Latest Headlines
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Walnut Hill Man, Three Others Charged After Alleged Overdose On Embalming Fluid, GHB
- Escambia Man, 77, Charged With Shooting Multiple Rounds At Santa Rosa County SWAT
- Escambia (AL) Volunteer Fire Departments Receive State Grant, Present Service Awards
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Escambia County Corrections’ Wilson, Hankins Graduate From State Leadership Programs
- Escambia Commission Cancels This Week’s Meeting
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
Florida Supreme Court: Pensacola Beach Residents Should Pay Property Taxes
March 21, 2014
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that homes and condominiums in Navarre Beach and Pensacola Beach should be subject to property taxes, though they were built on land leased from Santa Rosa and Escambia counties.
Justices upheld 2011 appeals-court rulings in favor of the Santa Rosa and Escambia property appraisers and tax collectors.
The cases centered on long-term leases that the Northwest Florida counties approved for the development of homes and condominiums on the land. Plaintiffs in the cases contended that residences in the area should not be subject to property taxes, known as “ad valorem” taxes, and instead should face intangible personal property taxes. The Supreme Court noted that government-owned property usually is not subject to property taxes.
But it agreed with the 1st District Court of Appeal that the plaintiffs are the “equitable owners” of the properties and should pay the taxes.
“Here, for ad valorem tax purposes, the ‘owner’ of the property is not a governmental entity,” said the 19-page Navarre Beach opinion, written by Justice Charles Canady.
Comments
10 Responses to “Florida Supreme Court: Pensacola Beach Residents Should Pay Property Taxes”
For those who’s comments were objective I’ll begin by offering this.
When political gain AND millions of dollars in revenue are the driving factors, pray tell how the outcome was not a fait accompli?
Yes, it was performed in a painfully grandiose manner that the federal and state governments pride themselves in. And of course there’s always the firm belief that it also legitimizes such results. I believe in the cop and robber shows it’s called MO (Modus operandi). It is so predictable even a caveman could call it.
The lingering question was how benevolent those with the absolute power would be. I suppose because no one will be put to death, put in jail or receive a public flogging we should feel like the outcome wasn’t that bad after all. Heck, we could be in Russia or Iran.
And for those of you getting great joy out of this you should keep one thing in mind; you will get your turn in the barrel. Everyone does.
The rich that live on the beach do not deserve a free ride on property taxes…we all pay it even if we rent, lease or have a mortgage. Its part of your monthly payment and if you do not think property owners do not build it into the monthly payment….then I have some Ocean front property in Arizona to sell you! Pay your way folks….the rest of us do!
So tear down your house, live in a trailer and pay no taxes!
Now it’s time to rewrite the federal flood insurance rules so that these barrier island dwellers can’t get a new house every time the wind blows. The federal government needs to quit writing new policies on these environmentally sensitive areas. If they want to live on the beach, they should have to pay for insurance on the private market. I doubt that many could afford to pay the actual costs of their insurance. The other change the federal insurers should make on existing policies is; If it’s their choice to let the taxpayers foot the bill for their insurance, when the property gets destroyed,they get paid off and the taxpayers take possession of the property. The next storm would turn the beach back into a park. How would that be a bad thing?
As w/ any court decision, I’ll w/hold judgment until I read the whole opinion. I do know this issue has gone on for decades. When my family 1st leased property in Villa Sabine on Pensacola Beach in 1967 the SRIA couldn’t give it away, and financing was almost non-existent. Don’t think Navarre even existed as a community. Since then they have both become important economic engines for both Escambia & Santa Rosa counties.
Now if the state would make the people living or having property on the beach pay for thier fair share of insurance premiums will things be fair. It burns me up to have to pay a 90% increase in my rates so these people can live on the beach. Better yet the legislature needs to ban all buildings on barrier islands and stop all beach reclamation projects, these islands are ment to shift and move not to be messed with by humans hands for someones personal gain, maybe then the damage by these storms flood waters can be kept to a minimum by allowing these islands to do what they are supposed to do.
Try this for an idea. If the court is saying they are the “equitable owners” of the property so they must pay taxes on the property. This would fit very nicely with Jeff Millers bill that passed the house, to give the beach property to the people who are living on it. His bill states that the property will pass free and clear and will be titled to the person leasing it. I would like some beach front property for free.
It’s about time!
This ruling makes no sense. Now people who lease property must pay property taxes? I always thought property owners were responsible for paying those. Opens the door for multiple taxes on the same properties.
This sounds like nothing more than a new way of generating revenue.
While they enjoy the beach, and run up insurance rates for the rest of us, they get out of paying the property taxes the rest of us have been paying for years. Glad to hear this ruling!