Today 2Conservation easements is known in legal terms as “negative servitude.” This legal description is derived from the requirement of the easement holder to prevent the donor ( landowner ) from certain actions on his own property. Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: click here for link">". http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/prese
These (conservation easements) are largely anti-farm production programs, restricting land use on private farmland to support wetlands, grasslands, and non-threatened species while doing precious little to grow the nation’s crop supply and stabilize rising food prices.” - Dana J. Gattuso, Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research
There is so much money involved in these transactions that there are businesses established just to assist owners in for their tax credits. By the end of 2010, $2,512,000,000 of property value had been donated as easements in Virginia for which tax credit was claimed. The qualifying easements cover over 516,000 acres (2,090 km2) of Virginia landscape.”The acreage as of -22-2019 has grown to 843,326 acres.
I would ask the reader to pause here a moment to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of state revenues this convoluted scheme, along with the other conservation tax breaks, has created. This also represents the magnitude of loss of private property in Virginia, which is staggering! Virginia Outdoors foundation estimates our loss of private property in Virginia is growing at 5 acres an hour: http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/
In the article below, we will look into the problems of an agreement into perpetuity, discuss if the benefits of easements are weighed heavily toward the rich, if easements are actually destroying farming and farm values, the long term effects on the shrinking supply of un-eased land ( private property ) and are the tax breaks involved with an easement actually the establishment of just another entitlement program. And you will learn since the amount of the donation is defined, in almost all cases, by a very subjective appraisal of land, there have been many cases of fraud and abuse.
Now let's review The Pittsylvania County Purchase of Development Rights Subcommittee's specific points offered for any potential Ordinance within Pittsylvania County which included (1) Partnering with one of the three main easement holders in the state (2) Avoid an appraisal review committee - would negatively influence the program ( by preventing fraud and abuse?) (3) And the subcommittee suggested leaving out any language revolving around extinguishment of easements. Extinguishment is the destruction of a right or contract.
This doesn't sound like they plan to prevent fraud and abuse or be transparent with Pittsylvania County landowners. Remember, Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/reap.pd a
These (conservation easements) are largely anti-farm production programs, restricting land use on private farmland to support wetlands, grasslands, and non-threatened species while doing precious little to grow the nation’s crop supply and stabilize rising food prices.” - Dana J. Gattuso, Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research
There is so much money involved in these transactions that there are businesses established just to assist owners in for their tax credits. By the end of 2010, $2,512,000,000 of property value had been donated as easements in Virginia for which tax credit was claimed. The qualifying easements cover over 516,000 acres (2,090 km2) of Virginia landscape.”The acreage as of -22-2019 has grown to 843,326 acres.
I would ask the reader to pause here a moment to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of state revenues this convoluted scheme, along with the other conservation tax breaks, has created. This also represents the magnitude of loss of private property in Virginia, which is staggering! Virginia Outdoors foundation estimates our loss of private property in Virginia is growing at 5 acres an hour: http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/
In the article below, we will look into the problems of an agreement into perpetuity, discuss if the benefits of easements are weighed heavily toward the rich, if easements are actually destroying farming and farm values, the long term effects on the shrinking supply of un-eased land ( private property ) and are the tax breaks involved with an easement actually the establishment of just another entitlement program. And you will learn since the amount of the donation is defined, in almost all cases, by a very subjective appraisal of land, there have been many cases of fraud and abuse.
Now let's review The Pittsylvania County Purchase of Development Rights Subcommittee's specific points offered for any potential Ordinance within Pittsylvania County which included (1) Partnering with one of the three main easement holders in the state (2) Avoid an appraisal review committee - would negatively influence the program ( by preventing fraud and abuse?) (3) And the subcommittee suggested leaving out any language revolving around extinguishment of easements. Extinguishment is the destruction of a right or contract.
This doesn't sound like they plan to prevent fraud and abuse or be transparent with Pittsylvania County landowners. Remember, Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/reap.pd a
New "Waters of the United States" Definition Released { Vol 79 Federal Register For Full Text} Click HERE }
Counties are strongly encouraged to submit written comments on potential impacts of the proposed regulation to the Federal Register
On April 21, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly released a new proposed rule — Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act — that would amend the definition of "waters of the U.S." and potentially expand the range of waters that fall under federal jurisdiction. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, is open for public comment for 90 days, until July 21, 2014.
To read NACo's analysis of the proposed "waters of the U.S." definition, including information on where to submit comments, click here. This document includes a policy brief and a comparison chart showing existing and proposed regulatory language and its potential impacts on counties.
Why "Waters of the U.S." Regulation Matters to Counties
The proposed "waters of the U.S." regulation from EPA and the Corps could have significant impact on counties across the country, in the following ways:
EPA has scheduled a Local Government Stakeholder Conference Call to explain the proposed regulation and to answer questions. The call is scheduled for Friday, April 25, 2014 from 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EDT.
Call information: 1.866.299.3188 Passcode: 2029992299
Please RSVP to Darlene Leonard ([email protected]) if you plan to participate on the call. Information about the proposed rule can be found at www.epa.gov/uswaters.
For more information on this issue, contact Julie Ufner at 202.942.4269 or jufne[email protected]
Counties are strongly encouraged to submit written comments on potential impacts of the proposed regulation to the Federal Register
On April 21, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly released a new proposed rule — Definition of Waters of the U.S. Under the Clean Water Act — that would amend the definition of "waters of the U.S." and potentially expand the range of waters that fall under federal jurisdiction. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, is open for public comment for 90 days, until July 21, 2014.
To read NACo's analysis of the proposed "waters of the U.S." definition, including information on where to submit comments, click here. This document includes a policy brief and a comparison chart showing existing and proposed regulatory language and its potential impacts on counties.
Why "Waters of the U.S." Regulation Matters to Counties
The proposed "waters of the U.S." regulation from EPA and the Corps could have significant impact on counties across the country, in the following ways:
- Seeks to define waters under federal jurisdiction: The proposed rule would modify existing regulations, which have been in place for over 25 years, regarding which waters fall under federal jurisdiction through the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposed modification aims to clarify issues raised in recent Supreme Court decisions that have created uncertainty over the scope of CWA jurisdiction and focuses on the interconnectivity of waters when determining which waters fall under federal jurisdiction. Because the proposed rule could expand the scope of CWA jurisdiction, counties could face significant impacts as more waters become federally protected and subject to new rules or standards.
