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

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Could someone please explain why we now have to purchase a SunPass in order to purchase a Pensacola Beach pass

Could someone please explain why we now have to purchase a SunPass in order to purchase a Pensacola Beach pass

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://myescambia.com/home/news/bob-sikes-bridge-accepting-sunpass%C2%AE-puts-drivers-fast-lane-pensacola-beach

2seaoat



I am sorry, but I have never seen a more blaring violation of equal protection of the laws where an Escambia County resident has to pay $50 and a beach resident has to pay only $5. Instant winner for any lawyer who wants to bring a class action. Just more beach arrogance not paying their fair share.........I mean if anybody can justify such a blatant violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.......shameful, and if you think three hundred thousand dollars a year of preference is small change, it is not. Just more proof of the bubble.

RealLindaL



The county has gone to a complete Sunpass system.    The old SRIA transponder system, used for annual passes in the past, was dismantled some time back and no longer exists.   The only electronic "reader" at the toll gates now -- the only thing that can pick up a signal from your car at all -- is the recently installed Sunpass equipment.  Thus having a Sunpass transponder activated and installed (either regular or sticker type) is the only way the system can detect whether or not your vehicle has an annual pass attached to its Sunpass account.   If it has an annual pass (because you bought one, see below), there is no toll charge debited to your Sunpass account -- but you must have an account in place in order for this system to work.  Make sense?

To further explain for you and/or others who still have questions, basically a person coming over the Sikes has three choices of situations:  

1.  If the vehicle has a Sunpass transponder and the owner has not purchased an annual pass, the $1 toll will be charged (debited) to the owner's Sunpass account each time it goes through.  This vehicle can use any of the toll plaza lanes.  

2. If the the vehicle has a Sunpass transponder AND has also purchased an annual pass ($50 for car, $70 for commercial vehicle, $5 for homesteaded PBeach leaseholder), there will be NO toll charged/debited to their Sunpass account when it goes through.  This vehicle, also, can use any of the lanes.

3. If the vehicle has NO Sunpass transponder, a $1 toll will be collected by staff in the booths at the plaza.  This vehicle may use any of the lanes EXCEPT the far left lane, which is NOT staffed so there's no one to take your money.  That lane is devoted exclusively to Sunpass-carrying vehicles, with or without an annual pass.  

I hope this helps, but please feel free to ask further questions if any and I'll try to respond.

As for seaoat's blustery comment about those arrogant beach residents (what a predictable comment on his part), personally I've never had a problem with paying full tilt for a pass, but there have long been complaints from residents about having to pay to get to their own domiciles.  I can see that point as well.   The bridge is long paid for anyway; the tolls are currently pledged as backup against debt on bond issues for island transportation projects including the 4-laning of Via de Luna done a number of years back.

2seaoat



but there have long been complaints from residents about having to pay to get to their own domiciles. I can see that point as well.

Bluster.....and you post the above? WTF How about this. Close the bridge and let the residents use the Navarre bridge or follow the fricking law concerning equal protection. If you do not see the sense of entitlement in the bubble, nothing I can say will pierce the illogical assumption that I live here therefore the taxpayers in Escambia County who paid much more for the original bridge must pay more than me........bluster......really?

2seaoat



Try this on for a bluster gauge. I lived on Garcon point. I live there so instead of 3.75 per toll I should pay 1/10th of the toll, or forty cents.....because you know....I live there, and the rest of the public in Santa Rosa and Escambia can pay 10 fold what I pay. We do need a bubble on Garcon Point.....those no seeums could not get in......and maybe we could keep some more folks out. No


Bluster......its called a threshold of intelligence and telling the truth.......but I know I should put my hat in hand and beg the beach residents.....do you folks think you could pay your fair share........it is an annual pass.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

2seaoat wrote:but there have long been complaints from residents about having to pay to get to their own domiciles.  I can see that point as well.  

Bluster.....and you post the above?   WTF    How about this.  Close the bridge and let the residents use the Navarre bridge or follow the fricking law concerning equal protection.   If you do not see the sense of entitlement in the bubble, nothing I can say will pierce the illogical assumption that I live here therefore the taxpayers in Escambia County who paid much more for the original bridge must pay more than me........bluster......really?

I am kinda of the opinion that if people can afford to buy property on Pensacola Beach, they really do not need a $45 subsidy to drive to and from their domiciles.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



I am kinda of the opinion that if people can afford to buy property on Pensacola Beach, they really do not need a $45 subsidy to drive to and from their domiciles.

