Post by takebackbawb on Feb 23, 2012 16:13:14 GMT -5
Many people are confused about the issue of who owns Bid-A-Wee Beach (BAWB) and therefore form an opinion on the issue of gates on the beach to restrict access to the beach to BWBP, Inc. and the homeowner's in the Bid-A-Wee subdivision.
I would like to clarify this issue by statement of fact's that can be referenced.
Fact #1
In July 2010, Jim Smith, the President of BAWBP, Inc. requested that their attorney conduct a title search of the Beach to determine ownership, with the ultimate goal to secure title insurance on the Beach and to determine who they may exclude from accessing the Beach through the crosswalks. The attorney issued his Summary regarding title and dedication relating to Bid-A-W Beach on August 27, 2010. The executive summary stated that BAWBP, Inc. owns the beach in fee simple. He also found that in 1938, Eula Miller filed a Plat of Bid-A-Wee Subdivision which designates the Beach to be "Dedicated for Park Purposes" It was further found that contrary to the popular belief, the "Dedication for Park Purposes" was not only for Block A - N, but for the entire BAW subdivision, from Front Beach Rd north to Back Bench Rd. and from Crane St. west to Nautilus St.. BAWBP, Inc. was advised by their attorney that they could not restrict homeowner's that were not member's of BAWBP, Inc. from access to the Beach.
Fact #2
BAWBP, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation. The purpose of this corporation, as stated in their Articles of Incorporation, dated 6 May 1998, is to preserve the dedicated beach and to insure that the dedicated purpose shall remain as to property. Many people refer to BAWBP, Inc. as a "Homeowners Association", this gives the impression that it represents all homeowners. The definition of a "Homeowners Association" as defined by Fl Statue 720.301, para 9 does not apply to BAWBP, Inc.
Based on fact #1 and 2, I believe a court will soon find that BAWBP, Inc. may have title to the Beach, but the dedication of the Beach to the homeowner's of BAW for "Park Purpose's" and in accordance with their own Articles of Incorporation, mentioned in Fact #2, they are only care taker's of the Beach and have no right to make decision's on the use of the beach.
Fact #3
Jim Smith petitioned the Bay County Tax Appraiser to declare the Beach an amenity to all homeowner's of BAW and therefore shift the tax burden, from BAWBP, Inc. to all homeowner's. The Tax Appraiser approved the request and prorated the property tax in the assessment of all lot's. This decision also support's the conclusion that the beach is actually own by ALL property owner's within BAW. BAWBP, Inc. can not claim ownership of the Beach so they can determine who get's access to it and yet claim it should be considered an amenity to ALL property owner's for tax purposes. If they want to claim exclusive ownership with the right to make decision's on the Beach, to include who can go onto the Beach, they should pay the taxes on the Beach.
Fact #4
When the gates were erected on the beach, many people objected, both in the subdivision and outside. The issue was brought before the county commissioner's, who were reluctant to take action. BAWBP, Inc. attorney suggested to the member's and their annual meeting that a negotiated settlement be made with the county regarding access to the Beach. The proposal was for a 6' easement be given to the county or city for the construction and maintenance of a crosswalk. While these were negotiation's were being conducted, the county attorney received an email response from Assistant District Counsel for U.S.
Corps Of Engineer office in Mobile, Al, to his request for an opinion of the easement to the Beach that was granted in the Beach Restoration
Agreement, between Bay County and BAWBP, Inc. The counsel for the USCE responded that, "From at the Federal perspective, we would not consider this easement as granting access from the right-of-way for US 98, nor the use of any portion of the property above the designated 7 foot contour line." This response was used by everyone involved, to end the negotiation for compromise and to justify the installation of the gates and the issue was considered resolved. See Panama City News Herald article dated 06/27/2011. HOWEVER, when a concerned citizen sent a email to the USCE counsel, requesting clarification of his response to the county attorney, a different picture was presented from that used to drop the issue. In the reply for clarification of the USCE position on to the Beach Easement, the counsel stated that had he understood the nature of the issue instead of just being asked his opinion on an easement, he could have provided an answer that would have clarified the situation better for everyone. He went on to say that unfortunately, he was asked to provide an opinion on construction of an easement without the overall context and issue. He further stated that the Federal Government did not pay for the renourishment of Bid-A-Wee Beach. Bay County paid for it, using bed tax dollar's collected by the Tourism Development Commission (TDC). It should be noted here that these funds where public funds and should not be used for private property.
It is felt by myself and many other's that based on these fact's and other's, a court will rule in favor of all property owner's in Bid-A-Wee.
