindset of the courts would result in affirmation of taxation on both land and improvements on the leaseholds.  The big difference is that Sea thought that was right and just.  I didn't, and thus was pushing hard for the people of both beaches to lobby for federal legislation to permit Escambia County to pass fee simple title to its leaseholders, to put us on equal footing with our mainland counterparts and get rid of this dark ages, litigation-prone leasing situation once and for all.  

Well, virtually no one wanted to listen to me; they all presumed they'd be proven "right," win all the cases and never have to pay property taxes on land or improvements.  Ha.  Heads in the sand.   Now, since leaseholders on both beaches are indeed required to pay ad valorem taxes, the leaseholders have virtually no clout at all to ask their local government to obtain title for them, and thus for now, at least, the federal legislation to that effect that Jeff Miller and Rubio introduced last year appears dead in the water.  

Both the House and Senate versions of the bills are supposedly stalled in committee for environmental reasons (see below), but I have my suspicions about the real reasons.

Interestingly enough, it was supposedly Democrats on the House and/or Senate environmental committees who were the major stumbling blocks to the title bills.  Their single biggest concern was reportedly that, once the individual lots were given into private hands, there would be a big push from Navarre Beach owners to open up the pass to the Gulf once more.   As if the DEP would ever allow that, but there you are.  And then, again, maybe they would in future, especially under any Republican administration -- but that should have little or nothing to do with who owns individual platted lots on the island, IMHO.  

OK, I'm wandering far afield, and will stop now.   Anything further on the PBeach tax situation is pending Chris Jones' next move and any resultant FL Supremes action (or lack of same).  And I'm too tired to go back and read this, so pardon any major errors of commission or omission, please.

I can say with certainty it has little impact on NB, but I also think it matters very little if Jones reloads and does nothing on this 12 acres. This case will not stop the taxation of buildings on either beach in my opinion, but again.....I need to read the legislative history on the change in the bill in 2007 which the first district puts great emphasis. I am still bothered why the court did this de novo rather than giving guidelines and giving it back to the the trial court which found on Summary judgment for Jones and Escambia County.

The Supreme Court will need to visit this subject either this time or on the next case.

2seaoat wrote:I can say with certainty it has little impact on NB, but I also think it matters very little if Jones reloads and does nothing on this 12 acres.  This case will not stop the taxation of buildings on either beach in my opinion

The Supreme Court will need to visit this subject either this time or on the next case.

Isn't that what I said -- that the potential impact of this case will be to PB (not NB) leases with non-perpetually-renewable lease language?  

Don't know what you mean by "...it matters very little if Jones reloads and does nothing on this 12 acres."  What do you mean by "doing nothing?"  And what does "reloading" mean?

I thought I already indicated that the current taxability of improvements is  unfortunately a given right now, but we'll see what happens in future.  There may or may not be something brewing on that as to certain PBeach leases, and I won't say what because I'd only be speculating.  But it's pretty obvious that, as for NB, the bulk of their leaseholders are S.O.L. as to both land and improvements taxes if for no other reason than the perpetual nature of their leases, which is considered tantamount to a conveyance, not a true lease.   Lots of precedent on that, apparently.

As for what the FL Supreme Court "needs" to visit -- as always, they'll visit or not visit what they darned well please, presuming it's even brought to them.

I mean that the first Districts argument on standing has plenty of precedent, which means that Jones has to bring the suit on constitutionality with the AG who would have standing, and I mean that the Supreme Court has to revisit this subject because the first District is interpreting the amendments to the statute in such a way as to nullify much of their decisions on equitable title.

WTH...why not just go ahead and rename PB "Portofino Beach" and be done with it.  And it needs more ()*&^(*&%(&^%) palm trees, and an archway to nowhere...and...I wonder what kind of leverage Fred has with the courts...probably none.

I went to a meeting of the Island Authority in 1980...watched a pitch for a beach development by a local attorney.  Was told by someone in a position to know that nothing got done on the beach without payola.  Initially worked for a local developer, but when to work directly for the real estate company; got my real estate license that year...and learned a whole lot about local real estate in a very short time frame...lived on the beach for a few months when I first moved here...was completely opposed (still am) to Portofino...and I remember the SRIA stance then...they completely disregarded the arguments from beach residents.  I also spent a lot of time at Navarre Beach beginning in '77 at the old KOA (loved that place)...remember when WD Childers leased the beach to Santa Rosa County for $1/year in exchange for "Bo's Bridge".  Worked at PB on Wednesdays, leasing property.  And my husband worked on the beach from day one for a succession of beach builders.  I know I'm rambling.  

     

And, why are we still paying for the Bob Sikes Bridge?