It is outrageous, and that same sense of entitlement just was expected over at Navarre Beach......and when Linda and I discussed beach issues nine years ago on the PNJ, she always questioned what my angle was.........my angle was not accepting this bubble of entitlement which allowed hardworking people on the mainlands of both counties paying for roads, bridges, and schools while everybody went insane about paying their fair share of taxes. To stand up in front of a HOA association and speak the truth......that we live here, therefore we are entitled to special privileges because we bought on the beach.......I have been all over the country, I have seen the most exclusive subdivisions which friends live in which exceed the sale price of ANYTHING on the beach, but I had never seen such undeserved self serving arrogance. Linda always believed in paying her fair share and made cogent arguments, but consistently failed to recognize that bubble, and made me out as some kind of radical when I argued that equitable title would change the illusion that some realtors had promised something fifty years ago. Not a word in folks leases about not paying taxes, and they made fun of my position that we would have to pay taxes.........no that arrogance is so thick, I wish I could have secretly taped a HOA meeting but it is illegal, and I suspect that Linda living in a home is insulated from the same. They need to pay the fifty bucks, or Escambia County residents need to pay five bucks......what a clear violation of the law.


RealLindaL



ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I am kinda of the opinion that if people can afford to buy property on Pensacola Beach, they really do not need a $45 subsidy to drive to and from their domiciles.

Z-man, I don't disagree (though others out here might comment, "That's what they say when we pay lease fees plus ad valorem taxes on both land and improvements, plus a fire MSBU that's many times that of a mainland county resident [to the tune of hundreds annually], and on and on, and when does the penalty for living on the island end?)."  (Just saying others might so remark.)  

I do find it interesting that so far I haven't seen nor heard word one from any mainland Escambia County resident (and that would NOT include seaoat) complaining about the reduced annual pass for homesteaders.  No negative article comments, letters to the editor, viewpoints, editorials -- nothing.  Apparently most mainlanders have better things to do with their time than begrudge us a bit of a break on this one fee.

Still, as previously stated, even though since I live in sea's imaginary beach bubble and thus by association am probably arrogant and unwilling to pay my fair share*, I've never had a problem with the full bore annual pass, and suspect that many if not most out here -- despite the occasional loud griper-- wouldn't care much, either.  To me the $5 per vehicle annual pass is just a small, rather meaningless token "gift," but I'll take it since it's offered, as anyone would do.  

*(I know sea now says I've always been willing to pay, but broad brush comments about beach leaseholders have a way of filtering down to all who live here.)

I don't know for certain but I suspect the deal was thought up by Commissioner Grover Robinson and/or others at the county level to assuage real or imagined concerns or questions from the leaseholders as to what the county -- who took over the Public Safety and Public Works functions from the SRIA -- was going to do that the SRIA wasn't already doing.  (Our lease fees alone previously funded the entire $8 million-plus SRIA budget; most people had no idea that was the case.)  Perhaps the break was designed to help reduce any fear or animosity that may've existed toward the county government "interlopers" onto a scene that always worked perfectly well.  Again, I can only speculate. 

But with the absolutely phenomenal amount of traffic pouring over that bridge these days from all over the country, I have to believe the reduced annual pass fee for beach homesteaders won't amount to a hill of beans in the big picture.

As most can probably see, it appears our seaoat is once again tilting at windmills, and should probably consider saving his blustery, over-the-top indignation for something more significant, or at least something that affects him directly in Santa Rosa County.  Class action suit indeed. Equal protection indeed.  Give me a friggin' break.   Rolling Eyes

As for the issue of ad valorem taxes,  I've said before if we want to discuss that mess, it would take one or more entire other threads.  (And I've also explained to him that the "equitable title" concept he keeps bringing up has not applied in the Pensacola Beach case rulings.)  I'm personally rather sick of the entire topic myself, having written volumes on it in the past, and am presently awaiting the latest Supreme Court ruling (who knows when) on the recent Portofino land case, but if anyone wants to start up that topic again, go right ahead and begin a new thread.  Have at it. And while you're at it, talk about fee simple title, which, as I predicted years ago, now looks more remote than ever as a feasible solution to the entire dark ages mess.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

So, now it costs me, a resident of Escambia County, a minimum of $65./year just to go to the beach...in Escambia County. In addition, at least some beach rentals comp the bridge pass...I would guess most of the hotels do...and the condos, etc. I feel I'm subsidizing the tourist industry.

