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 4 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 1)
He reported that general use value taxation has recently come under study statewide and has been questioned in the General Assembly as to whether it's a good thing. "There’s more and more interest in having land owners enter into an agricultural district, enter into a contract so the county gets something in return for the tax break.” He said that the Warrenton-based Piedmont Environmental Council (of which Dennis is director) has worked for improvements in the “unwieldy” ag district law, specifically seeking alternatives to the 500 acre ; minimum.
“I think ag districts are discriminatory," countered supervisor chairman Dick Latham. “Using any amount of land as a minimum 'si/e is discriminatory against anyone who is unable to meet that minimum.”
Landowners who aren't farmers are now benefitting from use value taxation, interjected former supervisor chairman E. P. Luke, an opponent of the use value ordinance that was adopted in a split decision two years ago. He pointed out that owners of forest land do not have to comply w ith the same relatively stringent criteria set for agricultural land. “Agricultural land is evaluated (for land use taxation eligibility) . . . For forest land, you don't have to do anything. You only need that 20 acre minimum." he said, noting that the commission of revenue now has enough data to make an analysis of the county's use value assessment program.
"The issue of forest land does constitute a problem" Dennis agreed. He posed the possibility of mandating some type of forest plan as a requirement for land use.
“That was sort of the intent behind the General Assembly when they proposed- that law—not that anybody who's got a skinny tree out there could qualify as forest land." Luke said.
Returning to the issue of extending land use into tax year 1983, Baumgardner maintained that the law treats extensions differently than the first proposal of a use value ordinance but repeated that he wanted to wait for an Attorney General's opinion, expected at any day, before formally advising the board. In response, the supervisors tabled action on land use until their September meeting.
75.4%