Having owned land that is protected by easement for about 13-years, I would like to propose several changes that should make the program work a lot better for all involved.
The only beneficiaries of this program are the original grantor/s of the easement, by virtue income tax deductions based on the devaluation of the property. All subsequent owners get no benefits at all.
Land under easement is taxed at much higher values that it should be.
Land under easement is considered an ‘asset’ by jurisdictions having “Tax Relief for Senior Citizens” programs, even though it cannot be sold or subdivided and this inequity is very likely to disqualify applicants for tax relief by raising their ‘assets’ total.
Eased land becomes more of a liability than an asset under the current rules. It’s a curse to us.
Overall, we think the program urgently needs constructive changes.
Proposed Changes
Jurisdictions should not be able to assess eased land in any category that causes the current owner/s real estate taxes to be higher than on land considered ‘Vacant’, or assessment should be equivalent to the lowest ‘Land Use’ tax rate. This change would save taxpayers substantially and encourage them to stay in place. It would also make eased property easier to sell.
Property owners who live on tracts of eased land who are applying for tax relief should not have their eased land considered an ‘asset’ under any circumstances.
Benefits of Making Constructive Changes
Should an owner of eased land wish to market it, the potential purchaser would see a large benefit accruing from the easement. This is impossible now.
Senior Citizens would be especially helped, as the real estate tax reductions would enable them to afford to stay in place. If they leave, the jurisdiction is at risk of having new owners with children of school age and having greatly increased expenses on that account.
Jurisdictions would benefit because owners who are encouraged to stay on their land would likely do so and over time there would no longer be school children living there.
In Loudoun County the cost per child in our school system is over $13,000!
Let’s Work on These Items.
Robert K. MacDowell
Waterford
October 10, 2008
Government has to be SMART, not just Cocky
While there are many very interesting tools out there like these easements, what they lack is a coherent vision or understanding of what the government is trying to accomplish and how the tools will serve those goals. Instead of a coherent, rational plan, there is just a lot of emotional over-reaction to superficial buzzwords like "sprawl." Buzzwords do not make for rational policy. There needs to be some hard-headed thinking about what landowners could do with their land that would be attractive to the landowner, and clear-headed thinking about how those options are better than the alternative of building lots of houses. Until now, the attitutde of government has been to simply oppose everything across the board without any concern for what the real-life consequences will be. Unless the government makes it ATTRACTIVE for landowners to enter into these programs, we are just choosing to grow houses everywhere. We need to focus on the cause and effect. If the programs do not work for the landowner, and even benefit the landowner, then they will simply build houses instead.