“Don’t let them steal our beach.”

Toward the end she used Stormy(stormwatcher), I do not know what her earlier handle was back five years ago.  I know she knows many of the SRIA folks, and also has a great deal of knowledge.   I am limited by geography now from keeping on top of things. I do know she suffered a great deal through the hurricanes.

I'm afraid Seaoat is right, but good luck with the Court, knot.

Nekochan wrote:I'm afraid Seaoat is right, but good luck with the Court, knot.  

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

Thank you Neko, I'm a big boy and can take it . . . . . the decision could come out any day now but thanks for your well wishes!

I am actually working on a Viewpoint piece to submit to the PNJ answering Earl Bowden's  opinion column, and am in total agreement with Knothead that, essentially, you can't lose what you never had (access to individual leaseholds), and that nothing will change for the beach visitor.  It also needs to be clarified that the majority of Gulf front leaseholds have defined lot lines, NOT designated as extending to the mean high tide line as in other counties, but specifically defined footage, and again, that will not change.  More to say but I'm working on that.  

Also much more to say  here in response to the many valued comments, but before I sign off I just wanted to reassure Knot that Jeff Miller's legislation will NOT negate lease contracts.  You are correct that you have an agreement that cannot be unilaterally terminated, and the  bill doesn't do that, nor can the county commission.  What the bill will do is allow the county (IF they want to; it doesn't require them) to offer you fee simple ownership AS AN OPTION.  You don't have to take it.  You can keep your lease and, if the courts rule against the leaseholders, maybe you'll get lucky and the county will stop charging you lease fees - but you'll still owe property taxes.  Why anyone wouldn't want fee simple if they have to pay ad valorem taxes is beyond me, but apparently a good many people elected to do just that (refuse fee simple) on Okaloosa Island when deeds were offered many years back.  

Yes, the option means there could be properties with different situations on the same island -- some leased, some owned.  That's not all that unusual in the world of real estate.

More soon.

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?

If a lease doesn't contain a renewal clause, it seems to me that lease should be exempted or "grandfathered". I didn't realize there were so many exceptions.

Floridatexan wrote:

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?

If a lease doesn't contain a renewal clause, it seems to me that lease should be exempted or "grandfathered".  I didn't realize there were so many exceptions.  

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

. . . . . and therein lies the problem. All of the NB leases are contiguous with renewal clauses . . . . all of them. Over 600 leases on PB have absolutely no language referencing renewal whatsoever but the Appeal Court sided with the County citing stare decisis as their guiding standard obligating them to honor the precedent of law set in the NB cases!

knothead wrote:I signed a binding agreement in 1977 and it is my hope the FL Supremes agree with that position.

Gonna try to go through a few more of these posts today and add some comments, for what they're worth.

Knothead, your lease agreement likely doesn't say you never have to pay property taxes, nor does it say you can't be offered fee simple in lieu of the lease at your option.  

What the Supremes SHOULD do, however, is uphold current Florida law that states a lease of less than 100 years renders the property taxable as an intangible leasehold interest, period.  There is even a State tax form for that purpose, which many of us have returned annually.  Granted, the taxes are zero to peanuts -- but it's the law.  The lower courts so far have basically ignored this, and I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't do the same.

[quote=knothead...it's 60 years too late for Santa Rosa island I'm sorry to say.[/quote]


Knot is right - the horse has long left the barn on that issue, though fortunately we still have great stretches of protected National Seashore that this legislation will not touch.

Nekochan wrote: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 original contracts WILL be upheld, for anyone who wants to retain a lease agreement in lieu of title.  

And while I totally agree with those who say the promise of no property taxes was a colossal bait and switch by our local powers that be -- read beach leaseholder Bill Post's book, "Deceit Beach," if you doubt this -- nevertheless the vast majority of leases makes no such promise in writing.  It sucks, but there you are.  Time to deal with reality, I'm afraid.

2seaoat wrote: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.

Truer words were never spoken.  Bowden really doesn't know what he's talking about.  It's dangerous because he's generally so well respected by so many.

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.

I'm perfectly willing to pay my "fair share" if I am on fair and equal footing as to ownership of my house and the land it sits on.  Fair is fair is fair.  The day you, Pacedog (assuming you're a property owner) agree to give up title to your property and still pay property taxes as if you owned it - not to mention lease fees (though that's the least of the problem), is the day you have standing to criticize my position.

2seaoat wrote: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!

