Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Friday, September 19, 2008

Judicial End Run

Bill Post, who has become the authority on the history of Pensacola Beach lease taxation issues, has a new Viewpoint article in the Independent Sun. The weekly newspaper titles it "Ignoring 1987 Ruling."

Among other things, Mr. Post has unearthed a nugget of legislative history about the key Florida statute (Florida Statute chapter 196) that no court, so far as we can recall, has ever mentioned:
The current legislative statute's intent was clearly explained in the June 3, 1980 written state senate staff Analysis that said the leaseholds will no longer be "assessed and taxed as real property" as if leaseholders were owners, but "shall be taxed only as intangible personal property." Please again take note of the word "only."
As Post observes, this expression of legislative history rather directly undermines an argument Escambia County property appraiser Chris Jones has been trumpeting through the legal system: that the legislature was "silent" about taxation of leaseholds insofar as the alternate theory of "equitable ownership" is concerned. It is not an act of silence when a legislature says this is the "only" tax intended.

If one were able to summon faith that Florida's courts, as presently constituted, truly judge cases based on proven facts and law rather than, say, politics or power, Post's historical nugget might loom large. On the other hand, to borrow Finley Peter Dunne's famous epigram, there are some courts that "follow the election returns." In which case, of course, the facts become as inconsequential as legal precedent.

We're still waiting to see which kind of court is judging the Pensacola Beach residential leasehold tax dispute.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Florida Court's Weird "Change of Mind"

In what is surely one of the weirdest events in state court history, today the Florida Supreme Court reversed its own county bond financing ruling of a year ago. The result will have long-lasting repercussions; not only for local government bond financing without voter approval but also, we suspect, for public perceptions about the rule of law under Florida's court system.

First Court Ruling

On September 6, 2007 -- a little more than a year ago -- the full seven-member state supreme court unanimously ruled that Escambia County was "without authority" to issue road-widening finance bonds for Perdido Key without first obtaining approval by popular referendum "as required by article VII, section 12 of the Florida Constitution."

The full text of that opinion has been scrubbed from the Florida Supreme Court web site. But it can still be found, for now, on the web site of the Miami Herald.

The opinion was written by Justice Kenneth Bell of Pensacola. All six other supreme court justices concurred in the decision.

As Justice Bell wrote for the court at the time --
The language of article VII, section 12 is plain and unambiguous. * * * [A]rticle VII, section 12 of the Florida Constitution provides as follows:
Counties, school districts, municipalities, special districts and local governmental bodies with taxing powers may issue bonds, certificates of indebtedness or any form of tax anticipation certificates, payable from ad valorem taxation and maturing more than twelve months after issuance only:

(a) to finance or refinance capital projects authorized by law and only when approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation; or

(b) to refund outstanding bonds and interest and redemption premium thereon at a lower net average interest cost rate.
Thus, article VII, section 12 plainly authorizes localities to issue long-term bonds "payable from ad valorem taxation" for the purpose of financing capital improvements only when "approved by vote of the electors."
The 2007 ruling was widely seen as a victory for citizens' right to vote before being saddled with taxes or destructive developments they may not desire. Local governmental units around the state, however, were upset. Many of them are seeking to jump-start big-ticket municipal projects. They expected to be free to hand the bill to taxpayers without letting them vote on it.

Locally, one such project put in jeopardy was the planned Pensacola Maritime Park. Although many community leaders favor it, the project also has substantial public opposition.

New Court Ruling

Today, however, Justice Charles Wells wrote a new opinion for the state supreme court in the same Perdido Key road case. This time, the court approved the bond action, although voters still have not approved it. The full text is here.

One year later! This could be a Guinness World Record for slow-motion change of mind.

The Tallahassee Democrat reports:
Now the court says financing schemes that use future property tax increases to pay off bonds are OK, changing utterly what a unanimous court said a year ago. It means local governments will have much greater latitude in approving millions of dollars of bonds for public projects without having to get voter approval.
Weirder and Weirder

But wait! There's more. In yet another odd twist, it turns out one of the supreme court justices signing onto the new opinion has been retired from the court for over a year!

Former Justice Raoul Cantero is listed in the new opinion as one of four judges who concurs in the result of the new, 2008, opinion. But Cantero retired September 4, 2007, -- over a year ago. That was just two days after the court published its first decision in the case and 16 days before September 20, when the first decision was finalized and released for publication.

Moreover, he has since joined the Miami law firm of White & Case. That firm's web site describes White & Case as representing --
public and privately held commercial businesses and financial institutions, as well as governments and state-owned entities, involved in sophisticated corporate and financial transactions and complex dispute resolution proceedings.
Do you suppose there might be, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest here? Only the firm's client list could tell us for sure.

Missing in Action

In yet another odd twist, Justice Bell, author of the original opinion, recused himself from participating in the reverse decision. No reason has been disclosed.

Justice Bell is only 52 years old. He has served on the court for not quite five years. Yet, earlier this year Bell announced he intends to retire in October and resume practicing law in Pensacola.

We doubt Justice Bell plans to hang out his own shingle as a solo practitioner. But finding a Pensacola corporate law firm that doesn't have ties to some interested party in this lawsuit will be quite a bit harder than scrubbing his old supreme court opinions from the web.

Justice Lewis wrote a dissent in which it is said a second judge, Chief Justice Peggy Quince, concurred. But Quince also is listed in today's court release as having concurred in part with the majority and dissented in part.

We can find no written opinion by Quince, as yet, explaining what the heck is up with that. Normally, a judge who concurs in part and dissents in part issues a separate opinion explaining which parts were which.

Understanding the Result

Tallahassee lawyer David Theriaque, representing the Escambia County citizen who lost the appeal today after winning it a year ago, told the Tallahassee paper, "I'm having a hard time understanding what they did."

That's because you're a lawyer, David. This is a decision only a politician can understand.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

A commentator correctly points out that Justice Cantero retired in 2008, not 2007, although still well before the recent re-ruling was announced. The original Miami Herald article about his retirement in 2007 which misled us has been either scrubbed or redated by the newspaper.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Portofino: Killing the Golden Goose

Local media outlets today are trumpeting the news that Portofino Towers condo unit owners have lost their last chance for appealing the adverse decision on ad valorem taxes rendered earlier this year. As PNJ reporter Michael Stewart succinctly puts it, "Residents of the 753 upscale waterfront condominiums cannot appeal to a higher court."

The reason, of course, is that under the Florida state constitution, the state's Supreme Court has only limited jurisdiction over civil appeals. Lower court appellate opinions that do not explicitly conflict with other Florida district court appeals decisions, or which do not directly implicate constitutional issues, simply cannot be reviewed by the highest court in the land.

Therein lies the real advantage of one-word court decisions: judges that write them don't have to answer to anybody. And, they are free to ignore historical facts.

