“Don’t let them steal our beach.”

I have always enjoyed Earl's style of writing but laced in this beautiful piece are factually incorrect statements beginning with the title of his piece. "Don't Let Them Steal Our Beach" is not only baseless but it continues to stir the age old controversy between the 'we-own-it-crowd' and the island residents who have listened to this nonsense for decades.

First, who is stealing 'our beach'? Simple question . . . . who? I am against Jeff Miller's advocacy of fee simple ownership for a myriad of reasons. Residents and businesses on the island each have an agreement (lease) and changing that 'agreement requires both parties to either amend or suspend it.
Secondly, the tax suit against the County has yet to be decided but a ruling could come virtually any day so the islanders are still hopeful the County will lose in that case. If not, island residents would then be required to pay their lease fees that feed Buck Lee's operation at the SRIA PLUS the newly added burden of property taxes. Sounds like double taxation but because the SRIA does not have the authority to levy a tax they are not a taxing entity hence no double taxation.
The BOCC recognizes the inequities this new paradigm would inflict on the island's residents/businesses and have essentially promised that if the County wins the suit forcing islanders to pay property taxes then something would have to be done to eliminate the lease fees because paying both is wrong.
Back to Earl . . . . if the suit is lost what part of the beach will be stolen? If the suit is won, what part of the beach will be stolen? The answer is absolutely nothing . . . . . leasehold interests have most of characteristics as fee simple in that I cannot trespass on a leaseholder's property and neither can anyone else no more than I could trespass on Bob's property in town . . . . it's always been that way. The public areas of the island will remain public and reserved for recreation and events that are in the public interest as per the SRIA. There are miles of pristine beach where the public can go unfettered because it is set aside for public use!
Like I said, I am not for fee simple ownership . . . . I signed a binding agreement in 1977 and it is my hope the FL Supremes agree with that position.

Thank goodness for the federal government's protection of at least some of our nation's remaining primal beauty.
Without the government, businesses would have raped it all.

Kudos to Teddy Roosevelt who started it all.

Federal government haters don't  know  what they are  talking about.

bluemoon wrote:Thank goodness for the federal government's protection of at least some of our nation's remaining primal beauty.
Without the government, businesses would have raped it all.

Kudos to Teddy Roosevelt who started it all.

Federal government haters don't  know  what they are  talking about.

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

Very true words . . . . it's the down side of enterprise I suppose but I believe in protecting our public spaces . . . . . it's 60 years too late for Santa Rosa island I'm sorry to say.

I do wish we had more public lands, not necessarily all federally owned.

But I do also agree with knot that the original contracts should be upheld.

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.

I really got under Earl's skin at the PNJ. My nickname for him was the Patrician. Earl is a wonderful asset and has done wonderful things for the Pensacola area, but sometimes he can match my arrogance and he simply does not understand what he is talking about.

The leasehold is a equitable ownership on both Navarre and PB. The leaseholders cannot restrict anybody from utilizing the areas not platted to the ocean front. In Navarre this varies from 50-60 feet after bad storms to 400 feet after replinishment. This idea that the over of a beach house who has a leasehold somehow will be instilled with super ownership rights to restrict the public from beach ownership is a red herring and typical Earl pulling the hand is quicker than the eye. Fee simple ownership is the only solution. When those deeds are transferred there can be restrictions and covenants which come with the same.

Now Earl is right about one thing.......if the leases expire, the public could simply tear down the structures and take back the property. Even worse is what I argued for years on the Navarre thread, was to grant fee simple and those who did not want to accept fee simple, have an open auction on the remainder interest after the lease expires, and sell the fee simple to third parties where they would not actually take title until the lease expires, and set escrows in area title companies where the deeds would be held. The folks who did not want fee simple would pay taxes, and lease fees until their lease expired, and the new owner would take over the property in 40 plus years, or 140 years. A viable secondary market of leaseholds would develop, and the county would generate tens of millions........and sorry Earl......nothing happens to the public beach......these are platted lots which do not have ownership to the water.

Fee Simple now!

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.

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

You're wrong PD . . . . you can label it double dipping if it pleases you but we live in a nation of laws and I'm sure you agree on that. Agreements are supposed to be binding . . . . the County was trying to give incentives for people to come live out here and it was a lease fee only with no taxes in the early agreements. Once the island became developed they want to change the rules and that dog don't hunt with me . . . . sounds like a bait and switch.

Once the island became developed they want to change the rules and that dog don't hunt with me . . . . sounds like a bait and switch.

Knot you are one of the most intelligent posters on this forum. So I will challenge you to use that intelligence and find in your lease.....the written lease which was the agreement between you and the County where it said that no taxes needed to be paid. I read my lease on Navarre, and when the realtor said that we would not have to pay taxes.....I replied not for now, but there is nothing in the lease which restricts them from taxing us in the future. When they were asking for contributions for the lawsuit, I pointed out that this was futile, and that airport leases had companies paying property taxes for 50 years before Pensacola beach started leasing, and taxes were being collected under the doctrine of equitable ownership.

Now, let us say you had that one lease which contained the magic language that no property taxes would be collected. Tell me how the County speaks for the school district. Can any taxing body just promise a parcel owner that they do not have to pay taxes. Under what constitutional authority in the State of Florida did the County have to bind other taxing districts. So even if you had the language in your lease......and even if some judge bought the idea that the verbal representations of those developing PB did not merge into the lease......how can an illegal act by the county be ratified at some later date......it cannot. The theory of equitable title has prevailed in court in every state in the Union for 60 years plus, and nothing will change in the court's decision. Fee simple has always been the answer.

The leasehold is a equitable ownership on both Navarre and PB

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

That was the legal argument that prevailed on Navarre Beach but we await the ruling regarding Ariola v Chris Jones . . . . . Equitable ownership asserts that the leasehold interests have the earmarks so similar to fee simple that it is tantamount to fee simple ownership. In the Navarre cases the leases are for 99 years with an automatic renewal clause and in those cases I would agree that would be consistent with equitable ownership. However, there are approximately 600 leases on Pensacola Beach that do not contain any form of renewal and hence the equitable argument should not apply. There are other deviations in lease agreements on P.B. that are not consistent with fee simple. I know you are knowledgeable about this topic but I wasn't sure if you understood that over 600 leases do not contain any form of renewal and should not be included in the one-size-fits-all equitable ownership narrative. Do you agree?

LOL, now we just need Storm's input....

I have no idea what the leases on the beach properties say, but whatever the contract/lease says should be upheld by the court.

knothead wrote:The leasehold is a equitable ownership on both Navarre and PB

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

That was the legal argument that prevailed on Navarre Beach but we await the ruling regarding Ariola v Chris Jones . . . . . Equitable ownership asserts that the leasehold interests have the earmarks so similar to fee simple that it is tantamount to fee simple ownership.  In the Navarre cases the leases are for 99 years with an automatic renewal clause and in those cases I would agree that would be consistent with equitable ownership.  However, there are approximately 600 leases on Pensacola Beach that do not contain any form of renewal and hence the equitable argument should not apply.  There are other deviations in lease agreements on P.B. that are not consistent with fee simple.  I know you are knowledgeable about this topic but I wasn't sure if you understood that over 600 leases do not contain any form of renewal and should not be included in the one-size-fits-all equitable ownership narrative.  Do you agree?

I did not realize that there are different types of leases on the beach.

But I do also agree with knot that the original contracts should be upheld.


They are being upheld. There is not one word in any lease on the beaches which says that taxes will not be paid. The merger doctrine says that any oral representations are merged into the written agreement. IF A PERSON DID NOT WANT TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THE LEASE UNTIL THE PROPER LANGUAGE WAS INSERTED.

The reason it was not inserted is the County would have been Ultra Vires and without authority to speak for other taxing bodies.........folks who bought need to have people explain the written documents they were signing. I knew when I bought that each year was a gift because I read my lease and had knowledge of Public airport leases where taxes had been collected for decades under the theory of equitable ownership.......There was no bait and switch.........there was only simple ignorance and wishful thinking........the same thing which made some unscrupulous lawyers who made 100s of thousands of dollars litigating a frivolous lawsuit that a second year law student would have told the leaseholders about the concept of equitable ownership and why their efforts were next to impossible. In the end buyer beware.......be informed, and understand what you are signing.

