Democrats in the Pumpkin Patch Part II

Jonathan B.* wrote a comment to Democrats in the Pumpkin Patch:

I would suggest--instead of trying to throw the whole thing out--that some changes to the implementation of the law allow a full assessment on those lands that are legally prepared for development regardless of pumpkins or corn or whatever--and that the land owner who feels aggrieved be simply allowed to rezone and de-plot their land back to agricultural permitted use to receive favored tax assessment.

Jonathan is correct. For example, the Tice family farm near Middleton fits the proper intent of the law. The land they own is within the urban service area, it is surrounded by development, but so long as they farm it, the land should be taxed as agriculture being the highest and best use.

It was estimated at the time of adoption that over 95% of the farmland, being too far from an urban or suburban area would not be impacted under the law.

We repeatedly asked for tighter regulations to make sure that land controlled by developers not benefit from the constitutional modifications. Perhaps bipartisanship support is appropriate in the next legislative session to remedy this problem.

It should also be noted that not only does this abuse mostly shift the exempted taxes to middle income residential property owners, but it also provides an economic advantage to the rural developer rather than the infill developer who is paying significantly higher property taxes.

*I assume most readers know who this would be.