You can be sure Escambia County Tax Collector Janet Holley, even now, is licking the stamps to bill condo owners a grand total of $19 million in back taxes. Stewart explains:
Leaseholders were given the option of paying the taxes and having the money held in escrow until the lawsuits were settled or declining payment with back taxes and 12 percent interest due if the county prevailed.

Many chose not to pay and now owe in excess of $40,000 or more in back taxes.

That does not include taxes owed this year, which have yet been calculated.
We offer this gentle suggestion to Escambia County: Don't hold your breath waiting for the money. $40,000 in back taxes per unit and another assessment coming down on Towers owners, plus some of the highest monthly maintenance fees on the beach cannot be attractive selling points for the estimated one hundred and fifty units (or more) now languishing on the real estate market or in the pockets of starving brokers. We foresee quite a few Portofino owners who are pressed for cash will simply walk away.

Escambia County politicians haven't managed, quite yet, to kill the golden goose that is Pensacola Beach, but the bird sure is looking mighty sick.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Double Your Taxes, Double Your Pain

Bill Post, author of Deceit Beach, has a Viewpoint article in the current issue of the Independent News that underscores the damage done when a court issues a one-word opinion that fails to articulate any facts or law.

The subject is ad valorem taxation of Pensacola Beach businesses. The point is that when the First District Court of Appeals upheld a trial court ruling without any analysis -- just the word "affirmed" -- it effectively sentenced beach businesses to ruinous double taxation on an erroneous understanding of the facts.

Incidentally, the same thing might be said of the identical eight appellate court rulings, each of them just one word long, issued more recently in the Portofino condominium cases.

In the commercial lease fee case, lower court judge Nickolas Geeker had reasoned almost a year ago, "Without the collection of real property ad valorem taxes from plaintiffs and other beach residents, plaintiffs would pay nothing to the general fund of Escambia County and would derive a tax benefit not generally conferred to other residents of Escambia County."

That ruling, Post points out, flatly ignores the unusually high "lease fee" beach businesses pay and the explicit reason for that high fee, as stated in the foundational statute that created the Santa Rosa Island Authority. Writes Mr. Post:
Pensacola Beach commercial leaseholders of county owned structures pay an extraordinarily large percentage of their gross income toward the lease fee because they "have their taxes included in the annual rentals of the property." And now they pay ad valorem taxes on top of the lease fee, which is not and never was a simple lease fee or simple annual rental.
The history Bill Post presents is unarguable. When commercial lease fees first were imposed back in the early 1950's, the Santa Rosa Island Authority was directed to calculate each lease fee according to a percentage of gross income earned by each business. The explicit purpose was "to compensate for taxes." Tellingly, in that statute all "surplus" revenues were to be paid into the county's general fund -- exactly what Judge Geeker was misled into assuming would not happen unless the county's new beach real estate taxes were imposed.

As Post concludes, if in fact there has been a "failure to fill the county's coffers" it "is not a failure of the leaseholder as implied by Judge Geeker, but a failure of the SRIA and the county" to make sure fees in excess of equivalent real estate taxes are paid to the general fund.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Injustice Repeated

Special to Pensacola Beach Blog by William L. Post:

Since the publication of Deceit Beach, The True Story, I have had overwhelming positive feedback. A reader of one of my newspaper Viewpoint articles wrote --
“It has warmed my heart to read your well thought out and written articles. I have wondered the very things you have so clearly articulated…”
Of particular interest to me is the history which the first leaseholders carry in their heads and the archival material which they possess. One of the first, and now a former leaseholder, wrote:
“As I was telling you today, people have short memories. When I was a flight instructor here in the late 50's I would fly over and look at waterfront properties. If I liked the looks of it I would inquire. Most waterfront property could be had from $3.00 to $30.00 a front foot or $300.00 to $3000 for a 100 foot lot. Taxes on the unimproved land were so low as to be negligible. Nobody wanted sand, mosquitoes and palmetto. Every one wanted to live in the latest modern subdivision. I came back in the 60's and little had changed except, there were ads for Pensacola Beach leases with no taxes ever. But when you considered that a $300.00 LEASE FOR 100 YEARS WAS $30,000.00 AND FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP WAS 300.00 IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE SUCH A GOOD DEAL. The thing that decided it for me was the "no taxes." I believe I studied in Commercial law that baiting and switching on a contract was something called "fraud in the inducement,” which made the contract voidable. Wonder how Escambia County would cope with hundreds of voided contracts and have to buy them back at current prices? Thought you might like to know how it was in those times.”
One anonymous detractor protested my July radio interview and said in an online comment page, “please stop providing a forum for that crackpot Bill Post - his schtick is so tired.”

I replied online:
“I spent 16 months (and several thousand dollars) researching the topic of my book, Deceit Beach. This is considerably more time than the 15 seconds it took for you to write your commentary about me being a “crackpot.” It is clear to me, and probably to all others, that you have not read the book and that you are uninformed on its topic. But that short coming has a solution. Get a copy of the book and read it. If you find factual error in the contents of the book, please advise me so that I can make the correction for the next printing. Once you have read the book and researched the topic and wish to debate the facts, feel free to contact me at WilliamLPost@hotmail.com to set up a public debate time.”
Well, I did not hear from the anonymous detractor. I prefer to assume he has no facts with which to debate. The alternative explanations -- death, disease, amputation of his typing fingers -- are too horrific to contemplate.

The history is written and the facts available for all to read and see in illustrations. Hopefully, others will add to the research.

Unfortunately, the recent one-word "per curiam" decisions of Florida courts ignore the well documented history of behavior by Escambia County Commissioners and the SRIA. Through that silence, they sustain the injustice commenced in 1971 with the first taxing attempt.

On June 30, 1978, the Pensacola News Journal editorial board wrote about the injustice of the first attempt to tax the leaseholds, “If government itself won’t keep its promises, then we have come to a pretty sorry state.”

History does repeat itself and peoples’ memories are indeed short.

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Dark Secrets on Pensacola Beach


Per curiam affirmances "are incompatible with the spirit of Florida's 'Government in the Sunshine' laws, whose purpose... is to prevent at non-public meetings the crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremonial acceptance."
-- Krosschell, DCAs, PCAs, and Government in the Darkness, 1 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 12 (1999)

Overnight, Pensacola news reporter Michael Stewart has written a second article about the Portofino real estate tax decision of the First District Court of Appeals. Is this guy prolific, or what?

Michael Stewart has more words at his fingertips than your average Florida appeals court judge scratches out in a month at five times the money! And that, of course, was the point of our baseball metaphor.

Much of Stewart's latest effort is devoted to gathering reactions from local pols to the really, really tough question, "How would you like to scoop up $19 million in extra tax money from a few folks with almost no voting power, for reasons the Florida appellate court has approved without articulating what those reasons may be?"

