This is why you never buy a house on land you don't own

In Baltimore many homes are on land not owned by the home owner--they call it ground rent and it goes on forever. Talking brick/stick built homes, not trailers.

Lwiddis wrote:
A state, county or city selling recreational land to private enterprise bothers me.

Amen. Also, I don't like the idea of leasing instead of owning land, unless it's a resident-owned community.

Lwiddis wrote:
Why not ask South Carolina State Parks to manage the campgrounds?

When I was wintering in Upstate SC there were two RV parks one on land owned by DUKE energy and managed by Oconee County parks and Rec, the other is Army Land (Core of Engineers) managed by the state.
the first is one of the nicest RV parks I've stayed in (South Cove, Seneca) small but oh so nice. all sites water/electric only.

The crime rate in MB may be in play to some degree. Go on Realtor.com, Zillow, or one of the others.
Oceanfront condos less than $100K in the city limits. Lots of them.

When my dad returned to Michigan after marrying my Mom back in the 1950's he bought a house that that was on land he did not own. And had it moved to land he DID own. Yup they moved the house.. It was amazing to watch.

Could be the original land grant has requirements in it that it can ONLY be used for campgrounds or it converts to conservations land.

Example in Brewster, MA ... Nickerson State Park, a land gift to the town from the Nickerson family cannot be developed beyond a campground, and the rest remains conservation land. It's run by the state forestry service. Great campground too, anyone heading for Cape Cod, don't miss it.

If you buy a home on a land lease... you should expect to leave peacefully at the end of the lease.
Adjust what you pay accordingly. All costs should be lower than typical full rent for a similar place or you paid too much.

My first condo I bought was on leased land with 57 years remaining. Bank will want a lease 5 to 10 years longer than the loan. I sold while the new buyer could still get a 30 year mortgage. Still made money on the deal.

Lwiddis wrote:
Why not ask South Carolina State Parks to manage the campgrounds?

So you are suggesting, the City (not state) destroy two major businesses that have been in place for almost 3/4 of a century? Businesses that have poured large amounts of money into developing the property and supporting the local economy over decades?

There's good reason that that history be taken into account.

wapiticountry wrote:
I would be shocked if the City wasn't required by law to maximize the proceeds in any sale. Usually this is accomplished by requiring sealed bids in any sale of publicly owned property. It is possible that the parks have the right of first refusal in such a sale, but I really can't see any way they could just negotiate a sales price without competitive bidding. A negotiated sale without bidding would be ripe for all sorts of fraud and malfeasance. Selling the land for $30 Million when it is worth $50 million would be ripping off the taxpayers, but might be very attractive to the City staffer whose uncle owned one of the parks or if there was a million dollars of unmarked bills suddenly left on the seat of his car. Obviously we don't have all the information, so it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

You do need to keep in mind that those campgrounds AND leases goes way back to the times when that land was worth pennies and practically given away.

City of MB has most likely made more than their "fair share" back on the land in lease money along with all of the TAX revenue that has been generated by the operation of said campgrounds (which is considerable). Plus, only the City of MB and the campgrounds involved know exactly what the lease terms are.. Good chance that there would be some sort of end of lease purchase terms, most like some sort of right to first refusal because of the campgrounds providing infrastructure and maintenance.

Not to mention all of this time City of MB has not had to touch or manage this land so no costs to the City of MB all of the time during the lease.. They sell it to the highest bidder and it isn't the campgrounds it may look like a money grab to the good citizens of the City of MB..

Not to mention, it IS a pretty busy resort area and losing camping spaces would have a pretty big ripple effect on not only those two campgrounds but every campground within the Grand Strand area (60 miles of shore line).

I am sure the City of MB and the campgrounds would want to avoid making a mess of it for the sake of City of MB making the most of the land prices..

Why not ask South Carolina State Parks to manage the campgrounds?