- Potentially increases the number of county-owned ditches under federal jurisdiction: The proposed rule would define ditches as "waters of the U.S." if they meet certain conditions. This means that more county-owned ditches would likely fall under federal oversight. In recent years, Section 404 permits have been required for ditch maintenance activities such as cleaning out vegetation and debris. Once a ditch is under federal jurisdiction, the Section 404 permit process can be extremely cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive, leaving counties vulnerable to citizen suits if the federal permit process is not streamlined.
- Applies to all Clean Water Act programs, not just Section 404 permits: The proposed rule would apply not just to Section 404 permits, but is also relevant to other Clean Water Act programs, including stormwater, water reuse and green infrastructure. Such programs may become subject to increasingly complex and costly federal regulatory requirements under the proposed rule.
EPA has scheduled a Local Government Stakeholder Conference Call to explain the proposed regulation and to answer questions. The call is scheduled for Friday, April 25, 2014 from 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EDT.
Call information: 1.866.299.3188 Passcode: 2029992299
Please RSVP to Darlene Leonard ([email protected]) if you plan to participate on the call. Information about the proposed rule can be found at www.epa.gov/uswaters.
For more information on this issue, contact Julie Ufner at 202.942.4269 or jufne[email protected]
Knowledge is power, please read this!
Should Pittsylvania County be in the Purchase of Development Rights Business?Pittsylvania County property owners, This is important information you need to know. Please read and then get this information out to other property owners in the county:
Our Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors - Legislative Committee chaired by Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Brenda Bowman set up a Purchase of Development Rights Subcommittee in the fall of 2012. The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors commissioned a constituent panel to "review the potential" of a Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance with focus on Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements at taxpayers expense.
From The National Conservation Easement Database for Pittsylvania County there have been 17 conservation easements, most occurred in 2013 after this Purchase of Development Rights committee was formed "to review the potential" It seems our county officials are actively using taxpayers money to buy land to keep it from development forever and remove it from the county's tax base. The burden for all other taxpayers becomes greater. See the list here: http://nced.conservationregistry.org/search/basic_search?search_term=pittsylvania
The distinction between Purchase of Development Rights and conservation easements involves whether the landowner receives a payment or not. When a conservation easement is paid for it is called a “purchase of development rights” or PDR. The document, a conservation easement is the same. PDR also is sometimes referred to as “purchase of agricultural conservation easement” or PACE, usually when public funds are used to purchase development rights. From: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/research/economics/tr34.pdf
Conservation easements is known in legal terms as “negative servitude.” This legal description is derived from the requirement of the easement holder to prevent the donor ( landowner ) from certain actions on his own property. Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/reap.pd
“These (conservation easements) are largely anti-farm production programs, restricting land use on private farmland to support wetlands, grasslands, and non-threatened species while doing precious little to grow the nation’s crop supply and stabilize rising food prices.” - Dana J. Gattuso, Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research
There is so much money involved in these transactions that there are businesses established just to assist owners in finding buyers for their tax credits. From Wikipedia we learn “The Virginia transferable credit program is by far the largest among the States in dollar value of property conserved. By the end of 2010, $2,512,000,000 of property value had been donated as easements in Virginia for which tax credit was claimed. The qualifying easements cover over 516,000 acres (2,090 km2) of Virginia landscape.”
I would ask the reader to pause here a moment to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of state revenues this convoluted scheme, along with the other conservation tax breaks, has created. This also represents the magnitude of loss of private property in Virginia, which is staggering! Virginia Outdoors foundation estimates our loss of private property in Virginia is growing at 5 acres an hour: http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/
In the article below, we will look into the problems of an agreement into perpetuity, discuss if the benefits of easements are weighed heavily toward the rich, if easements are actually destroying farming and farm values, the long term effects on the shrinking supply of un-eased land ( private property ) and are the tax breaks involved with an easement actually the establishment of just another entitlement program. And you will learn since the amount of the donation is defined, in almost all cases, by a very subjective appraisal of land, there have been many cases of fraud and abuse.
Now let's review The Pittsylvania County Purchase of Development Rights Subcommittee's specific points offered for any potential Ordinance within Pittsylvania County which included (1) Partnering with one of the three main easement holders in the state (2) Avoid an appraisal review committee - would negatively influence the program ( by preventing fraud and abuse?) (3) And the subcommittee suggested leaving out any language revolving around extinguishment of easements. Extinguishment is the destruction of a right or contract.
This doesn't sound like they plan to prevent fraud and abuse or be transparent with Pittsylvania County landowners. Remember, Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/reap.pd
All of this begs the question, Should Pittsylvania County be in the Purchase of Development Rights business at all? Should our local officials be involved in selling this convoluted scheme to Pittsylvania landowners or should they be honestly warning citizens of the dangers, not only to themselves and their heirs but to the future of our county, our state and our country?
READ MORE: Conservation Easements Explored / The Underside of the Beast The Real Costs of Conservation Easements Fauquier Free Citizen By Rick Buchanan http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/conservation-easements-explored-part-1-the-introduction/
Taxpayers are paying vast sums of money for the ability of some landowners to voluntarily give property rights to another entity. This begs the question “Why am I paying for someone else’s charity”? After reading the following discussion of conservation easements, you should be asking your legislative representatives their reasoning behind this decision, since they have made it for you. If they think this is such a great use of your money, there should be good reasons for their decision. But before you call, perhaps some background information germane to the discussion would be helpful.
As taxpayers, many things for which we are asked to pay, that originate from our trusted governmental representatives, are based in altruistic motives that sound “real good”. And, of course, we naturally assume our legislators are always looking out for our best interests. In fact if you take the opportunity to know your legislators you will find most really do go about their jobs earnestly trying to do what is right for all of us. Really!
However, in today’s world, the ship of state is not a slow moving luxury steamer. It is more like a speedboat in a regatta, skimming along the water barely touching the surface. It is easy to see why some of our best legislators end up steering off course. It is understandable that they may take a feel-good issue at face value and not look below the surface to analyze the long range effects of the policies they enact.