Naturally, Escambia County commissioner Mike Whitehead -- who's made a career of baiting beach residents for his mainland constituents -- offered up a reaction that rests on an outright lie. Whitehead is quoted as saying:
Beach residents use all the same services as other Escambia County residents, from the Sheriff's Office to the court system, and animal control to mosquito control.
Whitehead knows full well that from time immemorial Pensacola Beach residents annually are specially assessed Municipal Service Benefit Unit fees for county law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services, mosquito control, and, yes, even animal control. Like everyone else in Escambia County, they also pay court filing fees, state intangible taxes, sales taxes, and other assessments which, as elsewhere, in part go to support the state court system.

What Whitehead also knows is that it's a whole lot easier to get away with such public prevarications when judicial panels employed to decide the legality of adding new taxes routinely 'crystallize' their decisions in secret, in the dark.

Stewart roped in one more interesting reaction. Escambia County Property Appraiser Chris Jones told him "he had no choice but impose the taxes."
"I understand and empathize with leaseholders out there," Jones said. "But my job is to uphold the law."
Ironically, Jones appears to have done done this by attacking "a state law as part of the defense in a law suit disputing his or her assessments." That could be a problem for him in the still-pending lawsuit affecting all other Pensacola Beach residents.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Reporter Bests Florida Appeals Court

In a surprise victory that left hot dog munching onlookers stunned, Pensacola News Journal reporter Michael Stewart today overwhelmed Florida's First District Court of Appeals in a series of eight back-to-back appeals involving county taxation of Portofino Towers residential units on Pensacola Beach. Although out-manned 3 to 1, and technically disabled for want of a law degree, the PNJ's ace newsman wrote circles around the appeals court panel of judges Michael Allen, Marguerite Davis, and Paul Hawkes.

The final score was 301 words to 8. Stewart scored all of his words in a single newspaper article, written inside of an hour just today. He was dazzling behind the mound on his desk, frequently firing facts right down the pipe while masterfully mixing up his delivery with active verbs, multi-syllabic words, and the occasional off-speed historical fact or futuristic prediction. Here's just a sample:
A three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeals upheld Escambia County Circuit Judge Frank Bell’s March 2007 decision that Portofino Towers condominium leaseholders must pay property taxes.

The court’s ruling released late Tuesday paves the way for payment of $19 million in back taxes by residents of the upscale condominiums.
* * *
Beach leaseholders do not own the land on which their homes and businesses are built. They pay lease fees and have argued beach taxes are not legal. Lease fees are for a minimum of 99 years, with many leases providing an option for an additional 99 years.
The three appellate court judges barely showed up to play. They had home field advantage and nearly a year to prepare their own opinions in the various Portofino cases, designated Nos. 07-2292, 07-2293, 07-2293, 07-2294, 07-2296, 07-2297, 07-2298, and 07-2305.

Yet, the trio of high-salaried judges only managed to dink out a single bush-league word, repeated eight times: "Affirmed." Everybody was left stranded on the constitutional bases.

As we have noted before with this court, "that's 2.66 alphabet letters for each of the three judges." At an annual salary of $147,524 per judge -- assuming they all contributed equally to the effort -- writing that single word "affirmed" works out to $55,460.15 for each of the three judges. By contrast, we're guessing that news reporter Stewart draws a salary of ten cents for every whole word, on his best days.

Onlookers disappointed in the pricey judges' curiously laconic performance may seek season-ending tickets to a bigger league.

Dept. of Further Amplification

Dark Secrets on Pensacola Beach
More from reporter Michael Stewart about less from the Florida appeals court.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Battle of the Taxes

One of the enduring myths about Florida is that we are a low-tax state. We aren't. Government services here -- from public schools to fire protection to highway construction and maintenance -- cost just as much as anywhere else, if not more.

The two differences are (1) Floridians whine about taxes a lot more than most others; and (2) Local politicians have responded by dipping into the Thesaurus of Arcane Government Synonyms a little too often.

We don't have a state income tax. We have sales taxes, special assessments, service fees, local options, user fees, excise taxes, tolls, license fees, processing fees, etc. etc. etc. We even have "shipping and handling" fees, just like Ebay. (It's true! Try requesting a copy of a state document under the Sunshine Act.)

Now, we're about to see an explosion in another kind of tax substitute -- the Fire, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Medical fee. (We suggest "FLEM" for short.)

According to the Ft. Walton Daily News, the 'redneck' town of Milton leads the way in the Panhandle. Gulf Breeze will be following soon. Can Pensacola Beach be far behind?
According to the fees established in Milton, the police fee would be $235 per accident, while the fire/rescue fee would be set at $300 per accident. When this is billed, each separate bill would include a $50 service charge. An accident involving the police and fire response would total $635.
In case of billing disputes, a "special master" will be hired to hear the appeals. He'll be hired by the Government, of course -- so long as the Government likes his rulings.

Detainees at Guantanamo probably would get a fairer hearing.

As Rick Outzen pointed out when Pensacola was considering a similar measure a few months ago, "Flat fees for essential government services punish the elderly and the poor. There are no homestead exemptions for fees. Fees aren’t tax deductible like property taxes."

An additional advantage of this new Thesaurus tax is that the pols who run things can pretend it isn't a tax. Consequently, "they don’t have to send our TRIM notices when they raise the fees in years to come." Anti-tax obsessives can't even vote against it.

This cheeseparing of public services is all part of the ongoing atomization of the American community. As Bill Moyers has suggested, over the past thirty years --
a disciplined, well-funded and closely-coordinated coalition of corporate elites, power-hungry religious conservatives, and hard-line right-wing operatives has mounted an aggressive drive to dismantle the public foundations and philosophy of shared prosperity and fairness in America.
* * *
The public institutions, the laws and regulations, the ideas, norms, and beliefs which aimed to protect the common good and helped to create America's iconic middle class, are now gone, greatly weakened, or increasingly vulnerable to attack. The Nobel Laureate economist Robert Solow sums it up succinctly: What it's all about, he says, "is the redistribution of wealth in favor of the wealthy and of power in favor of the powerful."

So, be forewarned: If you plan to have a heart attack or want to get into a fender-bender, be sure to gather the evidence, first, that the "fault" isn't yours. It was the other guy's.

These days, even when it comes to ambulance services it's every man for himself.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Deceit Beach: Reply to a Critic


We don't visit message boards much, not even our own. So, as it happens, we learned of an anonymous comment about William L. Post's new book, Deceit Beach, from a loyal reader who keeps one eye on this blog and another on the message boards of the Pensacola News Journal.

