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 5 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor:
In your interviews with the Supervisor candidates contained in your issue of October 20th, one of them is reported as having said, “I am not wild about land use taxation. But I do support Agricultural and Forestal Districts. I believe that persons in Agricultural Districts make a commitment to the rest of the land and lot holders that they want to keep this county rural and agricultural. As we know, there is a roll-back tax for anyone getting out of these districts. But land use has no such roll-back tax.”
The supervisor in question, I regret to say, is also in error. Section 58-769.10 of the Land Use Assessment Act provides the same rollback tax provisions to which. Agricultural and Forestal District landowners are subject. The roll-back taxes in both cases are an amount equal to the deferred taxes (difference between special assessment tax and tax on fair market value), plus interest, for the current year plus each of the preceding five years. Roll-back taxes are due and payable in both cases only when, and if, the land involved is changed to a nonqualifying use.
In regard to this Supervisor’s comments concerning the enjoyment of land use tax deferrals by “several subdivisions in this county” (non qualifying land use under the law), may I suggest the Supervisor request an explanation of the Commissioner of Revenue, who approved the LUV applications? Perhaps there is some confusion over the use of this land, as defined by the law.
There are, indeed, more serious objections to the formation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts than there were to the adoption by the Supervisors of the Land Use Taxation Ordinance in its present form, not the other way around:
1. The LUV ordinance
95.0%