Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 8 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
In a statement that went through all of the objections raised against AF Districts throughout the public hearings, Sanford noted that no private citizen had ever spoken in opposition to approval of the district applications. On the contrary, he maintained, that all of the landowners in the vicinity of the proposed districts were in favor of approval. Questions regarding restrictions on powers of emminent domain, effect on future water impoundment plans, discrimination against small landowners and impact on farmers’ borrowing power had all been raised and settled, Sanford continued. “I certainly would deny I’m looking for a tax break,” he stated. “We’re looking for protection...The tax deferral is temporary until a certain period of time goes by and certain requirements are met.” Sanford acknowledged that use value taxation benefits from approval of district applications would cause a tax shift. However, he pointed out, "there will also be a shift of public tax money expenditure.” Everyone’s going to pay more taxes regardless of land use tax or agricultural districts," Sanford said. “The question is how much.” tGrange farmer Mike Yager told the Supervisors that approval of the AF District applications meant more than just taxes. "I make my
85.8%