Essentially, the message board commentator grumbles that because Post is not a lawyer he shouldn't be writing a book "which claims the government deceived leaseholders." This is quite frivolous, as we will show in a moment. First, however, let's give the anonymous critic his moment in the sun:
To claim that advertisements or other parol evidence somehow carries any weight in a legal lease is naive and wrong. The merger doctrine basically... says that ads, verbal promises, merge into the deed or lease, which requires specific language in those conveyance documents to reserve rights set forth in other documents or representations. If the leaseholds were never to be taxed, the lease should have had specific language stating the same.
The short answer to this is that Post has written a history of the Pensacola Beach "tax free" leasehold policy, not a legal brief. His history is written for a general audience, not a lawyers' seminar. As he explains in the book, Post sets out to describe the applicable main legal principles, both for and against taxation of Pensacola Beach leasehold interests, to give context to the historical facts he has uncovered.

It's completely appropriate that in Deceit Beach Mr. Post declines to go into excruciating, lawyer-like detail. For every legal doctrine like "merger" that someone can point to, you can be sure there will be exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and exceptions to those exceptions, ad nauseum.

And, after all, the market for densely written legal writing is confined mostly to the handful of appellate judges who are paid big bucks by the taxpayers to read the turgid tomes of attorneys. It's a nasty job, but someone has to do it.

It also needs to be said that Post gets the general legal principles right. Lawyers are not the only scholars who can write a history of governmental policy.

Take the message board writer's "merger doctrine." Perhaps the leading case in Florida on the so-called "merger doctrine" is Milu v. Duke, 204 So.2d 31 (3d DCA 1967). Although not from the highest court in the state, in real estate cases where the issue is raised Duke continues to be the most-cited precedent in modern Florida appellate court decisions for this proposition:
It is a general rule that preliminary agreements and understandings relative to the sale of property usually merge in the deed executed pursuant thereto. * * *

However, there are exceptions to the merger rule. The rule that acceptance of a deed tendered in performance of a contract to convey land merges or extinguishes the covenants and stipulations contained in the contract does not apply to those provisions of the antecedent contract which the parties do not intend to be incorporated in the deed, or which are not necessarily performed or satisfied by the execution and delivery of the stipulated conveyance.
[emphasis added]
In other words, if there is a promise made which is to be performed after the deed has been issued the merger doctrine will not apply. As the late, great contracts expert, Prof. Charles Corbin, wrote in his seminal treatise, with all of the exceptions that have been endorsed by the courts the merger doctrine has become "merely a 'handy' phrase, of convenient uncertainty and obscurity, that is used so as to avoid the necessity of clear thinking and accurate analysis.” 6 Corbin On Contracts § 1319 (1962).

Moreover, as Post also points out in his book, the law is not so blind to common sense as to endorse outright fraud every time a con man is clever enough to include a merger clause in his sales (or lease) forms.

To be sure, the purely legal discussion in Post's book may appear to the eye of some lawyers to be the least satisfactory part of the book. The main reason for this is that Post intentionally doesn't spend a lot of time or ink delving into complex legal doctrines or fashioning endless lawyer-like arguments, counter-arguments, and surrebuttals about the nuances of prior legal precedents or why they might or might not be applicable to the Pensacola Beach situation.

Quite evidently, that was not his purpose in writing the book. Even so, the purely legal argument passages of Post's book, in themselves, add something valuable to the debate. In those passages Post shows fairly conclusively how his historical research undermines key factual premises adopted by, or openly assumed to be true in, the Florida court opinions he criticizes.

And that, manifestly, is the main purpose of his book: to document the true history and chronology of Escambia County's Pensacola Beach lease tax policy, which he has done meticulously, and to counter-pose the historical facts with the erroneous gloss Florida courts have slapped on that history in their published opinions.

Thus, Post's book does something more subtle -- and far more valuable -- than repeat stale legal arguments. At several key points in his book he adverts to the over-arching legal arguments on the other side, briefly describes their main theme, and then argues that, regardless, given the historical facts he has laid out one truth is ineluctable: for twenty years Escambia County and the SRIA deliberately advertised tax-free leaseholds -- in some instances (like the one illustrated at the top of this article) expressly avowing the exemption would be "permanent policy" -- without disclosing that the county had actual or constructive knowledge that those leaseholds could be taxed at any time the county decided to change its mind.

Escambia County and the SRIA never mentioned this to the potential public of leasehold purchasers (hence the title, "Deceit Beach"). Indeed, during the formative 20 year period from 1949 to 1969 in a number of instances that Post documents, county officials went so far as to claim that taxes were "included" in the lease fees.

This is not a legal point; it is a fact of history. Post is writing a history here, not a lawyer's legal brief. And, thank goodness for that. It so happens, as he ably points out in the book, this history exposes critical factual errors in the Florida supreme court's prior tax case decisions.

As any lawyer should acknowledge, one of the greatest frustrations practicing lawyers experience is to see an appeals court fudge, or ignore, or completely distort key facts of a case, and then use that erroneous recitation of facts to justify application of a legal principle which becomes decisive of the case.

Lawyer or not, in his book William L. Post has exposed just that sort of key factual error in the Florida Supreme Court case of Straughn v. Camp, 293 So.2d 689 (Fla.1974) and others that followed. As the author admits, there is no way to prove conclusively that the Straughn case would have come out in favor of leaseholders had the court gotten the facts right. But it certainly raises serious questions about the validity of the holding in that case and its progeny as guiding precedent.

Assuredly, Mr. Post could have happily collaborated with a lawyer if it had been his intent to write something other than a history of the tax exempt leasehold. But it wasn't. It seems to us a ridiculous criticism to complain that he didn't write the book someone else wants.

For that matter, if he had intended to write a different book, Post might have collaborated with an economist to analyze the historical and contemporary market forces and policy considerations behind leasing beach property versus assessing ad valorem taxes on a beach deed. Certainly, the market dynamics have changed dramatically on Pensacola Beach in the past fifty years. They assuredly will be changing again, thanks to global warming, increased hurricane intensity, and ever-rising property insurance premiums. But it's no accident that some of the more recent residential single family dwelling lease fees on Pensacola Beach are equal to, or even exceed, what mainlanders pay in ad valorem taxes for comparable property.

We also can envision yet another very different book, a sociological study. Why is it, for example, that there seems to be such a disproportionate number of aging trust fund babies who own Pensacola Beach leases? How does it happen that school enrollment at the top-rated Pensacola Beach Elementary School each year seems to include an ever-rising number of students who commute from off the island? What accounts for the manifest trend of diminishing family residences and increasing numbers of non-residential rental spaces replacing them, a trend well documented in detailed U.S. census numbers for Pensacola Beach over the last three decades?

For that matter, why not a book about the environmental and public health issues that led Escambia County to offer tax-free leases in the first place? After all, one substantial reason the island was not attractive to any but a handful of pioneers in the '50s and '60s was fear of polio, the intractable mosquito infestation problem, the primitive condition of water, sewers, and roads, and the slower-than-most-folk-remember adoption of home air conditioning.