Since many of us are riding in a similar speedboat, barely glimpsing the waves of information flying by, I offer you a bit of research on one such wave: The tidal wave of billions of dollars spent each year on conservation easements that most of us know little about, though we might think we do.
This study is offered with only one request. If you care enough to know where these tax dollars are going, please do your own research. Not only am I suggesting you open the links provided in this series of articles but also go online where there are volumes of further information. I you have something to add, or see something you disagree with, please voice your opinion in the comment section given below. The money invested in conservation deserves conversation, so chime in.
My findings are presented in three parts: Conservation Easements – The History
Conservation Easements – The Application
Conservation Easements – Winners and Losers of Conservation Benefaction.
Part One: Conservation Easements – The History The concept of a conservation easement, which began as an excellent way to preserve natural resources and “save the farm” of struggling land-rich, cash-poor farmers was actually a great idea. In the hands of the private sector the voluntary actions of landowners and the charitable gifts of the wealthy all working to enhance the use of conservation easements could have created a very worthwhile, some would even say necessary, program to conserve our natural resources. However, politicians, being ever anxious to please prospective voters, have never seen a good program that could not be enhanced by using other people’s money to purchase favor. But I digress. First the basics should be discussed.
A conservation easement is initiated with the donation of a part of the “bundle of rights” that are normally accepted as part of ownership of all property. This benefaction, held by a public or private land conservation organization, creates an encumbrance or “deed restriction” on the property. The encumbrances vary, but usually fall into some category of the loss of land use through restrictions on crop choices, development rights, building and/or demolition. This then allows the easement holder to conduct inspections of the property to verify compliance to the deed restrictions on the property.
It should be noted here that the overwhelming majority of easements are initiated only when deed restrictions are agreed to in perpetuity. There are a very few that may be agreed to for set blocks of time, but any tax breaks given through the easement agreement would automatically be due if, at the end of the agreed upon time, all rights are reverted back to the land owner. There is also the possibility of other penalties associated with ending these limited agreements.
In a look back to the beginning of conservation easements Harvard researcher Zachary Bray explains that until the 1950s, conservation easements were used only sporadically and were held exclusively by governmental organizations, like the National Park Service. The recent growth in the number of private land trusts and the amount of land protected by conservation easements is primarily due to changes in the tax code.
By 1975, sixteen states had statutes enabling private acquisition and retention of conservation easements. In 1981, the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (“UCEA”) was drafted and designed to enable “private parties to enter into consensual arrangements with charitable organizations or governmental bodies to protect land and buildings without the encumbrance of certain potential common law impediments.”
In 1990, private land trusts held conservation easements covering 450,000 acres. By 1994, private land trusts protected more land through conservation easements than fee ownership. From 1994 to 1998, the amount of land protected by privately held conservation easements nearly doubled, then nearly doubled again from 1998 to 2000, and then more than doubled again from 2000 to 2005. The total of private (non-governmental) easements as of 2012 is more than 6,400,000 acres and still climbing.
Along with private easements, government also holds a large number of easements. Many, if not most of the easements held are still owned by private individuals. These easements are controlled by the state, local, or federal governmental agency which holds the rights of the easement. As of 2012 the total acreage under governmental easements is 11,405,000.
Of the approximately 17.8 million acres under easement today, 17 million acres of land are owned by entities other than governmental agencies. You can find all of these statistics here.
So what has led to this meteoric rise in land “donations” into the easement program?
Is it the altruistic nature of the landowners? Is it their deep concern for our natural lands, watersheds and wildlife or the protection of magnificent view sheds?
Or is it the burgeoning amount of tax breaks and the accompanying transferability of these tax credits? We will begin to unravel the truth in the next segment: Conservation Easements – The Application
Conservation Easements Part two – The Underside of the Beast Fauquier Free Citizen By Rick Buchanan http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/conservation-easements-part-two-the-underside-of-the-beast/
Conservation Easements – The Application For those of you who have read Conservation Easements – the History, you know a brief history of conservation easements and should have a general feel of the background, number and scope of these programs. Now we will look into how the different aspects of easements are applied, how they are promoted and how the rules and regulations in place can be manipulated.
As we get started on this section, I think it important to realize that the conservation easement program does not generate revenue.
The money expended on the program comes strictly from taxpayer generated revenues. There are some that say it saves money, but in all the reading I have done thus far on this issue I have yet to find any real data on this. What I have found is the listing of the following items that some easements may accomplish:
If you are like most people who do not own that large a parcel of land, you will still be footing the bill. It will be up to you to determine whether the benefits are worth the monetary contributions you are required to pay for them.
I simply state once again that anyone who has additional input into the information seen here is welcome to chime in. The effort here is to reveal the truth, as we always endeavor to do.
“Show Me the Money” It does not take much reading on conservation easements to learn that money has driven the meteoric rise in the number and scope of conservation easements.
Most citizens have no idea how much money is involved in the concept of what is known in legal terms as “negative servitude”. This legal description is derived from the requirement of the easement holder to prevent the donor (landowner) from certain actions on his own property.
Congress has authorized billions in years past to fund conservation programs, and the expansion of conservation funding for use as a tax break has been growing for over five decades. What began in the 1960’s as an ill-defined federal program started to take formal shape in the 1980’s when the Treasury Department provided more clarity, listing various acceptable charitable purposes for the deduction, and providing the appraisal rules for computing the amount of the deduction.
More recently, as part of the Pension Protection Act, President George W. Bush signed HR 4, which expanded the existing tax breaks dramatically for landowners.
This bill nearly doubled the federal benefits for conservation easement “donors”, allowing them to deduct the value of their “gift” at the rate of 50% of their adjusted gross income (AGI) per year. Landowners who made 50% or more of their income from agriculture were able to deduct the donation at a rate of 100% of their AGI.
Any amount of the donation remaining after the first year could be carried forward for fifteen additional years or until the amount of the deduction has been used up. This benefit has been renewed in similar fashion each year, ever since.
Note: More about the interesting dichotomy of conservation easements being in perpetuity while the tax breaks for them having a finite ending in our next segment.
