Owners at The Cliffs are on the horns of a dilemma or, more aptly, on the tines of Morton’s Fork.  Sir John Morton, Lord Chancellor of England in the late 15th Century, figured out a diabolically brilliant rationale for collecting taxes from everyone in the kingdom.  Subjects who lived in apparent luxury, Morton decided, obviously had the means to pay their taxes.  On the other hand, all subjects who did not spend much money and appeared to live frugally, Morton reasoned, should have saved enough to pay their taxes.  The term Morton’s Fork emerged to define those situations in which you have two choices, both bad.

        I thought of Morton’s Fork today as I considered the dilemma Cliffs Communities property owners face.  Founder and developer

Cliffs owners could get skewered no matter how they decide about the loan to their developer.

Jim Anthony is waiting to hear if they will front him a total of more than $60 million to complete two golf courses and other projects at his High Carolina (Tiger Woods design) and Mountain Park developments (Gary Player).  The minimum individual bailout is $100,000, for which the return is 12% annually over seven years.  In the world of investment, that’s a great rate, two points better even than what Bernie Madoff was paying.  But Cliffs owners would gladly forgo the impressive interest income in lieu of those heady days of yesteryear when they considered Anthony a visionary able to pay for his vision.

        Owners could be forgiven for thinking they might get skewered no matter what they decide.  If they deny Anthony the loan, he has indicated he will go to “Wall Street” to borrow it at much higher interest rates.  In the case of a default on the loan, the bankers would own The Cliffs, and you don’t have to be a visionary to understand what that could do to property values.  Anthony’s case to the owners is that if they lend him the money and he defaults, the property owners’ will acquire a rich consolation prize, direct ownership of The Cliffs’ amenities.

        Not to mix our metaphors, but becoming the owners of those lush and expensive amenities would be a Pyrrhic victory if ever

Do Cliffs residents really want to own the lush and expensive amenities?

there were one.  The cost of maintaining such an inheritance would have the twin disadvantages of burdening Cliffs property owners with higher maintenance fees since Anthony has been subsidizing them himself, and lower property values, since the “most comprehensive club membership in the world,” as Cliffs advertising has touted, could very well become the most expensive.

        The Cliffs property owners are smart people -- I know some of them personally -- but even they will have trouble choosing between the two alternatives their developer has presented.  They are on the horns of a dilemma, between the devil and the deep blue sea, and in a predicament of which only Sir John Morton could be proud.

        New England is often referred to as “The Land of Steady Habits.”  Apparently one steady habit in the northeast states is to commit to government employee pensions without the means to pay for them.

        Nationwide, states’ pension liabilities were unfunded in 2008 to the tune of about $450 billion, according to a study by the Pew

With the economic stress many states are enduring, state funding for such commitments as pensions becomes another good reason to consider a move south sooner rather than later.

Center for Research.  If you add retiree healthcare plans and other benefits, the difference is $1 trillion.  In my home state of Connecticut, the difference between commitment and funding for pensions alone is about $16 billion.  The Pew Center indicates that a ratio of 80% funding to liabilities, or higher, is considered healthy.  Yet Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all come in below the 70% mark.

        Dealing with unfunded pension liability is not the sexiest of campaign platforms for a gubernatorial candidate, but at a Connecticut fundraiser this past Sunday for Nelson “Oz” Griebel, the Republican candidate made it clear it was among his top priorities.  And although there was not a wet eye in the house, at least one baby boomer in the crowd was thinking, “What if they can’t pay the bill in a few years?”

        Anyone with equity in their northern home and a desire to move has lots of good reasons to head south.  Climate is one obvious reason.  As I’ve indicated many times before, overall cost of living improvement is another.  Add to that an expectation by demographers of a continuing migration north to south, with the consequent higher price appreciations in home values in the south.  But now, with the economic stress many states are enduring, state funding for such commitments as pensions becomes another good reason to consider a move south sooner rather than later.  It may be unthinkable to consider a state like California or Connecticut going bankrupt, but if a state can’t pay its bills, the consequences will trickle all the way down to home values.

         In the southeastern U.S., South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi are only a notch better than the New England states cited above, with between 70% and 78% of funding accounted for pension liabilities.  But Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida are demonstrably more stable when it comes to funding their own state pensions, with 91% to 107% of their liabilities “in the bank.”

 

If you are contemplating a move south, even if it is years away, contact me and I will be pleased to help you consider all the criteria that are important to consider in making the move.