The short canal-like area now overgrown with vegetation along the Sound (still visible from the tallest dunes east of Portofino) remains a monument to the fear, greed, and despair of Escambia County officials in the '50s and '60s as they tried everything they could think of to make Pensacola Beach into a viable economic asset. Those man-made rectangular water canals were dug, so informed sources have told us, to be a "mosquito attractor" in hopes of reducing the insect infestation so the island could be developed.

None of these, of course, was the book Post wanted to write. So what? Let those who come after build on his work, be they economists, sociologists, public health specialists, urban planners -- or lawyers for that matter.

First, however, they need to get the facts right. William L. Post has done that. His book will be, as we have said, a must-have for anyone who lives on Pensacola Beach or wants to really know or write about this most unique island community.




Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Must-Have Pensacola Beach Book

Title: Deceit Beach: The True Story of Deception
Author: William L. Post
Publisher: Trent's Prints & Publishing (Chumuckla, FL)
ISBN: 10:: 1-934035-42-4 / 13: 978-1-934035-42-9
130 81/2" x 11" pp. (incl. 40 pages of historic illustrations and 33 pp. of appendices and an index)
Price: $29.95 $24.95 (plus shipping)



Pensacola Beach resident William L. Post has just published "Deceit Beach," a 92-page (not counting appendices) historical analysis of the "tax-free" promises made, nationwide, by Escambia County officials to encourage development of Santa Rosa island. The book arrived from the publisher today and it should be hitting the shelves of bookstores and beach shopping venues in the coming weeks.

It will be a brisk seller. We'll have more, much more, to say about Deceit Beach in the coming days and weeks. Judging from a quick skim, however, it's undeniable that with this book Mr. Post has made a vital contribution to the historical record of the greater Pensacola area.

The book is both a narrative history of the tax-free promise that made development of Pensacola Beach possible and a compilation of reproduced historical documents from 1949 to 1969. It belongs in every area library, on the shelf of every Pensacola Beach resident, and in the hands of every mainlander who may be wondering what the ad valorem tax lawsuit is all about. It would serve the public well, too, if Escambia County commissioners and other officials gave it a read.

Post, who is 56 years old, holds an advanced degree in chemistry from Auburn University. He has been a Pensacola Beach resident since 1993 when he retired from the oil industry. His interest in beach history was piqued eleven years later when, as he writes, "Chris Jones, the Property Appraiser for Escambia County... and Janet Holley, the Tax Collector... decided it was time in 2004 to tax the [Pensacola Beach] leaseholders as if the leaseholds were deeded real property."

What ensued for Mr. Post was a sixteen month odyssey through the dusty archives of the Santa Rosa Island Authority, the records of the Escambia County Commission, local public libraries, law libraries, university "special" collections usually not available to the general public, and countless other repositories of historical documents. He has compiled much, though far from all, of what he discovered in Deceit Beach.

The book provides the reader with a clear chronological time line of how, why, when, and which public officials at the federal, state and local levels engineered, and then widely promoted, the express promise that beach leaseholds would remain free from ad valorem taxation for the duration of their renewable leases. Included in Chapter 7 are fifteen pages indexing key documents from governmental files -- and obvious clues to where even more can be found.

Beach readers are likely to find most compelling 41 pages of reproductions of merely some among the hundreds of newspaper and magazine ads, pamphlets, tourist brochures, and other printed media showing how explicitly the Island Authority, Escambia County itself, and even the State of Florida put the governmental imprimatur on their "tax free" promises, from coast to coast in order to attract individuals and families to settle on Pensacola Beach and contribute to its development.

The reproductions in Post's book, although in black and white, are the clearest, cleanest, and most easily readable we have ever seen. In some cases, we recognized ads from the SRIA's muddy archives of reproductions which we and select other residents have seen before; but Post appears to have tracked down the originals, or as close to them as one can get, and the results are stunning. The assembly of documents in itself is compelling evidence that somewhere, someone has been deceiving the public about Pensacola Beach.

"The county flat-out did twenty years of advertising promising no taxation, ever," Post told us today. Those promises were unequivocal, he adds:
These days, I see some county politicians and even state judges trying to say that the ads only described the 'present' condition, as it was back then, of no taxation -- as if no one promised that the tax free exemption would remain that way. But you can't read these advertisements or the minutes of governmental meetings at the time without concluding that is simply wrong. Repeatedly, Escambia County and the SRIA made the explicit promise that the exemption would be binding on the government in the future, too.
Post spares no one who has engaged in the latter-day gloss-over of history. He is especially critical of the state Supreme Court's ruling in Straughn v. Camp, a 1974 ruling which, in Post's words, "ruled that the leaseholds are not [a] public purpose, therefore, no exemption."

Writes Post:
Newly revealed historical facts support the claim that the imposition of ad valorem taxation on plaintiff's leaseholds does impair the obligation of contract. Possibly because of their ignorance of the historical facts, the Florida Supreme Court made illogical statements and ruled there was no impairment of contract.
* * *
The perpetuated error of the Straughn v. Camp ruling is the reason for all litigation which has followed.
Post told us today that while the Straughn v. Camp court was mistaken about the nature and duration of local governmental promises for tax exemption on beach leaseholds, he suspects it was the fault of lawyers who argued the case at the time.

"They didn't have the historical documents that have since come to light," he says. "It's little wonder. It took me over a year to unearth them."

Just one of the surprises Post has dug up from the historical record are minutes from a May 29, 1946 "special joint meeting" of the Santa Rosa Island Authority board and Escambia county commissioners. Those minutes show that the federal government's original intention actually was to deed Santa Rosa Island over to the county without restrictions.

It was at the request of the SRIA and Escambia County commissioners that language was added to the federal legislation, and eventually the deed itself, stipulating that Santa Rosa Island could be "leased or not leased but [was] never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed by it." That language was drafted at the joint SRIA-County commission meeting and sent off to then-U.S. Congressman Bob Sikes. The congressman then amended his draft bill, as requested, and it became law shortly thereafter.

What effect this long-forgotten fact may have on the current deeds-for-taxes debate is any one's guess. But at least we can say, thanks to William Post's thorough research, that the pretense is over: 'poor little Escambia County' didn't have the deed restriction against re-selling beach property imposed on it by the big, bad wolf of the United States government. The county asked for the restriction so it could lease the land but not sell it.

Like a mugger with a conscience who fears he can't stop himself, maybe the commissioners of that time were, in effect, scrawling a note in bright red lipstick on the deed: "Stop us before we kill the environment again."

It's a good thing the feds listened. It's also good that William Post is here to record what happened afterwards.

To order an advance copy of Deceit Beach, until distribution begins, at the moment you have to email the author: WilliamLPost@hotmail.com

Happy reading!

Amplification Dept.

Deceit Beach: Reply to a Critic

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Beach Deeds, Taxes, and Stare Decisis

It's 'Beach Deeds Day' at the Pensacola News Journal. The paper editorializes, "Don't Rush to Make Area Beaches Private."