I wasn't sure if you understood that over 600 leases do not contain any form of renewal and should not be included in the one-size-fits-all equitable ownership narrative. Do you agree?

It matters little what my opinion is. It matters that courts have been finding equitable ownership in leases as short as 20 years with no renewable provisions. The logic is stellar. If you are going to use our roads, schools, law enforcement, and generally tax the infrastructure, you are for all intents and purposes an equitable owner. The argument that there is some magic line as to time or length of the lease, has never been established in state courts, but the trend has clearly been shorter times qualify for equitable ownership. I see a red herring argument which simply enriches some lawyers once again. Now if a person was looking at a 10 year lease......I think a fair argument could be made, but when the landlord is an exempt taxing body........the balancing of the equities are going to have those people who use public facilities pay for that use.

LOL, now we just need Storm's input....


Storm and I discussed this for years on PB and Navarre threads, but forum expert on PB is real Linda. She has an amazing grasp of the legal issues, the political issues, and the reality which the leaseholders face. She like me has argued for fee simple for years. Surf would really tear into Linda because, like Earl......he thought granting fee simple would take something from the public......it will not. Linda has spoken to Grover, and has attended meetings. She is very knowledgeable and although she would agree with Knot that it was not fair, she thinks money and time has been wasted when folks should be focusing on fee simple.

2seaoat wrote:LOL, now we just need Storm's input....


Storm and I discussed this for years on PB and Navarre threads, but forum expert on PB is real Linda.   She has an amazing grasp of the legal issues, the political issues, and the reality which the leaseholders face.   She like me has argued for fee simple for years.   Surf would really tear into Linda because, like Earl......he thought granting fee simple would take something from the public......it will not.  Linda has spoken to Grover, and has attended meetings.    She is very knowledgeable and although she would agree with Knot that it was not fair, she thinks money and time has been wasted when folks should be focusing on fee simple.

You say this because of tax revenues?

You say this because of tax revenues?


No I say this because Storm, Linda, and Knot are getting ripped off right now paying lease payments. Why am I not paying lease payments on my mainland property in Navarre, yet these folks are paying this extra. They are paying taxes for equitable ownership.....which is a sufficient portion of the glass being full to be taxed......I say give them their property, and stop the lease payments. It really does not get any simpler.

http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2011/07-18-2011/10-2050.pdf


SO, I found this in my personal computer but I'm headed to dinner but here is a link to the opinion if you are interested.

Also, to answer your query about language in lease agreements declaring "no taxes" you are correct for the most part, however, there are some whose lease explicitly abdicates tax liability, unfortunately, mine is not of that flavor. At any rate I am refreshing my memory by reading the arguments in this link and thought you may want to read it as well.

I have read it. It affirms the argument I have made for over eight years. Ad Valorem taxes are due because of equitable title. The question as to tax certificates going to tax sale was premature and the court needs to let this issue ripen. The simple reality is that other than the original Bell plaintiffs, everybody else on PB and NB will be paying taxes. There has never been a scintilla of doubt, other than some folks selling some folks a fantasy to collect attorney fees. I had all my neighbors pissed at me when I tried to explain this stuff eight years ago.......it was the best thing which ever happened because we sold at the top of the market, and I predicted a 10 year market decline. I was met with literally hundreds of owners on PB and NB tearing into me saying I was clueless and the prices would recover in two years. I explained the concept of equitable title, but some people have difficulty with concepts so it was impossible for them to comprehend why the court had to rule like it has. I was called names. I was told I was clueless..........but then the years that followed were pure sadness as folks came back on the forum and told me I was right and they had lost everything.

