A Fight that is Worth Having: Maintaining the Public's Beach Access Easement at Perdido Key

Some fights are worth it.  They are worth having.

Maintaining the public's right to access a 1.2 Mile long, 75' swath of pristine beach that was memorialized in the original deeds from the Federal Government to the original private sector owners in 1957 is such a fight that is worth having.

This language wasn't an accident on the part of the Federal Government.  

It wasn't a one-off.  

No, every one of the 64 deeds in this stretch of beach has the same language in the deed indicating there is a PERPETUAL EASEMENT for the public to use that portion as a public beach.  64 out of 64 deeds.

"The southerly 75 feet of said lot being subject to a perpetual easement for a beach for public use generally."  

That precise language is in every one of these 64 deeds.

And people have, through the years, used that beach and accessed that beach because it was known it was public, that stretch.

West-side surfers have walked up and down that beach--surfing the best breaks along that stretch-- in the 1960's-1970's-1980's-1990's-2000's and 2010's.  Ditto for families and fishermen like my Dad and I in the early to mid 1980's.

There was never any issues there.  Ever.  We parked across the street at the (then) Junior Food Store and walked up and down the beach fishing this beach.

So, what happened?  When did this change?  Why did this change?  Who pulled this language out of subsequent property transfer documents as these individual lots changed hands through the years?  How was this not caught?  Who erected the first "no trespassing" sign on this stretch--who started that nefarious process to attempt to keep the public out of beaches this same public knew was set aside for their use?

Thankfully---many have continued to use that beach even up to the present time---ignoring the signs and sometimes being confronted by owners and private security guards.  Several folks that I know NEVER acknowledged this false narrative of privacy of this strip of land.  And thankfully, they didn't.  More on that later in the litigation, but for now suffice it to say that from 1957 to the present day there have been members of the public that have exercised their right to use that beach---even though recently they were harrassed for it.  That will prove to be important.  This easement never was, never has been and NEVER WILL BE abandoned by the public.  

Here is the thing, this is what I want the current owners and the general public to know about my position on this:  

It is not your (current owner's) fault, and it certainly isn't the county's fault or my fault we are here where we are with impending litigation:  It is a mess.  A big giant problem.  But I have confidence in the justice system overall--even though I know it isn't perfect.  With that said--until some bright legal minds in the courts say differently--my position always has to be on the side of and in support of  legal, lawful, enforceable documents--which I believe these original deeds from the Federal Government to be.  Anything less than a full-throated, strident defense of this language and these easements for the people's benefit would be a reckless dereliction of my duty as a constitutional officer.

So yes, I will fight for the people's right to access this beach because it is the right thing to do. Even if it costs me an election.

It's the right thing to do--because this IS a Fight worth having.

One of the 64 Original Deeds from 1957 with the easement language

Incorporation of Perdido? Part II--Questions and Answers

 

I attended the informational meeting of the “We are Perdido” effort the other night at Liberty Church in District 1.  I thought the event went well, the speakers did a good job, and the venue was comfortable.  The audio-visual system was very good.  A large crowd was on hand as well, to get the information.

Full Disclosure:  I am agnostic on this effort at incorporation; I am neutral.  This is a decision (whether to incorporate Perdido) of the citizens and residents and business owners of that study area and their decision only.  This is exactly what I told Channel 3 when they interviewed me on this very topic, and it is also what I told InWeekly reporter Tommy St. Meyer when he also recently interviewed me on this topic. Yes, it is in my district---but whether the effort to incorporate is successful or not—that won’t change.  It will still be a part of the county and in District 1. 

But I am going to study and examine every aspect of this initiative to learn all that I can about it so that I can speak to constituents with a more informed opinion when I am asked about this effort.  (I am already getting questions about this incorporation)

So, I came to the meeting.  I stayed for about 1 ½ hours and listened to the presentation.  I was particularly impressed with Lynn Tipton, the guest speaker from the Florida League of Cities.  She brought a power point presentation with lots of useful data to relay to the assembled crowed of about 250 or so.

At the end of the presentation, a brief question and answer session was held.

So, the next day I reached out to Ms. Tipton and had the opportunity to speak with her Wednesday evening about some additional questions I had.

I asked about additional revenue sources the new city, if incorporated, would be able to raise.

According to her, the city can receive a share county’s Local Option gas taxes if they take over the county’s roads within the city’s footprint.  At the meeting, one of the organizers stated in answer to a question about Perdido Key Drive that they would not be seeking to take over the roads and the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the road.  So, this seems to foreclose Perdido’s ability to tap into those funds.  Tipton did mention that it is not uncommon for some cities in Florida to have county roads within their municipalities.

Other takeaways included the following:

--Parks, Boat Launches, and public beach accesses within this Perdido footprint would remain a part of the county—unless the new city negotiated to take them over and purchase them.

--Potential 10 Mill levy—while completely lawful to do for the new city (Pensacola levies over 4 mills on top of the county’s assessment)-- if the elected councilmen/women of Perdido voted to do this---as a practical matter according to Tipton this is highly unlikely as no Florida municipality has levied this high a number on the citizens served because there is an unacknowledged “cap” where if a certain percentage is levied all the councilpersons get voted out.  People don’t like ad valorem tax rate increases.