Channeling county commissioner Grover Robinson IV and residents' SRIA representative Dr. Thomas Campanella, the newspaper's editorial flatly warns:
There should be no rush to convert leases on Santa Rosa Island to private ownership. There are serious questions to be answered, and obstacles in the way.
Adjacent to that in the print version of the Saturday edition, former PNJ editor in chief J. Earle Bowden observes "Public Loses When Beach Converted to Private." (Oddly, the on-line version when we first saw it gives no hint who wrote it.)

Newcomers may not know this, but Bowden is virtually the Father of Gulf Islands National Seashore. He courageously led the charge in the 1960's to save Santa Rosa Island from shockingly honky-tonk developer plans to pave the island from one end to the other. In the end, his efforts were instrumental in adding the Gulf Islands National Seashore to nine other seashore areas to form the biggest national park in the nation.

Largely due to Bowden's foresight and leadership, we still have a public beach to argue over. The story is told in "The Sands of All Time: Preserving America's Largest National Seashore." Doug Waitley's Best Back Roads of Florida has a synopsis.

Retired now, but still active, today Earle Bowden serves up a useful summary of beach deed history along with an abrupt condemnation of how the county to abuses its trust:
The Interior Department's public-use reverter clause protects a valuable asset. I question whether either county upholds the real spirit of the Interior Department public-use deed clause. Pricey high-rise condos and residences continue to diminish the openness of publicly-owned beaches; private ownership of the land would open the gate toward more private beach.
Pensacola Beach residents, like the public at large, seem to be sharply divided on the issue of a deed exchange. Listening to those who favor it and those who don't, one can't escape the conclusion that everyone is talking at cross purposes.

One camp is anxious over the prospect that Florida courts will upset half a century of expectations -- and express promises by Escambia County -- that island leases would be exempt from ad valorem taxes. They argue that if the courts are going to ignore that history and rewrite the deal at the urging of the very same county that made those promises, then it's only fair they be given deeds to their property like every other ad valorem taxpayer.

The other camp looks at the history of Santa Rosa Island and Escambia County politics, and with good reason worries that a deed exchange will eventually lead, just as the PNJ editorial warns, to 'corralling' the public like cattle into the county's few, relatively modest-sized public beaches.

Both sides may be right. At the root of all this agitation, quite obviously, is fear that the Florida courts are about to fiddle with a status quo worked out nearly fifty years ago to the benefit of all, after considerable effort by county voters (as detailed in Bowden's book), the state legislature, and Congress. That status quo has worked amazingly well to date.

Normally, the courts can be trusted to apply a legal doctrine so often short-handed as "stare decisis." In its original, full Latin meaning the doctrine is articulated as "stare decisis et non quieta movere," which translates as "stand by and do not disturb what is settled." Part of the genius of the common law is that this doctrine helps greatly to foster economic growth and political stability.

For now, what is settled is that no one can buy or sell any part of Santa Rosa Island. Long term leases are allowed, though at the cost of requiring leaseholders to build improvements on public land at their own expense and submit to other Island Authority design and building code restrictions. The leasehold property lines, moreover, ensure widespread public access to the unique 40-mile unbroken stretch of white sand beach.

In exchange, leaseholders have been assured of an exemption from ad valorem taxes. While there has been a healthy market for buying and selling those leases it has been, no doubt, at a far more affordable rate than would be the case if residents and businesses could claim absolute ownership of the fee.


Take away the widespread fear that the Florida courts are about to violate the stare decisis doctrine in the pending Pensacola Beach tax lawsuits, and you eliminate all this agitation. Leaseholders could relax, secure in the knowledge that their county-induced expectations will be honored. The market for selling leaseholds and improving properties would return to normal.

And the public would be relieved, too, knowing that the original federal deed's wise restrictions against over-development of Santa Rosa Island will be enforced. Pensacola Beach would remain open to public use.

On the other hand, if the courts "disturb what is settled" by allowing the county to break its word and impose ad valorem taxes, not only leaseholders but the public at large will be the losers.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Commissioners Vote for Deeds

"Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer— except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs."
-- George Orwell, Animal Farm
At the special two-county commissioners meeting we mentioned the other day, Escambia and Santa Rosa county commissioners approved a formal resolution asking U.S. Representative Jeff Miller to sponsor legislation authorizing the issuance of fee simple deeds to Santa Rosa Island beach property. Presently, owing to restrictions in the original federal deed of Santa Rosa Island to Escambia County, all property on Pensacola Beach is held under leases, most of them for a renewable term of 99 years.

Jamie Page had the early afternoon story yesterday ("Commissioners Push Beach Ownership") on the PNJ web site. This morning's PNJ repeats much, but not all, of that earlier dispatch ("Lease Fight Heads to D.C.").

Among all ten combined commissioners, the lone dissenters were two from Escambia County. One of them was Kevin White from the northern section of the county. White has been outspoken in wanting to preserve public access on the beach.

The other dissenter was Grover C. Robinson IV. Robinson represents District 4, which includes Pensacola Beach. He, too, has expressed concern about maintaining open public spaces on the beach. Robinson also has been popular with, and trusted by, a large majority of beach residents.

Commissioner Robinson voiced objections that not enough was known about the details of any deed-for-taxes proposition. Until the specifics are known, he said, it would be imprudent to support such a move; it could turn out to the disadvantage of both beach residents and mainlanders.

Also speaking against the resolution was long-time SRIA board member Dr. Thomas Campanella. Campanella has been a reliable voice for Pensacola Beach residents since first being elected by them in 2002. In brief remarks to the commissioners during the open forum, he expressed concern that opening the beach to unrestricted deeds of beach lots could lead directly to over-development on the beach.

After the meeting, Campanella told us that he fears "greed is behind" the resolution. He explained that the SRIA has been under pressure from the county for years to allow more intense development, greater densities, and higher revenues from residents and businesses. If the county persists, he said, "they're going to ruin the very resource that we need."

Voting in favor of the deeds resolution, among others, were Escambia County Commissioners Mike Whitehead and Gene Valentino. Whitehead has a long history of opposing beach resident intiatives and advocating for abolition of the Santa Rosa Island Authority. Valentino pretty much votes as if he were Whitehead's sock puppet.

So, what's going on here? Beach residents who want the guarantee of a deed if they're ordered to pay real estate taxes have to be nervous when natural predators like Whitehead and Valentino claim to be "helping" them and proven allies like Robinson and Campanella are on the other side.

The short answer is that we'll just have to wait and see. Much depends on the exact wording of any legislation congressman Miller is able to shepherd through Congress. It seems unlikely that any legislation Miller sponsors can be approved by Congress before it recesses for the year. So, equally important will be the composition of the Board of Commissioners if and when the time finally arrives to implement any deed-exchange.

