Slutzky diligent, creative
Published: October 30, 2009
Updated: October 31, 2009
I read with interest The Daily Progress article “Slutzky eyes land use tax restrictions,” Oct. 12, with interest and also puzzlement.
The plan he is studying (not yet proposing) not only encourages people to permanently preserve their land but also manages to:
l Reduce taxes on 95 percent of Albemarle’s citizens.
l Raise millions for infrastructure and public safety services.
l Reduce the amount of money we have to give to Charlottesville each year under the revenue sharing agreement.
Contrary to Slutzky’s opponent, Rodney Thomas, who suggests that this is a “property rights” issue, participation in the program would be strictly voluntary.
If you want to hold on to your development rights, this plan would allow you to do so, but no longer would the other taxpayers of Albemarle subsidize what essentially amounts to your speculative land investment.
Whether this is a plan I would personally support, I cannot say at this point. Slutzky himself says, “I’m not even sure whether I would vote for it.”
But I am impressed with his diligence and creativity in investigating an idea that might simultaneously preserve rural lands, fund county infrastructure and services and lower our taxes. He has my vote.
Jane Williamson
Albemarle County
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
It seems a bit short sighted to put additional burdens on property holders, which is certain to accelerate development (if your goal is to limit it). The letter writer makes it seem as development rights are some sort of special privilege, that maybe the county should eventually limit or price everyone out of. Everyone who pays for what has now become expensive land in the county should have the option to develop it based on the zoning for the area. Owning property is the foundation of our country and a key concept from our founding fathers. This is America isn’t it? As Steve said many farmers are barely above break-even and only make decent money in good years. Also a lot of the farmers work on land don’t own it and the land is likely to be sold from under them with a higher tax rate and maybe made into a parking lot or fast food joint leaving the small time farmer out in the cold. This is just another excuse from an outsider coming into C’ville and wanting to raise taxes like all of the failing northern states that have dwindling industries and dying business climates, and structurally high unemployment. Slutzky’s thinking about it the wrong way why always look at additional taxes particularly in a cyclical downturn, why not CUT SPENDING??!!
He proposed looking at it. Again, I see no harm in that. I think he clearly outlined his concerns, and qualified them—which some have chosen, IMO, to exagerate and turn into some sort of class warfare issue.
And, while I used that relief as an example of how the County CAN enact solutions that help, I did not suggest that it helped in this case—it really adresses the complaints of others on ‘fixed incomes’ who are quick to oppose any rate increase, even though we rank nationally in the bottom quartile of property tax rates.
Surely you are joking about reporting people—they are not breaking any laws. As you point out, the thresholds are ridiculous. I am just suggesting that the intent of the land use rules as now enacted are unfair.
“Property Rights” appears to be the latest euphamism for shirking public participation in providing public services and public goods. If government policy is, or were, confiscatory in nature, I’d be on the other side of this issue, but I gotta tell you, the property tax bills on personal property and the business tax on business income offends me more than what some land-rich property owner gets away with in this County.
Why the 5 year look-back, and not say 20, or even 99? Why not have a sunsetting of any trust provisions, rather than a permanent restriction? I am not a lawyer, but I gotta think that me paying a disproportionate share compared to the developer who sold me this parcel, or comapred to me living on green acres out in Free Union, does not ring as a property rights issue, as much as a tax shelter.
It is a Slutzky issue when HE proposes a loss of property rights to qualify for land use tax reductions.
Also, most farmers do not qualify as low income. Their income (not adjusted income) is too high to qualify.
Further, if you know of ANYONE that is taking advantage of land use, then you have the obligation to report them. However, there are land use qualification that do not include farming. Such as land used for recreational purposes.
Instead of forcing people to give up their property rights. There is an alternative. Currently in land use, you only have to have $1000.00 of income on the land in a three year period. This is absurd.
It should be much higher, say $2000 a year. This way only people really farming would qualify.
With all due respect, having analyzed who benefits from the program, I am more inclined to concur with the letter writer than the respondent. The County has shown an ability to look closely at such issues and craft needed exceptions—nobody ever points out, for example, that the County already provides tax relief for those with limied income and assets—and while state lwas limit the County’s ability to differentiate who qualifies vs. who does not, I think that they can at least look at a fairer distribution of the tax burden. There are several beneficiaries of the current policy who are neither developers nor farmers. They should not pay less taxes because of an exception made for arguably political purposes, rather than the public good. As for the developers, they shirk every responsibility to the community. It is going to take some public voice to expose their preferential treatment, and their abuse of their property rights, to bring about much needed changes. This is not just a Slutzky issue, but it does point to his wareness and sensitivity to the broader impact—unlike those that watch out for just their well-connected friends.
First of all, you read that wrong. Slutzky’s plan will not reduce tax on 95% of the county’s citizens. 95% of the property in land use is owned by big developers. The remaining 5% is farmers. Slutzky’s plan will NOT make a bit of difference to the big developers. They can afford to pay increased property taxes. What will happen is that it will force farmers to give up their property rights. Because most cannot afford to pay the higher taxes and do farming. These small farms are not cash cows. They barely make enough to going.
Slutzky’s plan diligently hurts the small farmers in the county. If this is being creative, then I hope is looses the election.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement