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 11 · column 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
LodRmnt
“This county needs a certain amount of revenue,” noted Robert Eastham. “Who’s going to take up the slack” and produce the money needed to balance the taxes lost through preferential treatment of farm land? he asked.
Revenue lost through a land use program will have to be picked up in higher rates on houses, including farm houses, and land which doesn’t qualify for use value taxation, according to supervisor chairman E. P. Luke, on record as an opponent of county-wide use value taxation. He objected to preferential tax treatment which will enable farmers to stay in business “a while longer—That’s not good enough if they sell out (to development) three or four years down the toad-,’*' Liilte said.
Supervisor H. B. Wood, a proponent of use value taxation, countered that implementation of the recent 100 percent fair market value assessment will shift the tax burden from the current sharing between house and land primarily onto the land alone. Enactment of countywide land use will be worth it, he maintained, if the program prevents the development of just one farm into subdivision lots.
74.6%