2seaoat wrote:I mean that the first Districts argument on standing has plenty of precedent, which means that Jones has to bring the suit on constitutionality with the AG who would have standing, and I mean that the Supreme Court has to revisit this subject because the first District is interpreting the amendments to the statute in such a way as to nullify much of their decisions on equitable title.

In which case was there argument on standing, and whose standing was in question?  Jones??  Sorry, not following you here, and don't recall this from prior cases.

The equitable title decision was as to the first Navarre Beach case under Santa Rosa County Judge Rasmussen, re improvements.  I'm not sure that principle ended up being the actual basis for any of the ensuing decisions on that or other cases at any level.   The main thing with NB became the virtual automatic renewability of leases, a hard one to fight.  On PBeach, where no land suits until the instant Portofino case had actually been tried, the big thing was the long precedent I mentioned above re the longevity of buildings vs. the lease term.  Or so I understand things at present.  Am no expert, for certain.

Floridatexan wrote:And, why are we still paying for the Bob Sikes Bridge?

We're not.   Bridge tolls were pledged as backup security for bond debt incurred due to various transportation projects, I believe the largest being the four-laning of Via de Luna that took place a number of years back, likely still being paid for.

You're of course not the only one asking this, and it's timely; the new SunPass system has again brought the toll question (which surfaces from time to time) to the forefront.   Just a couple of days back, in fact, I suggested to the new beach beat reporter, Melissa Nelson-Gabriel, that it would be helpful if the PNJ would do an article to edify us all on the current justification for the toll.   She replied it was a good idea, but we'll see whether or not the suggestion bears actual fruit.

I do recall hearing way back when that, by State law, if such tolls are used for projects, they must be related to the movement of vehicles and/or pedestrians.   I say that only to quash any thoughts people might have about using the tolls for anything unrelated to transportation.

Floridatexan wrote:And it needs more ()*&^(*&%(&^%) palm trees, and an archway to nowhere...and...I wonder what kind of leverage Fred has with the courts...probably none.

You and my husband.  He has long held that the only thing that could operate to change the property taxing mindset of the courts these days would be money and power.

As for the palm trees, paid for by "excess" lease fees charged to Portofino as part of the initial approval negotiations and earmarked for continual "island beautification" (ha), I'm in total agreement that the palms are WAY, WAY over the top, intrusive overkill.   I protested them when the project was first announced, way back before planting, and got nowhere.  Arrogant little Mr. Rinke told me, when I complained that the trees would interfere with what little view some of us have of the Sound and Gulf, that our views were "just postage stamps" or some such.  He said it with such disdain.   I wanted to wring his neck.

And after the project was done, the SRIA held firm in saying "some love them, some hate them," as though it were 50-50 with island residents re the palms.  I seriously doubt that, though I suppose it's possible.  I did have one (and only one) neighbor say he welcomed the palms in front of his leasehold.   In our case, we already had palms and the new ones were planted in front of them, ruining the effect.   But it was done on the public right of way and we had no recourse.   DISGUSTING.

What archway?  Am I missing something?

The idea didn't fly, but there was a proposal to put an elevated walkway from the Gulfside beach over Via de Luna to the Soundside.  Didn't make any sense to me...and I wasn't alone.  And I really don't know when the SRIA has been responsive to beach residents...the worst being the approval of Portofino.  Haven't met Rinke; probably wouldn't be a good idea.  I thought Levin/Rinke were supposed to do beach remediation...not plant palm trees that detract from, rather than enhance, the beach ambiance.  What a horrible waste of money!  No one I've talked to likes the palm trees...no one.  

I do, however, know what Seaoat means about homeowners' associations...some people always want to run the show and look like big shots, even when they have no clue what they're talking about.

Floridatexan wrote:The idea didn't fly, but there was a proposal to put an elevated walkway from the Gulfside beach over Via de Luna to the Soundside.  Didn't make any sense to me...and I wasn't alone.  And I really don't know when the SRIA has been responsive to beach residents...the worst being the approval of Portofino.  Haven't met Rinke; probably wouldn't be a good idea.  I thought Levin/Rinke were supposed to do beach remediation...not plant palm trees that detract from, rather than enhance, the beach ambiance.  What a horrible waste of money!  No one I've talked to likes the palm trees...no one.  

I do, however, know what Seaoat means about homeowners' associations...some people always want to run the show and look like big shots, even when they have no clue what they're talking about.

OK, thanks for clarifying -- I thought you were talking about some kind of arch that had been built I didn't know about.   The pedestrian walkway idea I did know about.  The biggest problem with it, as I recall, was that, due to gradual ramping up requirements, it would've actually extended into, and taken up too much of the parking space in, the Casino lot.  It'll be interesting to see if the latest consulting group comes up with anything like that again -- though they have access to all prior studies and the results/opinions.   Pedestrian crossings are becoming more and more active and we can only hope there are no incidents.  Hubby and I see near misses with some frequency.