In 2010 total federal funding for key conservation programs exceeded $1.7 billion. President Obama’s 2013 budget is requesting nearly $1.5 billion.
The Federal program is only part of the spending on easements.
VA DCR ( Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation ) David Johnson
Here in Virginia, in the January 23rd, 2013 report from the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Director David Johnson explains the state’s contribution to the tax incentives associated with conservation easements, “As a result of legislative amendments enacted in 2006, effective January 1, 2007, the LPTC (Land Preservation Tax Credit) program was capped at $100 million per year, with donations (conservation easements) in excess of the annual cap to be rolled over to subsequent years. The amount of the tax credit cap is adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index, increasing in 2008 to $102.3 million, in 2009 to $106.6 million, in 2010 to $106.8 million, and in 2011 the program was capped at $108.4 million. Additionally, the amount of value that can be registered for any conservation easement was limited to 40 percent of the fair market value of the qualified donation – reduced from the previously allowed 50 percent. These compromises represented a diminution in the state’s peak annual tax credit expenditures, which reached $155.9 million in tax year 2005 and $247.8 million in 2006, but still allow for an exemplary program that the state can budget for into the future.”
Are you still with me?
Of course, when landowners have little income from which to gain tax benefits, another solution had to be found to get the land they own into conservation easements. The answer? Turn the tax breaks issued to these low-income, land rich owners into a commodity that can be sold on the open market to others in need of a tax break; those individuals with large incomes and without enough tax breaks to deflect their own tax bills.
From the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation site linked previously we find, “Virginia allows an income tax credit for forty percent of the value of donated land or conservation easements. Taxpayers may use up to $100,000 per year for the year of sale and the ten subsequent tax years. Unused credits may be sold, allowing individuals with little or no Virginia income tax burden to take advantage of this benefit.”
These tax credits are normally sold for around $.75 on the dollar, depending on the market. In fact, there is so much money involved in these transactions that there are businesses established just to assist owners in finding buyers for their tax credits.
From Wikipedia we learn “The Virginia transferable credit program is by far the largest among the States in dollar value of property conserved. By the end of 2010, $2,512,000,000 of property value had been donated as easements in Virginia for which tax credit was claimed. The qualifying easements cover over 516,000 acres (2,090 km2) of Virginia landscape.”
I would ask the reader to pause here a moment to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of state revenues this convoluted scheme, along with the other conservation tax breaks, has created.
Then, here in Fauquier County, there is yet another program using taxpayer dollars to fund conservation donations.
If you review the Fauquier County 2014 Budget, starting on page 8 you will see Conservation Easement Service District Fund. The total budget of $606,872.00 shown there represents the aggregate of our projected 2014 contributions of .6% of our assessed property value which you can see as a line item on your property tax form.
This amount actually represents a 50% reduction to funding for the County’s prior Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. It should also be noted here that this amount represents almost three times the funds allocated in FY 2014 for the operating costs of Fauquier County’s Affordable Housing budget.
The Underside of the Beast As you can well imagine, with all this money available and with the intricacies of nebulous rules and regulations, it is no wonder there were many who were looking to take advantage of the situation.
Since the amount of the donation is defined, in almost all cases, by a very subjective appraisal of land, there have been many cases of fraud and abuse. Here is a sampling of the bigger cases where the tax advantages of conservation easements are applied by less than honest people.
From The Hook, you can read all about what some called an “appraisal racket”, netting the owners of Biscuit Run millions of dollars in The Flip That Flopped: “Virginia is one of about a dozen states that allow certain property owners to convert an appraisal into cash. It happens via a program called conservation tax credits. The bigger the appraisal, the bigger the value of the “gift” when property is sold or encumbered by a non-profit entity. This year, Virginia will issue about $107 million in such credits– paying people to give up the right to develop their land.”
The Hook also posted The Big Chill which chronicles how “At Wintergreen, a company subsidiary found an appraiser willing to claim in 2008 that the 1,422-acre peak called Crawford’s Knob was worth $11.5 million. Like the owners of Biscuit Run, Wintergreen turned that valuation into several million in cash. Also like Biscuit Run, the state later cried foul.”
Of course, Virginia is not alone. A tangled web of alleged fraud and deceit was on display in Idaho. In Pesky v. U.S., the Pesky’s are charged with conservation easement fraud by using the tax breaks in an easement with The Nature Conservancy to avoid paying taxes due. They are facing a 75% penalty.
The Director of the Colorado Division of Real Estate, called the subpoena slinging Erwin Toll, is “cracking down on crooked deals with a vengeance.”
Also in Colorado, the Department of Revenue battling legislators and landowners puts appraisers in the middle of another huge controversy.
Then in Ohio, the DOJ v. Jefferson & Lee Appraisals rounds out this very small sampling of a very large problem. At the center of almost all of these cases are the actions of appraisers and the owners that employ them, who obviously see the tax incentives of conservation easements as ripe for the taking.
When easements were first started, private money was utilized and the land was held by private citizens or groups or purchased directly by the government in deals that were open to public scrutiny.
The chances of foul play were almost non-existent.
Now, as government money has become more and more involved, so has the dark underside that comes along with big money given freely and government officials anxious to please constituents and big donors.
It sure gives one pause when one considers where this may end.
In the next installment, we will look into the problems of an agreement into perpetuity, discuss if the benefits of easements are weighed heavily toward the rich, if easements are actually destroying farming and farm values, the long term effects on the shrinking supply of un-eased land and are the tax breaks involved with an easement actually the establishment of just another entitlement program.
I hope you join us here next week for Conservation Easements – Winners and Losers of Conservation Benefaction.
Fauquier Free Citizen: http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/
Conservation Easements Part Three – Winners and Losers of Conservation Benefaction By Rick Buchanan Even though most people do not know the details of conservations easements, most agree with the general idea. Who could possibly be against a program that touts the philosophy of preserving our lands for wildlife habitat and farming? How could “preserving” our rural countryside possibly be detrimental to farming or to our society as a whole? Yet there are some that would say the concepts behind conservation easements need a much more in-depth study. Just as sugar is surely pleasant to the palate, misuse and overindulgence can lead to many health problems, such as obesity and diabetes. In just such a way, conservation easement candy is not the environmental panacea we have been led to believe it is.