2seaoat



Linda thinks it is common knowledge that beach residents are getting a $45 subsidy......I would bet 99% of the residents have zero knowledge of once again special breaks being extended to leaseholders. In regard to the lease fee what the hell does that have to do with making mainlanders pay more to use the bridge to the beach. Folks signed leases which clearly gave their lease payments, and NOT ONE LEASE said anything about not paying taxes or getting a subsidy to cross the bridge......holly crap.....the very definition of living in the bubble. Oh and the Seaoat does not live here argument is the white flag of surrender to logic and fairness as I am quite used to being without right to express an opinion because I now am residing in Illinois. If you do not think this is a problem, why don't you write a viewpoint in the PNJ saying how fair it is because of lease payments to make the rest of County residents pay more to go to the beach......again this is an annual pass, so the ludicrous logic of frequency which is implied by we live here arguments certainly could be communicated to all those who do not live in the bubble. I do not care.....it is just a reflection of trickle down economics where evil has manifested itself in arrogance and entitlement which shames the mother who buys some candy with her food stamps and gets chewed out at the check out by somebody who believes that my subsidy is my entitlement for hard work.....geez....I cannot believe that someone thinks nobody cares....nobody knows of this special deal.....nobody.

2seaoat



Tex if folks realized how much they paid over the last fifty years in increased taxes to pay for children whose parents did not pay taxes, the fifty bucks would be a drop in the bucket. Lease fees now mean that we deserve special deals. It was a fricking contract and you need to pay your lease fee period. When you have all the benefits of ownership, you need to pay your taxes. This does not mean that hardworking residents of Escambia County need to subsidize a leaseholder on an annual pass .......because of the rational justification that they live there........I will shut up. Linda thinks I am attacking her. I am not. I am attacking the feeling of entitlement which appalled me for twenty years. If it was simply one or two people.......it is the strangest thing I have ever seen. I will shut up because, again it will look like an attack on Linda.....that is not my intent.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

2seaoat wrote:Tex if folks realized how much they paid over the last fifty years in increased taxes to pay for children whose parents did not pay taxes, the fifty bucks would be a drop in the bucket.   Lease fees now mean that we deserve special deals.   It was a fricking contract and you need to pay your lease fee period.   When you have all the benefits of ownership, you need to pay your taxes.   This does not mean that hardworking residents of Escambia County need to subsidize a leaseholder on an annual pass .......because of the rational justification that they live there........I will shut up.   Linda thinks I am attacking her.  I am not.  I am attacking the feeling of entitlement which appalled me for twenty years.  If it was simply one or two people.......it is the strangest thing I have ever seen.  I will shut up because, again it will look like an attack on Linda.....that is not my intent.  

Actually, the biggest giveaway of all belongs to the premium rates of the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which hardly reflect the actual cost of rebuilding when disaster strikes a built-up area constructed (knowingly) in major flood-prone areas (which Hurricanes Ivan, Dennis, Andrew, and Katrina proved). Premium rates need to reflect expected costs; especially when the payees rebuild over the same previously destroyed or damaged  footprint.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:Linda thinks it is common knowledge that beach residents are getting a $45 subsidy......I would bet 99% of the residents have zero knowledge of once again special breaks being extended to leaseholders.

No idea what is meant by "once again" here, but it's certainly not the fault of beach leaseholders if mainlanders don't keep up with the news.  The $5 beach pass fee has been described in PNJ articles and elsewhere.

RealLindaL



Floridatexan wrote:So, now it costs me, a resident of Escambia County, a minimum of $65./year just to go to the beach...in Escambia County.  In addition, at least some beach rentals comp the bridge pass...I would guess most of the hotels do...and the condos, etc.  I feel I'm subsidizing the tourist industry.  

FT is right:  Instead of just a flat $50 as it was last year, now it's $50 for the pass, a $10 minimum balance in one's Sunpass account (even though that's still your money, of course, always there unless you spend it at some other location where you don't have a pass), and $4.99 for a Sunpass sticker (or around $20 for the regular size transponder).    

Just curious, FT:  Do you make at least 65 trips a year to the beach?  

I'm not sure what you mean when you say some or most hotels or rentals "comp the bridge pass."   You think they reimburse their guests for an annual pass and for setting up a Sunpass account for their vehicles?  Not sure how that works or where you get that idea, though it could easily enough be checked with a few phone calls.  

I do hope my post at least answered your question, even though I understand you don't like the result.   I'm not sure how your buying a Sunpass amounts to subsidizing the tourist industry.   What I think you're doing is saving your county a significant piece of the money that it was spending on the old system, which required more staff and which was constantly breaking down.

RealLindaL



ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Actually, the biggest giveaway of all belongs to the premium rates of the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which hardly reflect the actual cost of rebuilding when disaster strikes a built-up area constructed (knowingly) in major flood-prone areas (which Hurricanes Ivan, Dennis, Andrew, and Katrina proved). Premium rates need to reflect expected costs; especially when the payees rebuild over the same previously destroyed or damaged  footprint.

