Terrorizing America

"If I Were a Terrorist" by James Pence of the Hillbilly Report:

Political Quiz

Who said what?

To the question, "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?" Who gave the following answers?

1. "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

2. "[T]he belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion... which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position... ."

Answers below:



1. Sen. John McCain, 2006.

2. Sen. John McCain, 2008.

Whitehead Steps in it Again

Rick Outzen's blog got the scoop. But the PNJ sent Jamie Page out to play catch-up and he grabbed the money quote from Escambia County commission chairman Mike Whitehead:

"I am not ashamed of the fact that I take money from anybody and everybody."

Classy.

Allstate Insurance Co.'s Behavior "Potentially Criminal"

"Wherever you may live, if you're shopping for insurance of any kind be sure to read the Consumer Federation's report before you let Allstate wrap its 'horrific' 'good hands' around your neck."

The First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee has rewritten, but reaffirmed, its original opinion upholding the decision of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation [OIR] to suspend Allstate Insurance Co. from writing any insurance of any kind. As Sarasota's Herald Tribune reports:

The suspension, which took effect at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, will be lifted as soon as the insurer certifies in an affidavit that it has produced all those documents, said Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty.
* * *
The ban will primarily impact Allstate's new auto insurance sales, which brought the company $1.8 billion in Florida premiums last year.

Among the wholly owned subsidiary Allstate companies affected, according to the Orlando Business Journal, are --

• Allstate Floridian Insurance Co.
  
• Allstate Indemnity Co.
  
• Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
  
• Allstate Insurance Co.
  
• Allstate Floridian Indemnity Co.
  
• Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co.
  
• Encompass Insurance Co. of America
  
• Encompass Indemnity Co.
  
• Encompass Floridian Insurance Co.
  
• and Encompass Floridian Indemnity Co.

Existing policy holders are unaffected for the moment. But no new policies can be written.

Upon learning of the ruling Florida Governor Charlie Crist called it "a beautiful thing." Some insurance companies, he said, "are doing very good work. But some of them, like Allstate, have been horrific."

The appellate case decided yesterday has had an odd journey in the hall of mirrors that is the First District Court of Appeals. The first opinion [pdf warning] was issued April 4. Nearly three weeks later, on April 21, the court appeared to be enforcing its decision by issuing a order that would have allowed the OIR to proceed with its ban against Allstate selling insurance until it complies with the subpoena. But half an hour later the court withdrew its order, claiming it had been issued "in error." Today's ruling takes us back to April 21 and will place the power of enforcement squarely in OIR's hands.

Yesterday's court opinion [pdf warning] is about one page longer than the original April 4 decision. The most prominent changes in the new document appear to be that the appeals court twice introduces, now, the word "unique" to describe the circumstances of Allstate's obstinacy; and it emphasizes in a concluding passage that Allstate's behavior has been "willful, indeed potentially criminal."

The Miami Herald's Beatrice Garcia has more on the immediate consequences of yesterday's action:

The company's nine insurance companies operating in Florida now are barred from writing new policies until Allstate fully complies with a state subpoena for documents and information about its rate-setting process and rate filings. * * *

Existing Allstate policyholders are not affected by the ban. Also, the Office of Insurance Regulation will allow consumers who already have quotes from Allstate to buy the policies if they wish.

The state agency subpoenas initially were issued to obtain internal corporate documents that would show whether the company has developed claims handling practices that overtly cheat existing customers. The suspension of Allstate's certificate to write insurance in Florida was imposed because the corporation refused to comply with the subpoena.

And how. As the appeals court's opinion recites, "most of the required documents were withheld." As for others, the corporation "labeled every one" as "trade secrets" even though "some of these 'trade secret' documents were public records." "Many of the documents" that were produced, the court says, "had pages removed."

Courts in other states have demanded production of some of these same documents, and Allstate has stiff-armed them, too, in at least one state exposing itself to multi-million dollar fines. As Florida's insurance regulators have learned --

Allstate was currently being held in contempt of court in Missouri with a $25,000.00 per day fine for its failure to produce documents and, as of the date of the hearing, those fines exceeded $2 million.

That must be some "trade secret" Allstate is trying to hide. More like a corpus delicti.