Rural Policy
Recently, in the American Spectator, Joseph Lawler stated “the single greatest policy failure of modern America is urban policy. Since the Great Society era of Lyndon Johnson, the country has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into poor urban neighborhoods.” Fifty years and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have produced increased rates of violence, drug addiction, family breakdown, incarceration and abortion rates in our cities. Are the hundreds of billions of dollars we are now spending in rural America destined for a similar failure?
Landowners and/or farmers who decide to put their land in a negative servitude program (known as a conservation easement) to receive tax breaks are not required to farm the land. In fact, if a “good” deal is struck, the land alone can become a cash producer, at least for a few years. And therein lies the rub.
We are looking at a policy that is assisting in the creation of a new dependent class; a land-rich class that will become dependent on the largesse of the government and the tax credits associated with eased land. The problem for these landowners is two-fold: 1) The tax credits are for a limited time but the easements are, for the most part, in perpetuity. 2) The landowner is then stuck with a property that is necessarily lower in value.
Instead of promoting farmers and farming, these policies have the exact opposite force on the family farm. Rich landowners who get tax breaks for eased land do not need the income from working the farm. In fact, their tax breaks are figured on their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), with no restrictions on where their earnings come from. This makes it easier for them to just allow the land to sit fallow. In fact, this is exactly what many do. Fox hunting, a popular sport in rural counties, requires many acres of uncultivated land to really enjoy the thrill of open-country chases, which can, and in some cases is, funded by these benefaction programs.
This gift-mentality taxation policy for the land-rich also creates additional burdens on the other citizens who make up the vast majority of taxpayers. Since the land is valued for less, the taxes collected are less. Add to this the funding of pay-outs for the additional tax breaks offered and the burden for all other taxpayers becomes greater. On top of that, if the land does not produce marketable products yet another source of tax revenue is lost and even more burden is heaped on the (anyone-who-does-not-have-a-conservation-easement) citizen.
Unintended Consequences
Going against the conservation easement tide is not a popular position to take, but that is where Joel Salatin finds himself. The Shenandoah farmer, called “the high priest of the pasture” by the New York Times, warns all who venture into the “negative servitude” arena to enter with caution. Writing in Flavor Magazine, which touts itself as “the only independent publication dedicated to local food, Virginia wine, and sustainable agriculture in the Capital foodshed”, Salatin writes about his inability to build a chicken coop, or even a doghouse, on the eased property he leased to enlarge his farmed land.
Using his usual flare for colorful descriptions, Joel laments “To have a nonfarmer group from 200 miles away telling the landowner what is appropriate according to the easement is like putting an Amish man in charge of nuclear reactor regulations….What good is protecting farmland if we don’t protect the farmers and their economic viability on the land?”
Salatin goes on to say “Economic viability today demands value-adding, which means onfarm infrastructure like you would expect to see in Williamsburg. Too often those policing these easements want to see cows, pretty pastures, and bucolic gambrel barns without realizing that such a landscape never existed sustainably. Ultimately, these easements reduce farm viability and gradually turn Virginia’s pastoral landscape into a wilderness area. That’s probably not the green space folks have in mind. Giving over farm decisions to people who neither farm nor adapt their approaches jeopardizes farmers’ livelihoods. Ultimately, preserving farmers is the only sustainable way to preserve farms.”
As you might imagine, the defenders of conservation easements sounded off angrily in their letters to the editor of Flavor Magazine, saying they were “bewildered” and calling Salatin’s remarks a “disservice” and having “inaccurate and maligned information”.
However, fellow farmer Joshua Grizzle of Lexington, VA wrote in his letter (also found in preceding link) to explain how he had experiences similar to Salatin. Since I found his personal experiences were pertinent to the discussion here, I will let his words frame the discoveries of many who are involved in these conservation programs. “I also speak from experience here as my family has considered such a (conservation easement) program on our land. I believe, however, that this program is a step in exactly the wrong direction. If we are afraid that our land is going to become developed into a subdivision or Walmart, the solution is exactly not to try to put up blind barriers to development and further decrease land value. Instead we must figure out a way for landowners and the broader community to place a higher value on land used for things other than strip malls. We do that by creating value-added businesses on those lands that enhance, rather than destroy, the natural beauty.”
It would appear Salatin and Grizzle are backed up by learned professionals that have long studied land and farming issues. Dana J. Gattuso, Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research says “These (conservation easements) are largely anti-farm production programs, restricting land use on private farmland to support wetlands, grasslands, and non-threatened species while doing precious little to grow the nation’s crop supply and stabilize rising food prices.”
Certainly it is not the aim of the “conservation benefaction” programs to create the classification of unintended consequences known as the perverse effect, but there is ample evidence that, like the urban policy discussed earlier, that is the path the new rural policy is taking. Many across the country are now taking a good, hard look at what unintended consequences are being wrought with the full implementation of conservation easements.
“Model Community”
From The Nerve, a publication in South Carolina, reporter Donna Linsin writes “As more and more land is grabbed by federal, state, county and municipal governments, and land banks, and is placed in conservation easements, the rest of us will have to put up with living in crowded conditions, noisy and intruding neighbors, the unworkable schedules of public transportation, and lack of clean air and water. Is this how we want to live, work and play? These land-grabbing tactics can only drive up the cost of (non-easement) land that only a few people will be able to afford to buy.”
Winners and Losers
If you have read through these articles thoughtfully, YOU should have the ability to begin the process of establishing the winners and losers of conservation policies. With a better understanding of how our governmental policies affect us, and armed with that knowledge, we can all take steps to insure we are working toward long-ranging answers, not sugar-coated missteps sweetened by our tax dollars.
If you have made up your mind, call your local or state representative and share your knowledge. Find out what their understanding is and if it is fact-based or just wishes and hopes. Become involved in the process. Get your thoughts out. Only then can we all be winners in the future. It is the future for your kids and their kids, into perpetuity, that we are planning for today.
Should Pittsylvania County be in the Purchase of Development Rights Business?Pittsylvania County property owners, This is important information you need to know. Please read and then get this information out to other property owners in the county:
Our Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors - Legislative Committee chaired by Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Brenda Bowman set up a Purchase of Development Rights Subcommittee in the fall of 2012. The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors commissioned a constituent panel to "review the potential" of a Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance with focus on Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements at taxpayers expense.
