[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SG-W:/ use-based tax
All,
These bills sound great on the surface; but as Conan points out, this
use based tax provision could be little more than a holding pattern for
land speculators.
Already at current tax levels land is purchased for speculation on future
growth. Such a use-based tax would only make this easier. This is why
recapture clauses are so vital. Ideally, we could have recapture language
which would recoup all "lost" revenue to the LOCAL unit WITH interest.
This is the position that SEMCOG is advocating and the position that I
have communicated to elected officials.
Through current recapture language (and correct me Conan if I'm wrong) the
state will recapture only a fraction of "lost" revenue and the local units
will be fleeced. (This is particularly irritating when the state is
devolving on top of us like a ton of bricks with unfunded mandates).
Have a nice weekend-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Irwin
County Commissioner, 11th District
317 E Ann St., Apt. 2
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
work: (734) 327-7154
home: (734) 996-0982
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Conan Smith wrote:
> Ugh. These bills . . . well, the concept is good anyway. There is a
> five-bill package that creates the use-based taxation system. At the heart
> of the matter is whether land eligible for that tax break will be kept in
> agricultural production or whether it will ultimately be developed. If it
> is the latter there must be method to recoup the investment the people are
> making in farmland protection. The recapture provision in the Senate
> package is terrible. Rumor is the House will introduce similar legislation
> next week . . . with only slightly better recapture language. Preliminary
> analysis shows recapture taxation equaling a mere $5 per acre in some areas,
> as little as 0.05 percent of the market value of the land.
>
> The bills can be view on the web:
>
> SB 709 (Goschka) creates a property tax exemption for transfer of land
> between family members, specifically parents to children.
> http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/billStatus?LegSession=19
> 99-2000&DocType=SB&BillNum=0709
>
> SB 1245 (Emmons) amends the tax code to implement use value taxation for
> agricultural land. very long (89 pages) very dry.
> http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/billStatus?LegSession=19
> 99-2000&DocType=SB&BillNum=1245
>
> SB 1246 (McManus) is the recapture legislation. Essentially the state would
> recapture only a small portion of the tax benefit acrued to farmland
> purchased for development.
> http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/billStatus?LegSession=19
> 99-2000&DocType=SB&BillNum=1246
>
> SB 1247 (Sikkema) is perhaps the best and most meaningful part of the
> package. It creates the Agricultural Preservation Fund, which takes the
> recaptured tax money and leverages it against local contributions to
> implement purchase of development rights programs at the county level.
> http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/billStatus?LegSession=19
> 99-2000&DocType=SB&BillNum=1247
>
> SJR M (Stille) actually amends the state Constitution to allow ag use value
> assesment.
> http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/BillStatus?DocType=SJR&B
> illNum=M&LegSession=1999
>
> The Michigan Land Use Institute is helping prepare an analysis of the bills
> and their recapture packages. Several substantive questions remain for us
> to explore, among them: 1) will this program ultimately result in extending
> land speculation into rural areas and hence hastening urban sprawl?, 2) does
> this program substantively address the critical issue of profitability of
> the ag industry?, and 3) in amending the Constitution are we opening a door
> to future land speculation when an equally success program could be designed
> legislatively?
>
> These bills are on the fast track. The Senate resolution must be passed
> before the Legislature leaves in early June in order to for it to be place
> on the November ballot. If this program is going to be done right everyone
> should contact their legislators and insist that SJR M not be passed until
> the Governor has signed a recapture provision that adequate blocks land
> speculation and simultaneously give solid funding the local PDR programs.
> This the absolute minimum that should be acceptable to the anti-sprawl
> community.
>
> As more info becomes available I'll happily keep everyone posted and
> involved!
>
> Conan
>
>
>
> Conan Smith
> Land Programs Director
> Michigan Environmental Council
> 119 Pere Marquette, Suite 2A
> Lansing, MI 48912
> p. (517) 487-9539
> f. (517) 487-9541
> www.mienv.org
> conanmec@voyager.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net
> [mailto:owner-smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net]On Behalf Of Jeff
> Surfus
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 1:54 PM
> To: smartgrowth-washtenaw
> Subject: Re: SG-W:/ use-based tax
>
>
> This, on the surface, appears to be good news. Has anyone done some
> analysis of these bills? Are they the best we can hope for? Should we be
> aggressively advocating for their passage? More info is definitely needed
> but a statewide effort to lobby for its passage should be underway, if it is
> indeed a good set of bills. Perhaps we can get some advice from MEC, but a
> use-based tax for farmland would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
>
> Jeff Surfus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vivienne Armentrout <varmentrout000@ameritech.net>
> To: smartgrowth-washtenaw <smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 11:53 AM
> Subject: SG-W:/ use-based tax
>
>
> > A press release is available (I don't have a document or online version
> > but the phone contact is Gary Henderson, 517-373-1725) about a new
> > package of bills coming from the State Senate on use-based tax for
> > farmland. It is not clear to me where these are in the House. The
> > 4-bill package is led by Senate Resolution M (Stille), which would
> > require a 2/3 vote and approval by the voters in a referendum, because
> > it is a constitutional amendment calling for taxation of farmland at
> > current use, rather than highest-and-best. The other 3 bills are
> > tie-barred to the amendment and implement it, as well as providing for
> > repayment of tax savings (if land is sold) to an agricultural
> > preservation bill, similar to the PA 116 program. The package hasn't
> > been passed by the Senate yet but Engler has endorsed the concept.
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
> > sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
> > County.
> >
> > Postings to: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net For info, send
> > email to majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info
> > smartgrowth-washtenaw"
> > ===============================================================
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
> sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
> County.
>
> Postings to: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net For info, send
> email to majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info
> smartgrowth-washtenaw"
> ===============================================================
>
>
>
===============================================================
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
County.
Postings to: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info
smartgrowth-washtenaw"
===============================================================