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 2 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
other forest owners are selling such property for “development”—resulting in increased demand for county services, higher tax rates, and escalating pressures for conversion of even more rural land.
• For owners of residential and commercial property in Rappahannock County, the shift or increase in taxes due to the use value system is minimal—particularly when compared to tax increases that would occur if Rappahannock were to experience a “development boom.”
This is not to say that there are not problems with the use value system, or that abuses do not occur. (In my opinion, “abuses” are more often in perception than in reality, particularly in Rappahannock County.)
Because of identified problems, a group of organizations and agencies ranging from the Virginia Farm Bureau and Virginia Forestry Association to the Virginia Association of Counties and State Department of Taxation spent most of 1987 reviewing Virginia’s use value tax. As a result, the 1988 General Assembly amended the use value law (effective for the 1989 tax year), and associated regulatory changes are expected in the next few months. These refinements should make administration of the use value law easier for local governments and more uniform across the state, reduce potential for abuse, and encourage more equitable application to rural lands.
Depending on how Rappahannock County decides to apply the revised program, most rural
92.0%