From The National Conservation Easement Database for Pittsylvania County there have been 17 conservation easements, most occurred in 2013 after this Purchase of Development Rights committee was formed "to review the potential" It seems our county officials are actively using taxpayers money to buy land to keep it from development forever and remove it from the county's tax base. The burden for all other taxpayers becomes greater. See the list here: http://nced.conservationregistry.org/search/basic_search?search_term=pittsylvania
The distinction between Purchase of Development Rights and conservation easements involves whether the landowner receives a payment or not. When a conservation easement is paid for it is called a “purchase of development rights” or PDR. The document, a conservation easement is the same. PDR also is sometimes referred to as “purchase of agricultural conservation easement” or PACE, usually when public funds are used to purchase development rights. From: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/research/economics/tr34.pdf
Conservation easements is known in legal terms as “negative servitude.” This legal description is derived from the requirement of the easement holder to prevent the donor ( landowner ) from certain actions on his own property. Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/reap.pd
“These (conservation easements) are largely anti-farm production programs, restricting land use on private farmland to support wetlands, grasslands, and non-threatened species while doing precious little to grow the nation’s crop supply and stabilize rising food prices.” - Dana J. Gattuso, Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research
There is so much money involved in these transactions that there are businesses established just to assist owners in finding buyers for their tax credits. From Wikipedia we learn “The Virginia transferable credit program is by far the largest among the States in dollar value of property conserved. By the end of 2010, $2,512,000,000 of property value had been donated as easements in Virginia for which tax credit was claimed. The qualifying easements cover over 516,000 acres (2,090 km2) of Virginia landscape.”
I would ask the reader to pause here a moment to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of state revenues this convoluted scheme, along with the other conservation tax breaks, has created. This also represents the magnitude of loss of private property in Virginia, which is staggering! Virginia Outdoors foundation estimates our loss of private property in Virginia is growing at 5 acres an hour: http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/
In the article below, we will look into the problems of an agreement into perpetuity, discuss if the benefits of easements are weighed heavily toward the rich, if easements are actually destroying farming and farm values, the long term effects on the shrinking supply of un-eased land ( private property ) and are the tax breaks involved with an easement actually the establishment of just another entitlement program. And you will learn since the amount of the donation is defined, in almost all cases, by a very subjective appraisal of land, there have been many cases of fraud and abuse.
Now let's review The Pittsylvania County Purchase of Development Rights Subcommittee's specific points offered for any potential Ordinance within Pittsylvania County which included (1) Partnering with one of the three main easement holders in the state (2) Avoid an appraisal review committee - would negatively influence the program ( by preventing fraud and abuse?) (3) And the subcommittee suggested leaving out any language revolving around extinguishment of easements. Extinguishment is the destruction of a right or contract.
This doesn't sound like they plan to prevent fraud and abuse or be transparent with Pittsylvania County landowners. Remember, Transferring development rights results in significant and usually permanent consequences - It is impossible to get out of these contracts, and forever is a long time to bind your heirs to “negative servitude.” A landowner should not enter into an easement lightly without all the facts and guidance from professional advisers or considering the impact on his/her heirs. From: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/reap.pd
All of this begs the question, Should Pittsylvania County be in the Purchase of Development Rights business at all? Should our local officials be involved in selling this convoluted scheme to Pittsylvania landowners or should they be honestly warning citizens of the dangers, not only to themselves and their heirs but to the future of our county, our state and our country?
READ MORE: Conservation Easements Explored / The Underside of the Beast The Real Costs of Conservation Easements Fauquier Free Citizen By Rick Buchanan http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/conservation-easements-explored-part-1-the-introduction/
Taxpayers are paying vast sums of money for the ability of some landowners to voluntarily give property rights to another entity. This begs the question “Why am I paying for someone else’s charity”? After reading the following discussion of conservation easements, you should be asking your legislative representatives their reasoning behind this decision, since they have made it for you. If they think this is such a great use of your money, there should be good reasons for their decision. But before you call, perhaps some background information germane to the discussion would be helpful.
As taxpayers, many things for which we are asked to pay, that originate from our trusted governmental representatives, are based in altruistic motives that sound “real good”. And, of course, we naturally assume our legislators are always looking out for our best interests. In fact if you take the opportunity to know your legislators you will find most really do go about their jobs earnestly trying to do what is right for all of us. Really!
However, in today’s world, the ship of state is not a slow moving luxury steamer. It is more like a speedboat in a regatta, skimming along the water barely touching the surface. It is easy to see why some of our best legislators end up steering off course. It is understandable that they may take a feel-good issue at face value and not look below the surface to analyze the long range effects of the policies they enact.
Since many of us are riding in a similar speedboat, barely glimpsing the waves of information flying by, I offer you a bit of research on one such wave: The tidal wave of billions of dollars spent each year on conservation easements that most of us know little about, though we might think we do.
This study is offered with only one request. If you care enough to know where these tax dollars are going, please do your own research. Not only am I suggesting you open the links provided in this series of articles but also go online where there are volumes of further information. I you have something to add, or see something you disagree with, please voice your opinion in the comment section given below. The money invested in conservation deserves conversation, so chime in.
My findings are presented in three parts: Conservation Easements – The History
Conservation Easements – The Application
Conservation Easements – Winners and Losers of Conservation Benefaction.
Part One: Conservation Easements – The History The concept of a conservation easement, which began as an excellent way to preserve natural resources and “save the farm” of struggling land-rich, cash-poor farmers was actually a great idea. In the hands of the private sector the voluntary actions of landowners and the charitable gifts of the wealthy all working to enhance the use of conservation easements could have created a very worthwhile, some would even say necessary, program to conserve our natural resources. However, politicians, being ever anxious to please prospective voters, have never seen a good program that could not be enhanced by using other people’s money to purchase favor. But I digress. First the basics should be discussed.
A conservation easement is initiated with the donation of a part of the “bundle of rights” that are normally accepted as part of ownership of all property. This benefaction, held by a public or private land conservation organization, creates an encumbrance or “deed restriction” on the property. The encumbrances vary, but usually fall into some category of the loss of land use through restrictions on crop choices, development rights, building and/or demolition. This then allows the easement holder to conduct inspections of the property to verify compliance to the deed restrictions on the property.
It should be noted here that the overwhelming majority of easements are initiated only when deed restrictions are agreed to in perpetuity. There are a very few that may be agreed to for set blocks of time, but any tax breaks given through the easement agreement would automatically be due if, at the end of the agreed upon time, all rights are reverted back to the land owner. There is also the possibility of other penalties associated with ending these limited agreements.
In a look back to the beginning of conservation easements Harvard researcher Zachary Bray explains that until the 1950s, conservation easements were used only sporadically and were held exclusively by governmental organizations, like the National Park Service. The recent growth in the number of private land trusts and the amount of land protected by conservation easements is primarily due to changes in the tax code.
By 1975, sixteen states had statutes enabling private acquisition and retention of conservation easements. In 1981, the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (“UCEA”) was drafted and designed to enable “private parties to enter into consensual arrangements with charitable organizations or governmental bodies to protect land and buildings without the encumbrance of certain potential common law impediments.”
In 1990, private land trusts held conservation easements covering 450,000 acres. By 1994, private land trusts protected more land through conservation easements than fee ownership. From 1994 to 1998, the amount of land protected by privately held conservation easements nearly doubled, then nearly doubled again from 1998 to 2000, and then more than doubled again from 2000 to 2005. The total of private (non-governmental) easements as of 2012 is more than 6,400,000 acres and still climbing.
Along with private easements, government also holds a large number of easements. Many, if not most of the easements held are still owned by private individuals. These easements are controlled by the state, local, or federal governmental agency which holds the rights of the easement. As of 2012 the total acreage under governmental easements is 11,405,000.
Of the approximately 17.8 million acres under easement today, 17 million acres of land are owned by entities other than governmental agencies. You can find all of these statistics here.
So what has led to this meteoric rise in land “donations” into the easement program?
Is it the altruistic nature of the landowners? Is it their deep concern for our natural lands, watersheds and wildlife or the protection of magnificent view sheds?
Or is it the burgeoning amount of tax breaks and the accompanying transferability of these tax credits? We will begin to unravel the truth in the next segment: Conservation Easements – The Application
Conservation Easements Part two – The Underside of the Beast Fauquier Free Citizen By Rick Buchanan http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/conservation-easements-part-two-the-underside-of-the-beast/
Conservation Easements – The Application For those of you who have read Conservation Easements – the History, you know a brief history of conservation easements and should have a general feel of the background, number and scope of these programs. Now we will look into how the different aspects of easements are applied, how they are promoted and how the rules and regulations in place can be manipulated.
As we get started on this section, I think it important to realize that the conservation easement program does not generate revenue.
The money expended on the program comes strictly from taxpayer generated revenues. There are some that say it saves money, but in all the reading I have done thus far on this issue I have yet to find any real data on this. What I have found is the listing of the following items that some easements may accomplish:
- Maintain and improve water quality
- Perpetuate and foster the growth of healthy forest
- Maintain and improve wildlife habitat and migration corridors
- Protect scenic vistas visible from roads and other public areas; or
- Ensure that lands are managed so that they are always available for agriculture and forestry.
If you are like most people who do not own that large a parcel of land, you will still be footing the bill. It will be up to you to determine whether the benefits are worth the monetary contributions you are required to pay for them.
I simply state once again that anyone who has additional input into the information seen here is welcome to chime in. The effort here is to reveal the truth, as we always endeavor to do.
“Show Me the Money” It does not take much reading on conservation easements to learn that money has driven the meteoric rise in the number and scope of conservation easements.
Most citizens have no idea how much money is involved in the concept of what is known in legal terms as “negative servitude”. This legal description is derived from the requirement of the easement holder to prevent the donor (landowner) from certain actions on his own property.
Congress has authorized billions in years past to fund conservation programs, and the expansion of conservation funding for use as a tax break has been growing for over five decades. What began in the 1960’s as an ill-defined federal program started to take formal shape in the 1980’s when the Treasury Department provided more clarity, listing various acceptable charitable purposes for the deduction, and providing the appraisal rules for computing the amount of the deduction.
More recently, as part of the Pension Protection Act, President George W. Bush signed HR 4, which expanded the existing tax breaks dramatically for landowners.
This bill nearly doubled the federal benefits for conservation easement “donors”, allowing them to deduct the value of their “gift” at the rate of 50% of their adjusted gross income (AGI) per year. Landowners who made 50% or more of their income from agriculture were able to deduct the donation at a rate of 100% of their AGI.
Any amount of the donation remaining after the first year could be carried forward for fifteen additional years or until the amount of the deduction has been used up. This benefit has been renewed in similar fashion each year, ever since.
Note: More about the interesting dichotomy of conservation easements being in perpetuity while the tax breaks for them having a finite ending in our next segment.
In 2010 total federal funding for key conservation programs exceeded $1.7 billion. President Obama’s 2013 budget is requesting nearly $1.5 billion.
The Federal program is only part of the spending on easements.
VA DCR ( Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation ) David Johnson
Here in Virginia, in the January 23rd, 2013 report from the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Director David Johnson explains the state’s contribution to the tax incentives associated with conservation easements, “As a result of legislative amendments enacted in 2006, effective January 1, 2007, the LPTC (Land Preservation Tax Credit) program was capped at $100 million per year, with donations (conservation easements) in excess of the annual cap to be rolled over to subsequent years. The amount of the tax credit cap is adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index, increasing in 2008 to $102.3 million, in 2009 to $106.6 million, in 2010 to $106.8 million, and in 2011 the program was capped at $108.4 million. Additionally, the amount of value that can be registered for any conservation easement was limited to 40 percent of the fair market value of the qualified donation – reduced from the previously allowed 50 percent. These compromises represented a diminution in the state’s peak annual tax credit expenditures, which reached $155.9 million in tax year 2005 and $247.8 million in 2006, but still allow for an exemplary program that the state can budget for into the future.”
Are you still with me?