Seaoat has always lost me on all this stuff about what may happen decades from now; I remain focused on fee simple now, as he himself reiterates is the only way to ameliorate this mess.  But as for the county ever generating "tens of millions" in a "secondary market" - presuming Seaoat means millions for the county pocket -- that totally goes against the provisions in both the original deed from the federal government and the reiteration in the proposed Miller bill; i.e.,  that the county is not to reap a windfall from what was in fact a gift.

knothead wrote: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?

Knot I would like to know where you got your information that there are 600 leases on PB that contain no provision whatsoever for renewal.

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

Not only are there many variations in the leases on PBeach, but the provision that amounts to "automatic" renewal on NBeach, presuming it differs from anything on PBeach, should never have been allowed because, as I understand it, the lease of NBeach to Santa Rosa County by Escambia contained language to the effect that the terms and conditions of leases SRC would later enter into with individual leaseholders should reflect the terms extant in the PBeach leases.

RealLindaL wrote:

knothead wrote:I signed a binding agreement in 1977 and it is my hope the FL Supremes agree with that position.

Gonna try to go through a few more of these posts today and add some comments, for what they're worth.

Knothead, your lease agreement likely doesn't say you never have to pay property taxes, nor does it say you can't be offered fee simple in lieu of the lease at your option.  

What the Supremes SHOULD do, however, is uphold current Florida law that states a lease of less than 100 years renders the property taxable as an intangible leasehold interest, period.  There is even a State tax form for that purpose, which many of us have returned annually.  Granted, the taxes are zero to peanuts -- but it's the law.  The lower courts so far have basically ignored this, and I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't do the same.

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

Your assumptions about what is and is not in my lease agreement are correct. Yes, I have filled out the Intangible Tax form and sent them to the Dep. of Revenue forever and your assertion is the veery argument Danny Kepner made if I am correct. BTW, thanks for coming back in on the topic as you seem to more knowledgeable than most.

2seaoat wrote: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.

Actually the theory of equitable ownership has little to do with using the local infrastructure and amenities, and everything to do with the leaseholder's enjoying many of the same 'rights' as the fee simple owner, e.g., the right to buy and sell (though what's being transferred is a leasehold interest, NOT a title), to encumber (mortgage) the leasehold, to will the leasehold to heirs.  On the other hand, many don't understand that Escambia County, according to many if not most leases, can require me to rebuild "my" house (because they own it) after its destruction, say, in a hurricane, whether I want to or not, and can forbid me to move my house to another location, mainland or otherwise, if I want to.  Many leases also require that property insurance policies name the county (or the SRIA, I forget) as an additional insured, though I think that provision is largely ignored.  

Another point I would make, Seaoat, is that the application of ad valorem taxation on leaseholds has been very inconsistent in this state.  Take a look at Daytona Speedway, for instance - built on leased land.  Those people have been "getting away" without paying taxes since the beginning, and have threatened to move out of their county if taxed.  What will  happen in that case, if the Supremes negate existing state law (as to intangible leaseholds) by declaring taxes valid here?  Will anything change in Daytona?  Watch and see.

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.

I'm really not an expert, Seaoat, but thanks again for properly stating my position on the matter.  It's not right, it's not fair, but it's happening, and we should've pushed for the fee simple option years ago, when we at least could make the argument that more taxes would be generated (now they will be regardless).  Don't get me wrong; it's not easy to pay propert taxes when they were never budgeted for at the time the leasehold was purchased (and for some long-time leaseholders, especially on the Gulf and Sound fronts, the amounts owed will be staggering), but this craziness and continuing upheaval and uncertainty has to stop somewhere, and only fee simple can put an end to it once and for all.  Those who want to remain leaseholders can do so, but the taxes are, I'm afraid, not going away.

My husband and I have been paying ad valorem taxes for several years now (some would call us traitors), because we saw the handwriting on the wall and couldn't stand watching the usurious county interest accruing.  We took the calculated risk that, should the Supremes rule in our favor, we possibly might not see a return of those taxes collected by the county (despite the promised escrow of the funds), and almost certainly wouldn't see the school board portion returned, since those people  never promised anything.

I have to head out for a while but would like to write more later, and respond to any further comments by you marvelous posters, if I'm not driving everybody nuts with my incurable verbosity.     BBL,  LL

Knot I would like to know where you got your information that there are 600 leases with no provision whatsoever for renewal

So you know I am engaged her, I can only recall that from oral arguments before the Supremes. I'm trying to clean our carpet today but when I have more time I will research it so to answer your question, it's from the oral arguments.

http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=370


I found this link and early in Danny Kepners argument he alludes to the 600 leases which have no renewal clause. You can hear all the argument here. The date of the argument was Nov. 6, 2012.