The insurance company's practices were first documented in a report issued last year by the Consumer Federation of America, titled, "The 'Good Hands' Company or a Leader in Anti-Consumer Practices?: Excessive Prices and Poor Claims Practices at the Allstate Corporation" [pdf warning] There, CFA's director insurance documents how in the past ten years --

property casualty insurers overall have paid out less in claims for every dollar spent on premiums by consumers, as profits and overhead costs increased. Many insurers have implemented pricing “innovations” like using credit scores and multiple rate classifications that appear to have a disparate, adverse impact on poorer and minority consumers. They have changed policy language to hollow out the coverage offered, particularly for home insurance, and dramatically increased consumers’ out-of-pocket costs. They have deployed ambiguous and harmful coverage restrictions that are beyond the ability of consumers to clearly understand. Some insurers have also refused to renew the policies of consumers in coastal regions, forcing them into high-cost state-supported insurance pools. This practice socializes the cost of high risks while privatizing the profitable risks.

As CFA has tracked these questionable practices, one insurance company stood out as a leader in creating and exploiting many of these trends. That insurer is Allstate.

One among many techniques Allstate pioneered is essentially to pay no attention to the merits of any casualty claim. As the CFA report documents:

Allstate was one of the first major insurers to adopt claims payment techniques designed to systematically reduce payments to policyholders without adequately examining the validity of each individual claim, [using] an automated payment system called Colossus. It adopted these techniques after being told by a consultant that these systems would put them in a “zero-sum game” with claimants, including their policyholders who filed claims, in which Allstate shareholders would benefit financially at the expense of policyholders.

There's more, a lot more. Wherever you may live, if you're shopping for insurance of any kind be sure to read the Consumer Federation's report before you let Allstate wrap its "horrific" "good hands" around your neck.

Allstate isn't saying right now whether it will attempt a discretionary appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. But it also is facing other investigations, including claims of industry-wide "collusion, price gouging, conspiracy and breaking state law."

Call for Comments

The Gulf Breeze News, a worthy weekly that often covers Pensacola Beach issues and events more thoroughly than any other local media outlet, "would like to know what you think about the prospect of fee simple title ownership to property at Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach."

The invitation comes at the end of reporter Pam Brannon's superior article ["Escambia, Santa Rosa Petition for Fee Simple Title"] about the recent joint meeting of the two county commissions:

Send email comments of 200 words or less to: joe@gulfbreezenews.com. Letters to the editor (e-mail and regular mail) must be signed and include a phone number for verification.

Old Timer and Beach Taxes

Following the recent Pensacola Beach town meeting, we spoke with William DeArmand, a classic Northwest Florida native. DeArmand has lived and worked on Pensacola Beach nearly all his life. He also recalls how, in 1960, the county was so desperate to attract people to live on the beach it gave away the "first house next to the Island Authority building" as a 'Treasure Hunt' door prize.

1:57

Taxpayers to Fund Golf Course in Paradise

Nope. Not Pensacola Beach. Not New Orleans, either. Iraq. The Green Zone. Built by the Pentagon. Paid for by Guess Who.

The Guardian has the story. (HT to Jay Ackroyd, who sends this in as a tardy entry for "the worst idea, ever.")

Beach Tax Lawsuits Explained

Update on
Santa Rosa Island Leasehold Tax Cases
By John Pinzino
Island Realty of Pensacola Beach

Remarks read to assembled beach residents, May 12, 2008

(Reprinted here by courtesy of John Pinzino. Links added by this blog.)

Most everyone knows that development of Pensacola Beach came about with a promise of no ad valorem taxes. Over time, laws were changed and leaseholds were taxed even though Escambia County owns the land as well as the improvements.

Recent History of Tax-Free Leaseholds

In 1979, the Florida Legislature passed legislation that defined leasehold interest in government owned property as “intangible personal property.” This legislation changed the law to stipulate that a 100 year lease was the same as ownership, but a 99 year lease was not. Many people attribute this change in the law to the threat from Daytona Speedway that it would leave Volusia County if it had to pay taxes on its 99 year lease.

In Escambia County, the former Property Appraiser and Tax Collector disagreed with the language in this statute and continued to tax improvements on Santa Rosa Island as real property. In 1984, a group of leaseholders filed suit. The case known as Bell v. Bryan effectively put an end to ad valorem taxes on Pensacola Beach from 1987 through 2003.

Renewed Efforts to Tax Beach Leaseholds

All that changed in 2004, even though the legislature made no change in the law. [Escambia County] Property Appraiser Chris Jones decided Beach leaseholders were “equitable owners” based on a Santa Rosa County Circuit Court decision involving Navarre Beach. In December of 2004, five law suits were filed against Property Appraiser Jones and Janet Holley, the Tax Collector. A law firm from Tallahassee represents Jones and Holley in all these Escambia County cases, as well as the Santa Rosa County cases.

