Beware of added land related tax burdens

Clarice Ryan

Passage of a conservation bond means taxing all citizens to help non-taxpaying entities take control of the use of private property owned by tax-paying landowners. Why should people's tax dollars at any level, provide control over private property by a tax-free land trust, or land purchase by the county government? Are we blindly selling ourselves ultimately into socialistic state owned property?

This is being done primarily under the guise of preserving farmland "open space" or preserving water and air quality. It is essentially keeping the farmers' nose to the grindstone with a lifetime commitment to the farming industry regardless of trends: increasing competition in the global marketplace, threat of rapidly rising operational costs, ever more restrictive governmental and planning regulations and unlimited demands by the environmental community. The term "perpetuity" financially commits to farming, not only the current owner but all future heirs or owners. The larger the tract the more limited will be prospective buyers for encumbered land. It will inevitably now or later go to government ownership removing it from the county tax base all-together.

"Land and Water" federal funding somehow implies pure water and air. Not necessarily so. Let's face it; farms are made of dirt and even the roads to reach them. Live with it! Crops require water, insecticides and fertilizer, including animal waste, the most natural, and practical kind of fertilizer. Don't expect farmers to haul it away to the city dump or install waste treatment plants as is demanded by extreme environmentalists elsewhere in the country. Now we are hearing of possible carbon credit permits for farming. What next?

Of great appeal are prospects for public access: recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, solitude and meditation. Sorry, farms are private property to hopefully provide sufficient revenue to support families. Their purpose is "farming" not "recreation" unless the owner chooses to permit it. Public lands, on the other hand, were originally set aside for public use and enjoyment. It is suggested that people exert pressure on the U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife demanding modifications of restrictive rules and access to as much as 80 percent or more of the land in the county, making it again available for uses for which it was originally intended.

Unfortunately poor federal land management has increasingly reduced the ability to finance its own care and maintenance through productive, profitable natural resource use. More and more financial burden of accelerating forest fires is falling on the nation's taxpayers.

To the contrary, land owners must finance and pay for all expenses on their private property: taxes, maintenance and insurance. Owners pay all bills while the public automatically enjoys the open space and viewscapes, and now even anticipated mandatory recreational access. Insurance rates rise as risks increase such as for the Dick Cheneys of the world. A gate carelessly left open can result in death of a black angus and possibly the driver who hits it. Who should be responsible?

Wildlife will continue to enjoy, and be enjoyed by the farmers who host them, sharing feed and lodging with domestic animals. Animals could care less and life will not change with the advent of a conservation easement. And who knows how many new additional encumbrances, regulations and environmental demands inflicting heavy costs will be added over time?

And as for stopping urban growth: why should farmers forfeit increasing value of their land while adjoining property owners enjoy price escalation due to land scarcity created by conservation easements, development rights and zoning restrictions? Sales presentations and financial perks are appealingly misleading. Advantage is taken of vulnerability and stressful times: financial and emotional strain of illness, infliction of death tax, economic turn-around due to market and weather, and elderly seeking lasting retirement on their beloved "home place."

No one can predict the future, and very few comprehend the permanency and longevity of "perpetuity" or the possibility of eventual acquisition by government which can resell to developers or place land into wilderness inaccessible to humans. There is virtually no escape for current and future owners, tied forever to working the land and paying all costs. The property owner even assumes all legal fees if it is determined he has defaulted on contract obligations or even if he, himself feels compelled to sue, and inevitably loses.

Land owners, please think carefully before biting on the bait and committing yourself, your heirs and the tax-payers of your county. There is no grace period. You may change your mind but you will never change the contract . . . signed in PERPETUITY.

Clarice Ryan is a resident of Bigfork.