All Information (Except Text) for S.1073 - Escambia County Land Conveyance Act 115th Congress (2017-2018)

2seaoat wrote:Now let us say that fifty leaseholds were bought by the County in 2050, and then transferred to one wealthy person to create an estate on PB.

Can't likely happen on PB anyway without zoning regulation changes.  Currently, combining of lots is specifically disallowed.   My memory is that over the many decades since development  began there may've been one or two variances to the rule granted to combine two lots -- the reasons for same now escape me -- but a recent suggestion by the SRIA's executive director that combining lots be allowed as a matter of course in the supposed interest of lower density was soundly defeated by the full board of directors.

Zoning will always be at the purview of the county, though public input is also crucial.  That said, controlled development on PB has taken place for decades under the lease scenario, and the revised form of ownership will not change that.  Just inserting this as a matter of interest.

OK...found this:

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/pensacola/beaches/2017/07/17/sen-nelson-explains-changing-stance-private-beach-ownership-pensacola-and-navarre/484159001/

An example of the restriction on the public purpose doctrine could be if a large area was sold to a Marina who then announced they would seek permits to cut a new Navarre Pass. If this was done on any property on the mainland without a deed restriction, there would be little or no chance of a reversion action. However, an environmental group if they succeeded in convincing the court they had standing could in one of their counts claim that the marina and the Navarre Pass was not for a public purpose, but was actually against the public purpose. Beyond any permitting issues for such a cut, and there could be the additional cloud on title which would arise with a reversion action. Ultimately, if successful the property could revert back to the United States government. So the idea that Escambia has been given full fee simple rights in that 1940s deed is simply not correct as the deed restrictions remain.

2seaoat wrote:An example of the restriction on the public purpose doctrine could be if a large area was sold to a Marina who then announced they would seek permits to cut a new Navarre Pass.  If this was done on any property on the mainland without a deed restriction, there would be little or no chance of a reversion action.  However, an environmental group if they succeeded in convincing the court they had standing could in one of their counts claim that the marina and the Navarre Pass was not for a public purpose, but was actually against the public purpose.  Beyond any permitting issues for such a cut, and there could be the additional cloud on title which would arise with a reversion action.   Ultimately, if successful the property could revert back to the United States government.  So the idea that Escambia has been given full fee simple rights in that 1940s deed is simply not correct as the deed restrictions remain.

I'm not sure why you're spending so very much time on all this, other than to hear yourself talk. The new legislation removes the restrictions, imposing only the new one as to protection of existing public lands/accesses. That's what the bill is all about.

And it specifically does NOT speak to the Navarre Pass (which an amendment to the last attempted bill did), because SRC would not sign on in favor of this bill this time unless the pass was left out of it completely. Bill Nelson was aware of that. Some of those Navarre people are still dreaming of a pass, even though the likelihood of their ever obtaining approval/permits is extremely slim, ESPECIALLY since the Air Force has chimed in heavily against it due to impacts on their Eglin training ops.