Flood insurance premium rates are set to rise substantially thanks to the Biggert-Waters National Insurance Reforms act of 2012, as amended.  

Also, efforts are underway on Pensacola Beach via FEMA grants to either elevate onto pilings, or tear down and rebuild on pilings, quite a few SRL's (severe repetitive loss properties) that were previously slab-on-grade.

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:Folks signed leases which clearly gave their lease payments, and NOT ONE LEASE said anything about not paying taxes or getting a subsidy to cross the bridge......holly crap.....the very definition of living in the bubble.

Oh stuff it.  Seaoat knows perfectly well that it was the generally accepted belief by virtually everyone for decades -- starting with the false promises made by county officials in the 1940's-50's seeking to develop Pensacola Beach, and continuing with the incorrect information touted by the real estate industry for decades thereafter -- that ad valorem taxes would not be charged on leasehold properties (to which, btw, title still resides in Escambia County -- on land AND improvements/buildings).   Yes, the leases for the most part say that the leaseholder is responsible for any and all taxes, but again, the vast majority believed that property taxation was not going to happen, and for a very long time it didn't, until Santa Rosa's Greg Brown decided to test the waters, and the rest is a convoluted history I don't even know why I'm getting into here.

(And just watch:  the Supreme Court may soon affirm that, on Pensacola Beach, the land, at least, is not taxable ad valorem but only as an intangible real property lease, as provided by Florida statute.  But I digress again into the topic I didn't wish to get into.)

Sure, it's true that leases don't address bridge tolls -- nor did they protect long time leaseholders from the increases in tolls and passes over the years. Nobody ever said they did.  That has what to do with what?   Complaining about taxes or fees is as American as apple pie.

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote: they made fun of my position that we would have to pay taxes.........no that arrogance is so thick, I wish I could have secretly taped a HOA meeting but it is illegal, and I suspect that Linda living in a home is insulated from the same.

Sea, I was all but "made fun of" as well when I predicted in viewpoints and in private discussions and beach meetings back then that we should be pushing for fee simple title, because the mindset of the courts appeared all but bound for ruling in favor of ad valorem taxation on PBeach. And a good friend of mine, a local semi-retired attorney, who gave me an essay platform to express my views when he was webmaster of the now-defunct PBRLA.com (website of the former Pensacola Beach Residents and Leaseholders Assn.) -- that friend received a thinly veiled threatening letter from an influential beach personality, stating in so many words that he needed to quit talking about title because it was going to foul the waters of the fight against property taxes, and asserting that we were NEVER going to have to pay those taxes.
So I have seen more of what you have than you think.

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:When you have all the benefits of ownership, you need to pay your taxes. 

I do have to say, on this topic I said I wasn't going to talk about (ha), that I don't personally consider it "having all the benefits of ownership" when:

1.   My lease will some day expire (actually, in my case, 64 years hence), and in my lease there is no guarantee of renewal on any terms, much less on terms that possible future heirs will be able to agree to.   (This is the case with many if not most PBeach leases and was the basis for the recent 1st DCA ruling in favor of Portofino, disallowing property taxation on their undeveloped parcel that similarly is not automatically renewable, unlike the majority of leases on Navarre Beach which are.)

2.  I am required by an outside authority (in this case the Santa Rosa Island Authority) to maintain my property (because it's not really mine), and if it is destroyed, I must rebuild it.   (This latter provision has not recently been enforced, but it's in the lease and could be enforced next time we have a major storm event.)  If I had "all the benefits of ownership" I could make decisions like that myself.

3.   I am not allowed to move my house anywhere I want to, because it doesn't belong to me.

4.  I do not hold fee simple title to my property, neither land nor improvements, yet I'm currently required to pay taxes on that property.  How important is the "paper" title? Well, to test a typical mainland reaction to the fairness or unfairness of that situation, sea may recall my saying years back that I would frequently query a mainland homeowner -- asking for an honest answer -- as to whether or not he or she would be willing to trade their fee simple title for a lease, EVEN IF it meant they wouldn't have to pay property taxes (which was, we thought, the quid pro quo when we purchased our leasehold interest).   Well, DUH, every single person said they would NOTagree to the trade, taxes or no taxes.  Really??!!  I wonder why??!!   It's because holding that piece of paper, especially for us homesteaders (as opposed, perhaps, to investors like sea) has an intrinsic, virtually undefinable value -- I'll call it priceless -- that makes a huge difference in most minds, and definitely in mine.