I really got angry when trying to explain to my neighbors that we should not be fighting taxation, but we should concede the same and get fee simple........there was so much greed and avarice at that time......I made 300% in five years and its was like a swarm of bees only concerned with money and not the beauty of the beach.....I could not get out of there fast enough, and mainland Navarre is only a five minute drive from my beach chair on the east end......it was simple......it was nonetheless sad for so many who were mislead by unscrupulous realtors and lawyers who profited off people's ignorance.

Your projections and track record on this issue has been exceedingly accurate as to the literal interpretation the Appeal Court elected to uphold or the stare decisis standard applied to the PB cases despite the unique and substantive differences between the NB and PB leases. What gives me a ray of hope here Mr. Oats is the appeal decision detailed the case and cited multiple for and against cases . . . . . if they had wanted to END IT they would have simply sent it down as AFFIRMED and it would have been a done deal. The PB Plaintiffs have a wealth of appeal able language. Honestly, this could have just as easily have gone against the County but they opted to honor the stare decisis standard as saying their hands were tied.

I wish I had had the good fortune to sell in '07 but I'm glad you made 300% and moved across the bridge . . . . both nice and smart!

I wish I had had the good fortune to sell in '07 but I'm glad you made 300% and moved across the bridge . . . . both nice and smart!


Not really. I decided to 1031 the profit into four new homes and an existing home. So instead of one investment on the beach losing equity, I leveraged my gain, and avoided taxes, only to experience larger losses. Greed is a terrible thing, and I rationalized my greed with simply selling and retiring.......I missed getting the new houses on the market by as little as four months.........they all are cash flowing, but it simply is not fair to my wife to have to handle my greed. She asked my when I got a huge check on the beach why we could not just pay the taxes........I said we will on the next sale......a bridge too far.

In regards to why the court ruled as they did, it was simple.....the issue was not yet justiciable.....it was not ripe. They will make the same decision once those issues are ripe. It is simple concepts of equitable ownership accepted in every major jurisdiction in America, and with a clear trend to less and less time on the lease.

They will make the same decision once those issues are ripe.

I do hope you are off the mark on this but if not. . . . life goes on till it doesn't . . . . a profound thought!

I do hope you are off the mark on this but if not. . . . life goes on till it doesn't . . . . a profound thought!

I do not know if you have had the pleasure to talk with Real Linda, but she really is the PB expert with Stormy......most of my focus was on NB. She does not post as frequently as she did, and maybe you can get her opinion on these issues. She uses reason and logic, and really has become involved in the fight for fee simple. I respect her opinions as to how the wind is blowing on the beach. Since I have been sick, I have rented my house and spend all my time within three hours of Northwestern Hospital. I think I am going to come down in September and play some golf with friends in Biloxi and play some poker at the Beau Rivage. I just refinanced one of my houses and they released an empty lot which I am going to meet with the realtor and put it up for sale, but raw land is worthless. I will not get to see the Wahoo game I had hoped for, but I will stop at the park and spend half a day, and spend some time over at veteran's park........I am a simple man with simple needs and the bay is simply beautiful.........many an afternoon, I just laid out on the grass and enjoyed watching people, traffic, the bay, and the folks who served their country.........peace is a wonderful thing when found.......greed brings no peace.

SO, no sir I do not know Real Linda . . . . . it doesn't matter one whit . . . . . . the fight has been fought . . . . . after the Bell ruling we have finally been given an opportunity to plea our case in the Supreme Court . . . . I cannot alter the outcome but I will respect the ruling . . . . as I told PB we are a nation of laws and I will bust out the Money Market to pay if we lose. I still love and appreciate the natural beauty I have had the privilege of enjoying for four decades . . . . . many of my closest friends live on the mainland and they know me . . . . I will abide by the decision whatever it may be.

You're a good intelligent man SO and i appreciate your knowledge even though we don't always agree but if we did it wouldn't be entertaining, would it?

Thanks for the kind words, Seaoat.  Don't know about being an "expert," but I certainly have been immersed in this issue for longer than I care to think about.

Just ran across this thread en route to bed tonight and am itching to say a few words on a couple of points, but it's late and I really need some sleep, so hope to be back tomorrow.  

What was "Storm's" handle on the old PNJ forums?  

'Night all.