Good to know I'm not the only one who detests all the palms.  That's what I thought.  It really is a grotesque waste, I agree.    And my opinion all along, which I freely shared with Paolo at the time and he didn't disagree, was that Rinke's entire purpose was to hide or at least minimize the appearance of all the older/less appealing houses all along Via de Luna on the way to his east end "resort."    Hate to say it but IMHO the SRIA seems a bit cowed by Rinke's power and status and doesn't seem inclined to argue with him much.

(The Levin that Rinke was partnered with -- Allen -- died a number of years back; just wasn't sure if you knew that.  That's why I pretty much just refer to Rinke even though the firm name is still Levin Rinke.)

Floridatexan wrote:The idea didn't fly, but there was a proposal to put an elevated walkway from the Gulfside beach over Via de Luna to the Soundside.  Didn't make any sense to me...and I wasn't alone.  And I really don't know when the SRIA has been responsive to beach residents...the worst being the approval of Portofino.  Haven't met Rinke; probably wouldn't be a good idea.  I thought Levin/Rinke were supposed to do beach remediation...not plant palm trees that detract from, rather than enhance, the beach ambiance.  What a horrible waste of money!  No one I've talked to likes the palm trees...no one.  

I do, however, know what Seaoat means about homeowners' associations...some people always want to run the show and look like big shots, even when they have no clue what they're talking about.

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

The elevated walkway over Via Deluna was but one element of a vast nonsensical yet comprehensive plan to make pedestrian mobility safer and enhance traffic flow.  It did neither . . . . . as a member of the appointed committee members tasked to seek practical remedies to age old problems it eventually had to come to what was obvious all along . . . . the island is narrow and dramatic and the recommendations from the consultants (from Boca Raton as I recall) were not reasonable, too expensive, diminished existing parking rather than increase and created artificial visual barriers to the open spaces so cherished by the public.  Lastly, I served as President of our HOA for many years, principally because others would not commit, and my days of playing big shot were nominal to say the least. I can say that I led the efforts dating back to the 80's that eventually led to Peg Leg's (a five + year effort), The Cove subdivision ( a four year effort), angled parking on Ft. Pickens Road across from Peg Leg's (tripling capacity) and negotiating with Escambia County to take responsibility of Lafitte Cove as a public waterway (making it eligible for Stafford Act funding, a four year project ) and an endless array of other smaller issues during my tenure. It was gratifying on one hand and the most disgusting responsibility on the other . . . . . a big shot? Hardly . . . . lol

knothead wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:The idea didn't fly, but there was a proposal to put an elevated walkway from the Gulfside beach over Via de Luna to the Soundside.  Didn't make any sense to me...and I wasn't alone.  And I really don't know when the SRIA has been responsive to beach residents...the worst being the approval of Portofino.  Haven't met Rinke; probably wouldn't be a good idea.  I thought Levin/Rinke were supposed to do beach remediation...not plant palm trees that detract from, rather than enhance, the beach ambiance.  What a horrible waste of money!  No one I've talked to likes the palm trees...no one.  

I do, however, know what Seaoat means about homeowners' associations...some people always want to run the show and look like big shots, even when they have no clue what they're talking about.

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

The elevated walkway over Via Deluna was but one element of a vast nonsensical yet comprehensive plan to make pedestrian mobility safer and enhance traffic flow.  It did neither . . . . . as a member of the appointed committee members tasked to seek practical remedies to age old problems it eventually had to come to what was obvious all along . . . . the island is narrow and dramatic and the recommendations from the consultants (from Boca Raton as I recall) were not reasonable, too expensive, diminished existing parking rather than increase and created artificial visual barriers to the open spaces so cherished by the public.  Lastly, I served as President of our HOA for many years, principally because others would not commit, and my days of playing big shot were nominal to say the least. I can say that I led the efforts dating back to the 80's that eventually led to Peg Leg's (a five + year effort), The Cove subdivision ( a four year effort), angled parking on Ft. Pickens Road across from Peg Leg's (tripling capacity) and negotiating with Escambia County to take responsibility of Lafitte Cove as a public waterway (making it eligible for Stafford Act funding, a four year project ) and an endless array of other smaller issues during my tenure. It was gratifying on one hand and the most disgusting responsibility on the other . . . . . a big shot? Hardly . . . . lol

I wasn't referring to you in particular, Knot, but making a general remark about HOA's or other similar organizations...and the SRIA as a governing body that made it necessary for you to become so involved in projects outside the scope of your HOA responsibilities, when they all but rubber stamped Portofino over the outcry of PB residents.

