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 1 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
BY ROBERT T. DENNIS ■*. ^ Rappahannock News Contributing Write* mC- “Viewpoints” is presented as a contribution 5? to the public dialogue on topics of general interf*est by the Rappahannock League for Environf'-mental Protection. Readers are encouraged to
respond to the opinions expressed in “ViewVj points.” pfcAs
Rappahannock County moves to adopt ft»its budget for the coming year, we all worry how *<much our taxes are going to rise and whether our -►^friends and neighbors will pay their fair share. :»*Once again, questions are being asked about the ^-equity of Rappahannock’s “land use” tax system ^—taxing farm and forest lands at their “use vacChie” rather than speculative value. Since the ^'county must depend on the real estate tax as its --'.'chief source of revenue, taxing rural lands at use >- value requires some increase in taxes on (or tax phift to) “developed” properties. 5*" There are five key points to keep in mind
about use value taxation:
• Even when taxed at use value, each acre of
open rural land pays five or six times in taxes
what it requires in county service expenditures.
By thus subsidizing services to “developed” properties, Rappahannock’s forests and farmlands actually provide tax rate protection to all C^residents. K* • The use value system causes taxes to be
^shifted,” not “lost.”
•Use value shifts taxes to farm residences ~>nd outbuildings just as it does to buildings on pHmall lots. Large tracts of forestland benefit j>from use value more than farms with lots of >?~bams. In Rappahannock, “estate” properties in vihe 30-acre range typically pay more taxes with > Jthe use value system than they would without it. ‘*1 • Looking at Virginia counties that have chosen not to grant use value taxation to forest land, we can see that the general increase in rural land
values plus sky rocketing tax rates have resulted
in forest land taxes that exceed the capability
of the land to generate revenue from forest
production. Predictably, the timber industry and
90.2%