As always, the future of the beach is in the grip of those we elect to run county government. Among a list of horribles one can foresee is the distinct possibility -- one which was advocated by former SRIA board member Bill Griffith about a dozen years ago, although he later renounced the idea as having been inspired by Mr. Whitehead -- that any residents seeking a deed in lieu of a long-term lease should be required to make a one time payment equal to 65 percent or more of the assessed value of the land and improvements.

Another IED that could be hidden along the roadway is Whitehead's long-held ambition to abolish the Santa Rosa Island Authority altogether. The SRIA has directly governed the beach for nearly sixty years. While its efforts to preserve the beach from unsustainable development have not been an unalloyed success, on the whole the island's governing authority has been far more eco-friendly and attuned to island residents' and business needs than Escambia County commissioners.

Congressman Miller, himself, could allay many of these fears if he makes a sincere effort to enlist knowledgeable beach residents and their representatives, like Campanella and Robinson, in the process of drafting the legislation. There are at hand on the beach a number of knowledgeable people -- lawyers, judges, real property finance experts, former legislators, urban growth experts, public administration specialists, environmentalists, and others -- who could be of service to the congressman as he drafts the legislation.

We will soon see if Congressman Miller calls on them, or instead takes his marching orders from our new-found beach "friends" like commissioners Whitehead and Valentino.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Island Deeds-for-Taxes Resolution

Tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. (April 29, 2008), the elected commissioners governing both Santa Rosa and Escambia counties will meet in the county commissioners' meeting room in Pensacola "to discuss title issues on Santa Rosa Island and the Regional Transportation Finance Authority." It could be more than a "discussion." If the commissioners act sensibly, it might lead to a revived and expanding beach economy.

Jamie Page succinctly describes the background above the fold in today's PNJ Local News section.
All the land on Pensacola Beach is the property of the federal government, but Escambia County government holds the master lease. Residents with homes and commercial buildings on Pensacola Beach pay lease fees on the land. They have a 99-year lease, with various options for renewing, on the land.

It's a similar situation on Navarre Beach, except all leases have a continuous 99-year renewable lease.

These Santa Rosa Island residents also pay property taxes to their respective counties, and that doesn't sit well with many.

By "master lease" reporter Page no doubt has reference to the loose legal threads arising from the original titling of Santa Rosa Island to "Escambia County" rather than to the "State of Florida" and the subsequent sublease of the Navarre Beach portion of the island to Santa Rosa County.

Neither Escambia nor Santa Rosa are charter counties with an independent existence under the Florida Constitution. Both counties, therefore, effectively are administrative subunits of the state. Consequently, however the federal deed may read, it's the State of Florida that has the ultimate ownership power over the island, although in practice the state legislature often, though not invariably, routinely approves county actions.

The big thing Page's article fails to mention is that a specific resolution will be up for consideration at this rare joint meeting of both county commissioner boards. The detailed agenda includes a resolution, presumably to be voted upon separately by both county bodies:
RESOLUTION R2008-___

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE SANTA ROSA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESSMAN JEFF MILLER TO RELEASE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON CONVEYANCE FOR PROPERTY ON SANTA ROSA ISLAND; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, on January 15, 1947, the United States of America conveyed to Escambia County, Florida, a portion of Santa Rosa Island, more particularly described in that deed recorded in Deed Book 248 at page 161 of the public records of Escambia County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the deed recites that the property shall “always be subject to regulation by said County whether leased or not leased but never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed”; and
WHEREAS, Santa Rosa County has an interest in the easternmost four miles of the property conveyed to Escambia County (Navarre Beach) pursuant to that certain Lease Agreement between the Santa Rosa Island Authority, an agency of Escambia County, Florida, and Santa Rosa County, Florida, dated February 11, 1956; and
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement contemplates that Escambia County will convey Navarre Beach to Santa Rosa County and that the parties will cooperate “in obtaining such conveyance and congressional and legislative approval therefore”; and
WHEREAS, Escambia County and Santa Rosa County agree that it would be in the interests of both counties to release the restrictions on conveyance to facilitate transfer of Escambia County’s interest to Santa Rosa County and other persons and entities having leasehold interests on Santa Rosa Island; and
WHEREAS, the counties wish to express their intent to cooperate in drafting proposed legislation to release the restriction on conveyances and developing a process to convey Escambia County’s interest to Santa Rosa County and persons and entities with a leasehold interest on Santa Rosa Island, and to request the support of Congressman Jeff Miller to sponsor federal legislation to release the restrictions on conveyance; and
WHEREAS, the counties will direct their respective staffs and attorneys to cooperate in drafting proposed language for the legislation; and
WHEREAS, each County, through its Board of County Commissioners, has considered this Resolution at public meetings of their respective Boards.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference in the body of this Resolution.
2. Escambia County and Santa Rosa County hereby request the support of Congressman Jeff Miller to sponsor legislation to release the restriction on conveyances for property on Santa Rosa Island, which shall be mutually agreed upon and drafted by the counties.
3. Each County’s staff and attorneys shall cooperate in drafting the legislation, which will be approved by each of the Boards at future public meetings and subsequently forwarded to Congressman Jeff Miller for consideration.
4. The Clerk of the Board of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners shall furnish a certified copy of this Resolution to Congressman Jeff Miller immediately upon its adoption and execution by both counties.
5. This Resolution shall become effective upon the date last adopted by each of the Boards of County Commissioners.
Why this resolution? And why now? Reporter Page doesn't address that, either.

Our guess is that it has a lot to do with the still-pending cases challenging the 2004 tax assessments issued against residential beach property lessees. Cross motions for summary judgment are scheduled for three hours of argument before Judge Michael Jones on May 2 beginning at 9:00 o'clock. If the above resolution passes, it could be the basis for settling all of the outstanding tax and lease fee issues.

This would be a just and fitting end to the tangled history that has plagued Island and county politics for decades. Equally important, it would at last provide a foundation for a prosperous island economy comparable to other Florida beach communities, for the reasons we described in a parable we authored some time ago.

As we pointed out there, via a series of links to contemporary economic land tenure studies, deeding the land outright to present-day island leaseholders in exchange for their assent to pay ad valorem real estate taxes would rescue Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach from a stultifying, repressive, and counter-productive economic morass that is almost identical to the way rural land is leased in the People's Republic of China.

Yes, the People's Republic of China has a booming economy, overall. But as anyone who has visited there for any time can attest, and as the economic studies we cited in the parable convincingly show, the rural economy in China is in shambles, largely because the land there is owned by the government and leased to occupants on terms strikingly similar to those on Santa Rosa Island.

Before the 1920's, Santa Rosa Island was owned outright by Escambia County. When the then-mosquito infested swampland with a newly-abandoned 19th century cannon fortress was deemed a financial burden to maintain, the county gave it away to the U.S. War Department. After World War II, stewardship of the island passed to the Interior Department.