I am going to update all these cases without going into great detail. There are some references on the agenda that was handed out that will direct you to web sites where you can find additional information and legal documents related to these cases. (Just in case you need some bed time reading.)

Navarre Beach “Equitable Ownership” Ruling

In June of 2005, the 1st District Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in the Navarre Beach case known as Ward v. Brown. Two members of the 3 judge panel ruled that the automatic renewal clause Santa Rosa County leases made them “perpetual” leases and agreed that the Navarre Beach leaseholders had sufficient rights and duties to make them equitable owners. This ruling does not help the Pensacola Beach cases.

But, the dissenting opinion in Ward v. Brown was very much in our favor. There is hope that other judges will see it our way. There are also differences in the leases for the 2 beaches that could make a difference in the outcome. But, I have to say that so far there hasn’t been any good news.

Pensacola Beach Commercial Leases

The case known as Alvin’s Stores v. Jones involving 32 commercial leases was ruled on by [Circuit Court trial] Judge Nick Geeker in November of 2006. Geeker ruled in favor of the County’s position, citing a number of findings of fact in his order that the attorneys at Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge felt provided a strong basis for appeal. However, the appeal was not successful.

A three judge panel filed an opinion of "Per curiam - Affirmed" ("PCA") just 5 days after the oral arguments were heard. A PCA means the 3 judges agree with the trial court’s decision and find no need to explain further. This ended the commercial case. There can be no appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

The commercial plaintiffs must pay ad valorem property taxes from 2004 forward on their improvements. They are also still obligated pay lease fees to the SRIA.

Since the 1st DCA offered no explanation as to why they affirmed the lower court decision by ruling per curiam affirmed, it has no direct precedential impact on other cases. In other words, the appellate decision went against the commercial leaseholders but it cannot be cited as authority that is binding on another court or by a trial judge in a separate case.

Portofino Condo Leases

Portofino is represented in their court case by McDonald, Fleming and Moorhead. This lawsuit challenges the property taxes and the amount of the tax assessment. All the Portofino 99 year residential leases are the same and do not have a guarantee for renewal. Judge Frank Bell likewise ruled in favor of the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector. [See "For Whom Bells Tolls: Portofino Taxes"]

Unlike Geeker, Bell provided no explanation for his ruling. He also made this ruling prior to the outcome of the appeal of the commercial case. Bell’s decision has been appealed. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 30th at the DCA in Tallahassee.

Pensacola Beach Residential Leases

The case involving the most plaintiffs and properties is also being handled by Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge. There are over 2200 residential properties, both single family residences and condominiums, and more than 3400 individually named plaintiffs involved in this case. All leases are for 99 years, but there are variations on lease provisions that range from the very first leases on the Beach to the most recent residences and condos.

A hearing was held on May 2, 2008 in front of Circuit Court Judge Michael Jones. Both sides presented there arguments for Summary Judgment and provided the court with volumes of paperwork.

Judge Jones seemed very knowledgeable of the issues and law relevant to this case. He asked a lot of questions during the 3 hour hearing. This was very different than the manner in which the hearings in front of Judges Geeker and Bell were conducted. The attorneys were instructed to come [together] to work out which facts in the case both sides agree to and to submit their recommended conclusions to Judge Jones by May 16th.

The judge indicated that he would review all the materials submitted before making his ruling. His order is of course subject to appeal by either side.

The Family Trust Lawsuit

The remaining 2 lawsuits involve the residential and commercial holdings of a family owned company that has leasehold interest in 25 residential condominium units and 2 commercial hotel properties on the Beach. In the case involving the condominiums, Judge Jan Shackelford has ruled in favor of the Property Appraiser, agreeing with the “equitable ownership” argument.

Shackelford also wrote in her summary “The Florida Constitution requires that the Plaintiffs pay ad valorem taxes at local government rates at parity with other citizens of Escambia County.” This decision has been appealed. The case involving the former Dunes and Holiday Inn properties is still open in the Escambia County Circuit Court. No hearing has been scheduled.

Conclusion: New Beach Tax Threatened

Of the 5 Escambia County cases, the commercial case has concluded. Those commercial leaseholders are subject to ad valorem taxes on their improvements and lease fees. Two cases involving residential property are on appeal. One case is awaiting a ruling and another has yet to be heard in the Circuit Court.

I will end with a word about the situation in Navarre Beach. Property taxes on improvements were upheld in the Ward v. Brown case.

In 2006, the Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser also appraised the land [which is owned by the county] as real property and [new] tax bills included tax on the land. A group of leaseholders has filed [a new] suit. They are being represented by Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge.

