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 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
land use “cost” about five cents on the levy. That cost was shared by everyone — including land use recipients — through taxes on houses and lots.
What we don’t know from the commissioner of revenue’s report and what we won’t be able to tell from Luke’s study is how much the tax rate would have increased to pay for services demanded if just one of the farms in land use had been developed into a subdivision.
And that’s what land use is all about. It’s a tool that a locality can use to help its agricultural industry withstand development pressures. It may cost a few cents on the tax rate but the price of land use is far less than the price of providing schools, police protection and other services that development demands.
But we’re not saying that general use value taxation should be continued.
It may be that landowners don’t give enough in return under general use value to justify the tax break from being assessed on the productive value of their land instead of its fair market value for speculative purposes. Landowners can drop out of the general use value program at any time and develop their property. There is a penalty — they must pay the deferred tax, that is the difference between use assessment and the higher fair market value assessment plus five percent interest, for a five year rollback period. With interest rates on borrowed money running near 14 percent, however, that’s almost a free loan.
But it wasn’t general use value the supervisors were considering last week. It was an application for an agricultural and forestal district. It’s true that land within such a district is eligible for use value taxation but in addition to meeting all the criteria for eligibility under that program, the landowners must contract with the board of supervisors, agreeing to keep their land in agricultural, forestal or open space use for eight years. It takes a majority vote of the board of supervisors to allow a landowner to withdraw from the district before the eight years has elapsed.
Besides, all the landowners involved in the Wakefield Agricultural and Forestal District qualify for use value whether or not the district is approved. They can get the same tax break without having to give an eight year “no development” promise in return.
So what’s the point in delaying action on this ag district application to study the impact of land use?
We urge the supervisors to approve the Wakefield district application and all other requests for ag districts. The board may want to end the county’s general use value taxation program. But as long as landowners are willing to say no to development for eight years, the supervisors should be willing — even eager — to say yes to the use value assessment benefits allowed through an ag district.
97.5%