Jane Johnson picks the story up at that point in her excellent history of the island (pdf warning):
The Department of Interior reverted the portion of Santa Rosa Island (from Fort Pickens to Navarre Beach) back to Escambia County, in 1947. The Deed of Conveyance specified: “...that the above described land shall be retained by the said Escambia County and be used by it for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest or be leased by it from time to time in whole or in part or parts to such persons and for such purposes as it shall deem to be in the public interest and upon such terms and conditions as it shall fix and always be subject to regulation by said county whether leased or not leased, but never to be otherwise disposed of or conveyed by it… .”

In Escambia County the Santa Rosa Island Authority was formed in 1947, an outgrowth of the island advisory board formed in 1946.

On February 11, 1956 Santa Rosa County began leasing Navarre Beach from Escambia County. The lease was for 99 years at the rate of $100 per year... .

To populate the island and promote the tourist trade throughout the ensuing decades Escambia County promised, in written advertisements in national newspapers and magazines and in promotional literature distributed locally, "tax free" leaseholds on the newly named Pensacola Beach. Archives held by the Santa Rosa Island Authority include hundreds of examples of these newspaper ads and brochures. Some in private hands have even made their way to Ebay as collector items.

As we have pointed out before, "some of this history was later memorialized by the state legislature in the preamble to House Bill No. 3913, 1976 Laws of Florida, chap. 76-361." Overall, it can be said that as long as the county kept its word Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach prospered. The tax-free promotions worked, to a degree that Pensacola Beach eventually -- after half a century -- reached the maximum sustainable population of 4,128 units allowed by a state-approved building cap.

Thus, all was well enough until the late 1990's when county commissioners, spearheaded by Mike ("Deer Slaughterer") Whitehead , began agitating to impose ad valorem taxes on beach leaseholds in addition to the annual leasehold fees they pay. Then, lawsuits were filed. Some of those suits, including one over the issue of beach business leases and another over Navarre Beach condominium leases, were lost in front of appeal courts who issued one-word opinions.

But the granddaddy of them all, the Pensacola Beach residential leaseholders class action, has always presented the most compelling claim. History, facts, legal precedent, economic reality, and common sense are all on the residents' side.

Maybe, just maybe, this has at last sunk in with county commissioners. If so, the resolution being proposed tomorrow should pass unanimously. Most island residents are willing to exchange their leases for a deed and to pay real estate taxes like beach residents on other beaches, including nearby Fort Walton Beach. All sides benefit. County government gets the tax income. Beach residents get a deed absolute. Everyone in Northwest Florida profits by having, at long last, a truly free market in land tenure.

The People's Republic of China, communist as it may be, has come to realize that individual deeds to land holdings is good for everyone. Let's hope our county commissioners are at least as smart as the Chinese.

UPDATE

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Primary Day

What Why Now? says.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Beach Tax Lawsuit Tanked

WHEREAS, Santa Rosa Island Authority on behalf of Escambia County represented to the general public and all parties dealing with them, that the said properties on Santa Rosa Island owned by Escambia County were not subject to ad valorem taxes, and

WHEREAS, said governmental authorities induced hundreds of persons, who relied upon the representations and the decision of the Supreme Court to enter into long term leases providing for rentals and which contained many onerous provisions... .
House Bill No. 3913, 1976 Laws of Florida, chap. 76-361
Florida's First District Court of Appeals yesterday upheld a lower court decision by Pensacola circuit judge Nick Geeker which approved assessing real estate taxes on Pensacola Beach business leases. The business lease tax case was one of four lawsuits filed three years ago, when Escambia County commissioners moved to squeeze more gold out of the wounded goose known as Pensacola Beach.

Yesterday's appeals court opinion was learned and erudite; it explored the unique historical context of the on-again-off-again- on-again promises of Florida state and county government that beach leases would be tax-free, and the opinion brought to bear on the issue incisive reasoning, ample precedent, and an enlightened discussion of public policy. Right?

Not a chance. The court's opinion consists of one word: "Affirmed." That's 2.66 alphabet letters for each of the three judges (annual salary: $147,524) who issued yesterday's decision, by name Marguerite Davis, Joseph Lewis, and Clayton Roberts.

Despite the First District Court of Appeals' 1987 precedent of Bell v. Bryan I, the handwriting has been on the wall for some time with more recent court opinions like this one and this one. Few above the lowly political level of a trial judge seem willing to leave their fingerprints on it. That's one advantage of what judges call a "per curiam" (unsigned) opinion: individual judges can hide their own responsibility and reasoning, albeit at the steep price of undermining the democratic principles of accountability, transparency, and public education about the judiciary's function.

To be sure, we still await a final appellate court ruling on the main case involving Pensacola Beach residential leaseholds. So, unless you've lost faith in the impartiality and wisdom of the Florida court system (Now, stop that snickering!) don't sell your evidence on Ebay just yet.

Unless, like our friend Bryan, you think it's a Zen thing -- in which case you might want to convert your beach home to a start-up high tech "business with no track record" to get a $2 million tax break from the county.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

For Whom Bell Tolls: Portofino Taxes

Judge Frank Bell ruled that Escambia County is legally authorized to impose ad valorem taxes on Portofino condo unit owners, according to Michael Stewart's abbreviated article in today's Pensacola News Journal. The unpublished opinion was filed last week but just came to public attention today.

That has to be devastating news for the five-tower high-rise complex. At last count, more than 120 units were listed for sale. Many more were rumored to be "pocket listings" -- not listed anywhere but readily available for purchase if you knew your way around the local real estate swamp. Now that real estate taxes have to be taken into consideration, the market will be just that much smaller and slower.

Explains Stewart:
Because beach leaseholders do not own the land on which their homes and businesses are built, they pay lease fees and have argued beach taxes are not legal. Leases are for a minimum of 99 years, with many leases providing an option for a second 99 years.
Earlier, a similar ruling rendered Pensacola Beach businesses subject to property taxation on their commercial rental land leases.

Among the lawsuits yet to be decided by the courts is a homeowner residents' suit. Many have considered that one to be the strongest case of all because of the explicit written, oral, and even state statutory promises that beach leaseholds and improvements would be tax-free, promises which Escambia County consistently made over the decades in an effort to develop the island.

The Portofino development wasn't leased until 1999, by which time the county had stopped making tax-free promises. The strong record of historic tax-free promises didn't affect Navarre Beach, either, where serious development didn't get underway until the mid-1980's. In any event Santa Rosa County never engaged in the same "tax free" public marketing strategies.

Even so, some residents are pessimistic. Florida courts don't have a good record for requiring Escambia County to keep its governmental word. That pessimism may explain why one person even sold evidence of Escambia County's "tax-free promise" pamphlets on Ebay a while ago.

The winning bidder paid $20.50 for the evidence. That may be the most anyone ever makes out of the otherwise worthless promises of Escambia County -- except, of course, for the lawyers and real estate brokers.

Someone knew what he was doing when he borrowed the Creek Indian word for "money exchange" to name Escambia County.