Obviously, the outcome of this case is of great interest to leaseholders on Pensacola Beach, as Property Appraiser Jones will follow the lead of his counterpart.

I hope this has set the stage for the other presenters to get you thinking about the issues stemming from the litigation. There are several other members of the Residential Liaison Committee here tonight. * * * If you chose to ask questions during the speakers forum, we will do our best to answer them.

SRO Beach Meeting

It was standing room only last evening at the all-residents' beach meeting called by the Pensacola Beach Chamber of Commerce. Nearly everyone was there except the media and county politicians. At its zenith, over 400 business owners, residents, and friends of the beach were present during the two and a half hour session.

If the Pensacola News Journal sent a reporter it isn't evident in today's paper, where the big news reported by Thyrie Bland is that two juvenile detention officers and "12 deputies, four more than usual, will be keeping an eye on things Sunday at the beach." Thousands of Mobile high school graduation celebrants and adult hangers-on are expected to make their annual trek to the beach.

Francesca Maxime from local television station WEAR-TV showed up late. She got the story wrong, but was perfectly coiffed.

The meeting wasn't called "to protest proposed property taxes, for people who now own homes, on leased beach land." It was to give everyone an update on the various tax lawsuits and offer those in attendance a chance to ask questions or make comments.

The speeches, comments, and questions from the floor ranged widely. Among the issues discussed were the status of Escambia County's effort to impose taxes on business and residential leaseholds, strategies for keeping the beach open to public use, alternatives like municipal incorporation, and concerns about over-development and environmental despoilation both on Pensacola Beach and Perdido Key.

We'll have more on the meeting a bit later. For now, what we want to say is that to understand the abysmal state of the media in Pensacola you should read the grimly hilarious "Pepperoni" by Donald Barthelme. The New Yorker has an excerpt. For the complete short story, buy the book.

Document the DCF Atrocities

Near Kris Wernowsky's lede in today's Pensacola News Journal, May 12, 2008:

One-year-old Ali Jean Paterson died in November 2006 from severe burns she suffered when her father left her unattended in the bath, authorities said. The father, Christopher Paterson, 28, of Molino, was arrested in May 2007 near Gainesville several months after a grand jury indicted him on a manslaughter charge.

Buried deep in the article:

In May 2006, the Florida Department of Children and Families looked into another incident involving Paterson and his child.

The DCF investigated Paterson and the child's mother, Brittany Knapp, after Ali was taken to a local hospital with a broken leg. The parents said they believed Ali tangled her leg in a slot in her crib, said Janice Thomas, circuit administrator for the DCF.

"Based on the information we gathered, we didn't think there was abuse and neglect at that time," Thomas said.

Another great job by Escambia County's Department of Children & Family Scoundrels.

Deceit Beach: Reply to a Critic

CLICK TO READ

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.

News You Won't See on TV

You won't know this news if you depend on the cable so-called "news" channels:

[W]hat is most extraordinary about all of this is that huge numbers of Americas who were subjected to this propaganda by their own Government still don't know that they were, because the television networks which broadcast it to them refuse to tell them about it... .

You have to read about it to see how you've been played for a sucker. Even those of you who depend on NPR.

Pensacola and Navarre Beach - Back Then

Below is an advertisement for Pensacola Beach leaseholds as it appeared in the Kansas City Star, April 2, 1967 (courtesy of William L. Post, author of Deceit Beach).

(click to enlarge)

"The Kansas City Star advertising supplement of 11 pages by the SRIA. * * * On page 4 [the text reads] 'You can stay on 98 or take the Beach Route, State Road 399, but either way you'll end up at Navarre Beach in 20 miles where Santa Rosa County is developing its own beach resort. There, as at Pensacola Beach, you can get tax-free lots... '
* * *
On Page 6, 'Pensacola Beach... Home sites are leased by the county government for 99 years... The Santa Rosa Island Authority, an agency of the county, handles all property leasing - and there are no ad valorem property taxes on the island.'"

-- Excerpt from Deceit Beach at p. 59

Must-Have Pensacola Beach Book

Title: Deceit Beach
Author: William L. Post
Publisher: Trent's Prints & Publishing (Chumuckla, FL)
ISBN: 10:: 1-934035-42-4 / 13: 978-1-934035-42-9
92 pp. plus 33 pages of appendices and an index
Price: $29.95 ($24.95 for Florida residents)

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

Reprint Dept.

Gulf Breeze News, May 15, 2008

Primary Crack Up

That is to say, Giordano cracks up Atrios "because it's true."