Tax me, title me, was my mantra, and truly still is.

And I will remind sea once more that the "fair share" of property taxes he generously says I've always been willing to pay was, for me, predicated on obtaining fee simple title.  I pushed to get the federal legislation done that would allow Escambia County to pass title to leaseholders who wanted it, and to Santa Rosa County the title to Navarre Beach, providing that county the opportunity to also pass individual title to leaseholders who wanted it.  

Well, that legislation in two forms (a House bill and Senate bill) has been stalled in committee for over a year now, maybe two, I'm losing track.   And up until this most recent court ruling in favor of Portofino, Escambia County was sitting fat and happy collecting ad valorem taxes on land and improvements on PBeach, and thus didn't have much incentive to push our legislators to get those bills moving.   But now -- depending on what the Supreme Court rules when (if) they decide to hear the Escambia County tax assessor's appeal -- the county powers that be may be getting back off their duffs and pushing for the federal title legislation once more, because whoever takes title will necessarily be once more required to pay taxes on land and improvements,and they would hope that would be the majority of leaseholders, giving them back their entire windfall intact.

I would hope so, too, because the situation right now is nutso, unsettled, untenable, and there's no end in sight to litigation until there's nothing to litigate because we're all on equal footing with mainland property owners, totally done with this ancient throwback leasing system -- just as it SHOULD be.  

And that's my position and I'm sticking to it. (Hopefully a lot better than I stuck to my vow not to discuss the taxation issue unless we went to a new thread or two. lol)

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:So, now it costs me, a resident of Escambia County, a minimum of $65./year just to go to the beach...in Escambia County.  In addition, at least some beach rentals comp the bridge pass...I would guess most of the hotels do...and the condos, etc.  I feel I'm subsidizing the tourist industry.  

FT is right:  Instead of just a flat $50 as it was last year, now it's $50 for the pass, a $10 minimum balance in one's Sunpass account (even though that's still your money, of course, always there unless you spend it at some other location where you don't have a pass), and $4.99 for a Sunpass sticker (or around $20 for the regular size transponder).    

Just curious, FT:  Do you make at least 65 trips a year to the beach?  

I'm not sure what you mean when you say some or most hotels or rentals "comp the bridge pass."   You think they reimburse their guests for an annual pass and for setting up a Sunpass account for their vehicles?  Not sure how that works or where you get that idea, though it could easily enough be checked with a few phone calls.  

I do hope my post at least answered your question, even though I understand you don't like the result.   I'm not sure how your buying a Sunpass amounts to subsidizing the tourist industry.   What I think you're doing is saving your county a significant piece of the money that it was spending on the old system, which required more staff and which was constantly breaking down.

I'm sorry for not responding, Linda. I had to go to a funeral this afternoon for a young man...age 31. My daughter came from ND to attend. I had recently become close to this person, but he was my daughters' friend, and a whole raft of their friends who came over today after the service. I am heartbroken that he's gone.

2seaoat



I am heartbroken that he's gone.


I am sorry for your loss. That is very young and it appears this may have been sudden. Can you share what happened?

RealLindaL



Floridatexan wrote:I'm sorry for not responding, Linda.  I had to go to a funeral this afternoon for a young man...age 31.  My daughter came from ND to attend.  I had recently become close to this person, but he was my daughters' friend, and a whole raft of their friends who came over today after the service.  I am heartbroken that he's gone.

OH, FT, I'm so sorry you and your daughter have lost someone close to you. By all means there's no need to apologize for not responding here, but thank you for taking the time to let us know.  We'll hope to see you back posting whenever you feel like doing so.  
Peace,
LL

Guest


Guest

I'm sorry too Flatex. We gain some perspective as we age... but it's raw when a young person dies. Nice that you hosted them.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I won't give any details. Not sure I know the whole story anyway. I will just share what my daughter wrote, which was read by the Navy chaplain who conducted the service.

"One of the brightest lights to ever shine on the face of this earth left us Sunday night. I imagine if you had looked at the sky at the right moment you could have seen a psychedelic technicolor comet flying in front of the strawberry moon on his way to heaven, hopefully glancing back once more to realize the profound effect his love and warmth had on so many of us. Rest in peace, *****. I will carry that love in my heart forever."

RealLindaL



That was a beautiful tribute. Would that it were true....

I remembered reading the obit for this fellow, being touched by the warm smile in his photo, and thinking he must've been a very special young man indeed. These things are so hard. Again, I'm sorry for your loss.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Could someone please explain why we now have to purchase a SunPass in order to purchase a Pensacola Beach pass

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