RealLindaL wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:The idea didn't fly, but there was a proposal to put an elevated walkway from the Gulfside beach over Via de Luna to the Soundside.  Didn't make any sense to me...and I wasn't alone.  And I really don't know when the SRIA has been responsive to beach residents...the worst being the approval of Portofino.  Haven't met Rinke; probably wouldn't be a good idea.  I thought Levin/Rinke were supposed to do beach remediation...not plant palm trees that detract from, rather than enhance, the beach ambiance.  What a horrible waste of money!  No one I've talked to likes the palm trees...no one.  

I do, however, know what Seaoat means about homeowners' associations...some people always want to run the show and look like big shots, even when they have no clue what they're talking about.

OK, thanks for clarifying -- I thought you were talking about some kind of arch that had been built I didn't know about.   The pedestrian walkway idea I did know about.  The biggest problem with it, as I recall, was that, due to gradual ramping up requirements, it would've actually extended into, and taken up too much of the parking space in, the Casino lot.  It'll be interesting to see if the latest consulting group comes up with anything like that again -- though they have access to all prior studies and the results/opinions.   Pedestrian crossings are becoming more and more active and we can only hope there are no incidents.  Hubby and I see near misses with some frequency.

Good to know I'm not the only one who detests all the palms.  That's what I thought.  It really is a grotesque waste, I agree.    And my opinion all along, which I freely shared with Paolo at the time and he didn't disagree, was that Rinke's entire purpose was to hide or at least minimize the appearance of all the older/less appealing houses all along Via de Luna on the way to his east end "resort."    Hate to say it but IMHO the SRIA seems a bit cowed by Rinke's power and status and doesn't seem inclined to argue with him much.

(The Levin that Rinke was partnered with -- Allen -- died a number of years back; just wasn't sure if you knew that.  That's why I pretty much just refer to Rinke even though the firm name is still Levin Rinke.)

Yes, I knew that.  But, IMHO, without Fred's influence, money and legal ties, the project would never have flown.

I can only speak of one HOA in a ten year period over on NB. My experience was such that I will never invest in a HOA condo association. There was a real battle with the public coming onto "our" beach and setting up tents in all the "best" locations......for there not to be the same conversation on PB where a development had beach in front of it seems incredulous to me. I saw horrible selfish conduct by members of our HOA and there were a few good people who understood fiduciary duty, but when a person simply wants to enjoy nature and the beach.......the HOA is a conduit where all of man's worse conduct can be channeled and I will never have any part of it. If you were to give me a free condo on NB, I honestly doubt I would accept the same at this point in my life with the high carrying cost, horrible overcrowding in season, and the desert of commercial choices on a once bountiful beach......the east end is my tranquility and peace.

Linda, the question of standing was raised by the first and there is a strong series of cases in Florida which limit an assessor's ability to challenge the constitutionality of a statute.

Floridatexan wrote:

knothead wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:The idea didn't fly, but there was a proposal to put an elevated walkway from the Gulfside beach over Via de Luna to the Soundside.  Didn't make any sense to me...and I wasn't alone.  And I really don't know when the SRIA has been responsive to beach residents...the worst being the approval of Portofino.  Haven't met Rinke; probably wouldn't be a good idea.  I thought Levin/Rinke were supposed to do beach remediation...not plant palm trees that detract from, rather than enhance, the beach ambiance.  What a horrible waste of money!  No one I've talked to likes the palm trees...no one.  

I do, however, know what Seaoat means about homeowners' associations...some people always want to run the show and look like big shots, even when they have no clue what they're talking about.

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

The elevated walkway over Via Deluna was but one element of a vast nonsensical yet comprehensive plan to make pedestrian mobility safer and enhance traffic flow.  It did neither . . . . . as a member of the appointed committee members tasked to seek practical remedies to age old problems it eventually had to come to what was obvious all along . . . . the island is narrow and dramatic and the recommendations from the consultants (from Boca Raton as I recall) were not reasonable, too expensive, diminished existing parking rather than increase and created artificial visual barriers to the open spaces so cherished by the public.  Lastly, I served as President of our HOA for many years, principally because others would not commit, and my days of playing big shot were nominal to say the least. I can say that I led the efforts dating back to the 80's that eventually led to Peg Leg's (a five + year effort), The Cove subdivision ( a four year effort), angled parking on Ft. Pickens Road across from Peg Leg's (tripling capacity) and negotiating with Escambia County to take responsibility of Lafitte Cove as a public waterway (making it eligible for Stafford Act funding, a four year project ) and an endless array of other smaller issues during my tenure. It was gratifying on one hand and the most disgusting responsibility on the other . . . . . a big shot? Hardly . . . . lol

I wasn't referring to you in particular, Knot, but making a general remark about HOA's or other similar organizations...and the SRIA as a governing body that made it necessary for you to become so involved in projects outside the scope of your HOA responsibilities, when they all but rubber stamped Portofino over the outcry of PB residents.

No problem, forgetaboutit!