--How Much will 1 Mill equate to when applied to We Are Perdido’s self-identified  taxable value of $3.5 Billion?  It appears, stripping out the school board tax and only applying the county’s, the Sheriff’s, and the library districts combined rate of 7.6605 mills---that each “Mill” of value will be approximately $3.5 Million. (Or an easier calculation to make to determine the value of just one mill is to take the total taxable value and either divide by 1000 or multiply by .001.  1 mill = $3.5 Million)

--How would the new city tap into the county’s ½ cent sales tax and 8^th cent gas tax revenues?  The new city would have to qualify to tap into these funds through the Department of Revenue by raising an amount of revenue the equivalent of at least levying 3 Mills to the taxable value of the property within its footprint.   Meaning in order for the fledgling city to tap into the ½ cent DOR revenue and 8^th cent in gas tax---important revenue sources to the city because these revenue sources are bondable---the new city would need to show DOR new revenue generation  of $10.5 Million (3 Mill equivalent) via ad

Incorporation of Perdido?

The decision to incorporate a large swath of SW Escambia County will be up to the voters that live in that area.  It's their decision to make and my only advice to them is this: get informed, ask lots of questions, make a wise decsion, and watch your wallet!

There's been a buzz at the end of this past week about a nascent effort by a few folks to "incorporate" areas of the SW portion of Escambia County into a new City of “Perdido.”

Looking at the comments on the Studio 850 facebook site’s post after this article was published-- it appears as if many would be opposed to this.  Not that a few folks posting on facebook is scientific, though.

People have now asked my opinion about it; I've received a few emails from a handful of constituents.

I've spoken to state level lawmakers about this topic.

Yes, it's out there as an issue--but it is not the big issue.  The big issues are overdevelopment, traffic infrastructure, and stormwater.  These are the issues constituents come to me about consistently--particularly in the areas of D1 that are rapidly growing.  In fact, I had nearly 350 citizens of this very area at my two town halls in Perdido over the last year since this portion of the county reverted to D1 after the redistricting.

And I had lots of good questions from lots of citizens--more than 120 comment/question cards + verbal questions. Between the two meetings and out of all the questions (on overdevelopment, traffic, and stormwater) ----I only had one (1) question on this proposed idea of incorporation.

So, for my part, I let my own words speak for my thoughts on any incorporation, at 1:29:38 of my most recent town hall where I had the one and only question on this topic posed to me by one of the founders and staunchest supporters of incorporation (and former Doug Underhill planning board appointee) Tim Pyle.  And I gave him my answer, publicly.

Ultimately it will be a decision for those residents to make, those residents that live in this group's study area.  I represent a large portion of that area, and that will not change even if this effort is successful at some point down the line—as these areas will still be part of District 1 in Escambia County.  And as the only commissioner of five that has no part of his district within the footprint of an overlapping municipality--in many respects such an incorporation might make my job easier. 

But at the end of the day it is a question for these citizens-- as they will be the ones seeing higher property tax bills and perhaps even other added taxes, bond indebtedness, fees, surcharges, and cost increases to fund an overlapping Perdido municipality-- if this is ultimately approved.

Now, I'm told that 78% of folks recently surveyed "approved" of the plan.  Really?  I have some questions about who was asked and what question was asked--because a lot of the veracity of a poll's purported results depend upon whom was polled and precisely how such poll question(s) are asked.  Was it asked of all residents of the survey/study area?  Did it capture all income demographics?  Were owners and renters asked? Does this plan meet the requirments of 165.061 Florida Statutes? Does this study area even meet the density threshold necessary in state statutes? Did the poll's questions properly describe the fact that full county taxes, including all fire and school board millage rate taxes—plus library and sheriff MSTU’s, would still be collected post any incorporation and that new taxes would be needed to fund any new municipality's operations/personnel and overlapping services provided? (i.e., some who support incorporation may be of the mistaken belief that if they incorporate, they keep the current taxes assessed and collected of the property tax roll within their boundaries--which is not how this works.  Escambia County still would keep all the current revenue from the property within the footprint and any new incorporated municipality would have to raise EXTRA property tax and other revenue via property rate hikes and generated revenue from within their boundaries via increases in other taxes, sales taxes, fees, surcharges etc.----in order to fund their operations.  We [County] also keep all our property and roads and parks and facilities unless the new municipality purchases these and we agree to such purchases. In summary—it appears this would amount to a big, giant tax increase, not a net neutral proposition for current and future property owners and visitors.)  I'm sure there will be many "ah-ha" moments once those initially expressing support for this plan realize this financial implication/reality. Or maybe not?  Who knows?

Too many questions.

Meanwhile-- some proponents of this incorporation sound glib as they falsely claim on radio interviews

Beach Access #4 at Perdido Key: Ribbon Cutting ONE Month Away!

The current view from Escambia County's soon to be completed and openend Gulf-Front, free  Public Beach Access point in District 1 at Perdido Key

Escambia County, west Escambia County, and District 1's newest public Gulf-Front beach access point (300 FT on the Gulf) is nearing completion.  Beach Access #4 has been a long time coming--nearly 8 years--but it is almost completed.  Better late than never!.  Photos from the site from this week  (below) show the parking lot completed, with asphalt and striping,  split rail fencing installed, and the driveway complete.  Native grasses have been replanted in areas around the parking, and the only remaining items are the unrolling of the Mobi-mat (which will give access to the beach to those who are in wheelchairs) and some signage about the ecology of the area with educational placards about native/protected species.  According to the Natural Resources Management staff: 

"We expect the access mat to be installed in the next 2-3 weeks. I will have an updated timeline from engineering tomorrow. We can start to plan a grand opening for mid-late Feb...We will still be waiting on the wash-station, ada components to the educational signage and a couple other odds and ends."