I do not think the renewal date is going to be part of the critical analysis. If it was, then paying taxes would somehow have a nexus with the time left on your lease.....I do not think that is the essence of the equitable title argument.

Just stopping back in for a sec -- want to read responses from Knot and others & reply later-- but noticed on pnj.com a huge shake-up at the paper today.  Selfishly, and related to this topic, it immediately made me wonder if my Viewpoint piece responding to Bowden, which I submitted to Tom Ninestine with the respectful request it be published Sunday, will somehow get lost in the shuffle.  Well, nothing to be done about it at the moment - I'm sure they've got lots bigger things on their minds over there.
L8R,  LL    P.S. I also now see Mr. Ichi has started a thread about the PNJ layoffs.

2seaoat wrote:I do not think the renewal date is going to be part of the critical analysis.   If it was, then paying taxes would somehow have a nexus with the time left on your lease.....I do not think that is the essence of the equitable title argument.

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

SO, You may very well be correct but if so the equitable argument is a straw man in a sense . . . . equitable ownership equaling (same as) fee simple ownership does not meet the criteria of 'equal'.  Applying my common sense I must ask that if it is factually equitable, i.e., (same as or very close to being the same) then an analysis of each ownership method whether it be a leasehold or fee simple reveals that a leasehold is not equal to fee simple ownership.  I reviewed your earlier post regarding the 'amenities' that leaseholders enjoy without paying for same.  Some were true . . . .some were not.  We pay an MSBU on PB to cover fire and LEO and additional MSBU is assessed annually for an unknown expense (Grover couldn't answer that) so the divergence between leaseholds and fee simple is a chasm and a deep one.  Many believe that the 'fix' is in with the Court and if true does say much for the system.  I am still left with the lingering question as to why the Appeals Court issued a 48 page ruling with approximately 44 pages agreeing/reinforcing the Plaintiff's legal argument.  In so doing, they laid the foundation, for the first time, to have the tax issue on PB given the scrutiny it deserves.  They could have simply issued a ruling as AFFIRMED and that would have been the end of it . . . .game over but, instead, they provided abundant critical argument as to whether this withstood the test of equitable ownership but later cited stare decisis as their obligation to uphold the decided case in Ward v Brown in NB.  The legal parameters in NB are not even close to the PB situation as the main similarity is they are on the same string of quartz Earl loves so much.

When I made the arguments of equitable title when asked to contribute, I was called a fool, and that I did not know what I was talking about. A typical conversation with Dreams is the closest I came to speaking with folks who really did not read their lease or understand much of anything. For about four years I took a great deal of heat on the PNJ talking about equitable title, and again.....folks would tell me how the court was going to overturn the concept.....just wait seaoat......you are clueless. Sorry, there will be no surprise by the court.......why.....because people have mislead people for financial gain, and like predators they have taken advantage of folks who were vulnerable claiming they would win in the courts. At first it was mostly realtors trying to cover their butts and get the magic back on the beach, but in the end the lawyers took 1% arguments and convinced otherwise intelligent people to invest more money in the absurd. I was just about blackballed because I was clear from the beginning that folks simply did not know what they were talking about, and they should not spend more than about 10k to challenge the SR county position, but I also told them that Roy Andrews was a damn good lawyer, and that he knew the law and would whoop up on all the ambulance chasers who were trying to profit. I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Andrews and he is smart and he won hands down........it never was a fair fight, because a second year law student knows the law, which equitable title and its court cases nationwide were obvious to all those who were honest.

knothead wrote:the main similarity is they are on the same string of quartz Earl loves so much.

This reminds me to say that the esteemed J. Earle purports to be such a purist on the island environment, yet after the mid-decade hurricanes he himself bucked the National Park Service's environmental protectionists to campaign for stronger rebuilding of the roads from PBeach to NBeach (part of which road is named after him - J. Earle Bowden Way), and from PBeach to Ft. Pickens.  Do I detect the slight aroma of hypocrisy here?

Thanks for all your thoughtful posts on such a busy day, Knot, and I hope the carpet cleaning went well.  Wanna do mine next?   Ha.     More later,  LL

To RealLinda: Very well written piece in response to Earl's opinion.

A caveat in this discussion surrounding fee simple ownership ia putting the cart before the horse in a very real sense.  Could we please wait until the Supremes weigh in as a ruling could come any moment now? The PB leaseholders have NEVER had their day in court (until now) and I still have a shred of hope that judicial prudence will prevail . . . .