These are just a few of the fact's pertaining to BAWBP, Inc. and their abuse of "ownership". I hope that this information will generate more interested in what is taking place on the Beach and within our community.
I would like to clarify this issue by statement of fact's that can be referenced.
Fact #1
In July 2010, Jim Smith, the President of BAWBP, Inc. requested that their attorney conduct a title search of the Beach to determine ownership, with the ultimate goal to secure title insurance on the Beach and to determine who they may exclude from accessing the Beach through the crosswalks. The attorney issued his Summary regarding title and dedication relating to Bid-A-W Beach on August 27, 2010. The executive summary stated that BAWBP, Inc. owns the beach in fee simple. He also found that in 1938, Eula Miller filed a Plat of Bid-A-Wee Subdivision which designates the Beach to be "Dedicated for Park Purposes" It was further found that contrary to the popular belief, the "Dedication for Park Purposes" was not only for Block A - N, but for the entire BAW subdivision, from Front Beach Rd north to Back Bench Rd. and from Crane St. west to Nautilus St.. BAWBP, Inc. was advised by their attorney that they could not restrict homeowner's that were not member's of BAWBP, Inc. from access to the Beach.
Fact #2
BAWBP, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation. The purpose of this corporation, as stated in their Articles of Incorporation, dated 6 May 1998, is to preserve the dedicated beach and to insure that the dedicated purpose shall remain as to property. Many people refer to BAWBP, Inc. as a "Homeowners Association", this gives the impression that it represents all homeowners. The definition of a "Homeowners Association" as defined by Fl Statue 720.301, para 9 does not apply to BAWBP, Inc.
Based on fact #1 and 2, I believe a court will soon find that BAWBP, Inc. may have title to the Beach, but the dedication of the Beach to the homeowner's of BAW for "Park Purpose's" and in accordance with their own Articles of Incorporation, mentioned in Fact #2, they are only care taker's of the Beach and have no right to make decision's on the use of the beach.
Fact #3
Jim Smith petitioned the Bay County Tax Appraiser to declare the Beach an amenity to all homeowner's of BAW and therefore shift the tax burden, from BAWBP, Inc. to all homeowner's. The Tax Appraiser approved the request and prorated the property tax in the assessment of all lot's. This decision also support's the conclusion that the beach is actually own by ALL property owner's within BAW. BAWBP, Inc. can not claim ownership of the Beach so they can determine who get's access to it and yet claim it should be considered an amenity to ALL property owner's for tax purposes. If they want to claim exclusive ownership with the right to make decision's on the Beach, to include who can go onto the Beach, they should pay the taxes on the Beach.
Fact #4
When the gates were erected on the beach, many people objected, both in the subdivision and outside. The issue was brought before the county commissioner's, who were reluctant to take action. BAWBP, Inc. attorney suggested to the member's and their annual meeting that a negotiated settlement be made with the county regarding access to the Beach. The proposal was for a 6' easement be given to the county or city for the construction and maintenance of a crosswalk. While these were negotiation's were being conducted, the county attorney received an email response from Assistant District Counsel for U.S.
Corps Of Engineer office in Mobile, Al, to his request for an opinion of the easement to the Beach that was granted in the Beach Restoration
Agreement, between Bay County and BAWBP, Inc. The counsel for the USCE responded that, "From at the Federal perspective, we would not consider this easement as granting access from the right-of-way for US 98, nor the use of any portion of the property above the designated 7 foot contour line." This response was used by everyone involved, to end the negotiation for compromise and to justify the installation of the gates and the issue was considered resolved. See Panama City News Herald article dated 06/27/2011. HOWEVER, when a concerned citizen sent a email to the USCE counsel, requesting clarification of his response to the county attorney, a different picture was presented from that used to drop the issue. In the reply for clarification of the USCE position on to the Beach Easement, the counsel stated that had he understood the nature of the issue instead of just being asked his opinion on an easement, he could have provided an answer that would have clarified the situation better for everyone. He went on to say that unfortunately, he was asked to provide an opinion on construction of an easement without the overall context and issue. He further stated that the Federal Government did not pay for the renourishment of Bid-A-Wee Beach. Bay County paid for it, using bed tax dollar's collected by the Tourism Development Commission (TDC). It should be noted here that these funds where public funds and should not be used for private property.
It is felt by myself and many other's that based on these fact's and other's, a court will rule in favor of all property owner's in Bid-A-Wee.
These are just a few of the fact's pertaining to BAWBP, Inc. and their abuse of "ownership". I hope that this information will generate more interested in what is taking place on the Beach and within our community.