Of course, when landowners have little income from which to gain tax benefits, another solution had to be found to get the land they own into conservation easements. The answer? Turn the tax breaks issued to these low-income, land rich owners into a commodity that can be sold on the open market to others in need of a tax break; those individuals with large incomes and without enough tax breaks to deflect their own tax bills.
From the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation site linked previously we find, “Virginia allows an income tax credit for forty percent of the value of donated land or conservation easements. Taxpayers may use up to $100,000 per year for the year of sale and the ten subsequent tax years. Unused credits may be sold, allowing individuals with little or no Virginia income tax burden to take advantage of this benefit.”
These tax credits are normally sold for around $.75 on the dollar, depending on the market. In fact, there is so much money involved in these transactions that there are businesses established just to assist owners in finding buyers for their tax credits.
From Wikipedia we learn “The Virginia transferable credit program is by far the largest among the States in dollar value of property conserved. By the end of 2010, $2,512,000,000 of property value had been donated as easements in Virginia for which tax credit was claimed. The qualifying easements cover over 516,000 acres (2,090 km2) of Virginia landscape.”
I would ask the reader to pause here a moment to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of state revenues this convoluted scheme, along with the other conservation tax breaks, has created.
Then, here in Fauquier County, there is yet another program using taxpayer dollars to fund conservation donations.
If you review the Fauquier County 2014 Budget, starting on page 8 you will see Conservation Easement Service District Fund. The total budget of $606,872.00 shown there represents the aggregate of our projected 2014 contributions of .6% of our assessed property value which you can see as a line item on your property tax form.
This amount actually represents a 50% reduction to funding for the County’s prior Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. It should also be noted here that this amount represents almost three times the funds allocated in FY 2014 for the operating costs of Fauquier County’s Affordable Housing budget.
The Underside of the Beast As you can well imagine, with all this money available and with the intricacies of nebulous rules and regulations, it is no wonder there were many who were looking to take advantage of the situation.
Since the amount of the donation is defined, in almost all cases, by a very subjective appraisal of land, there have been many cases of fraud and abuse. Here is a sampling of the bigger cases where the tax advantages of conservation easements are applied by less than honest people.
From The Hook, you can read all about what some called an “appraisal racket”, netting the owners of Biscuit Run millions of dollars in The Flip That Flopped: “Virginia is one of about a dozen states that allow certain property owners to convert an appraisal into cash. It happens via a program called conservation tax credits. The bigger the appraisal, the bigger the value of the “gift” when property is sold or encumbered by a non-profit entity. This year, Virginia will issue about $107 million in such credits– paying people to give up the right to develop their land.”
The Hook also posted The Big Chill which chronicles how “At Wintergreen, a company subsidiary found an appraiser willing to claim in 2008 that the 1,422-acre peak called Crawford’s Knob was worth $11.5 million. Like the owners of Biscuit Run, Wintergreen turned that valuation into several million in cash. Also like Biscuit Run, the state later cried foul.”
Of course, Virginia is not alone. A tangled web of alleged fraud and deceit was on display in Idaho. In Pesky v. U.S., the Pesky’s are charged with conservation easement fraud by using the tax breaks in an easement with The Nature Conservancy to avoid paying taxes due. They are facing a 75% penalty.
The Director of the Colorado Division of Real Estate, called the subpoena slinging Erwin Toll, is “cracking down on crooked deals with a vengeance.”
Also in Colorado, the Department of Revenue battling legislators and landowners puts appraisers in the middle of another huge controversy.
Then in Ohio, the DOJ v. Jefferson & Lee Appraisals rounds out this very small sampling of a very large problem. At the center of almost all of these cases are the actions of appraisers and the owners that employ them, who obviously see the tax incentives of conservation easements as ripe for the taking.
When easements were first started, private money was utilized and the land was held by private citizens or groups or purchased directly by the government in deals that were open to public scrutiny.
The chances of foul play were almost non-existent.
Now, as government money has become more and more involved, so has the dark underside that comes along with big money given freely and government officials anxious to please constituents and big donors.
It sure gives one pause when one considers where this may end.
In the next installment, we will look into the problems of an agreement into perpetuity, discuss if the benefits of easements are weighed heavily toward the rich, if easements are actually destroying farming and farm values, the long term effects on the shrinking supply of un-eased land and are the tax breaks involved with an easement actually the establishment of just another entitlement program.
I hope you join us here next week for Conservation Easements – Winners and Losers of Conservation Benefaction.
Fauquier Free Citizen: http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/
Conservation Easements Part Three – Winners and Losers of Conservation Benefaction By Rick Buchanan Even though most people do not know the details of conservations easements, most agree with the general idea. Who could possibly be against a program that touts the philosophy of preserving our lands for wildlife habitat and farming? How could “preserving” our rural countryside possibly be detrimental to farming or to our society as a whole? Yet there are some that would say the concepts behind conservation easements need a much more in-depth study. Just as sugar is surely pleasant to the palate, misuse and overindulgence can lead to many health problems, such as obesity and diabetes. In just such a way, conservation easement candy is not the environmental panacea we have been led to believe it is.
Rural Policy
Recently, in the American Spectator, Joseph Lawler stated “the single greatest policy failure of modern America is urban policy. Since the Great Society era of Lyndon Johnson, the country has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into poor urban neighborhoods.” Fifty years and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have produced increased rates of violence, drug addiction, family breakdown, incarceration and abortion rates in our cities. Are the hundreds of billions of dollars we are now spending in rural America destined for a similar failure?
Landowners and/or farmers who decide to put their land in a negative servitude program (known as a conservation easement) to receive tax breaks are not required to farm the land. In fact, if a “good” deal is struck, the land alone can become a cash producer, at least for a few years. And therein lies the rub.
We are looking at a policy that is assisting in the creation of a new dependent class; a land-rich class that will become dependent on the largesse of the government and the tax credits associated with eased land. The problem for these landowners is two-fold: 1) The tax credits are for a limited time but the easements are, for the most part, in perpetuity. 2) The landowner is then stuck with a property that is necessarily lower in value.
Instead of promoting farmers and farming, these policies have the exact opposite force on the family farm. Rich landowners who get tax breaks for eased land do not need the income from working the farm. In fact, their tax breaks are figured on their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), with no restrictions on where their earnings come from. This makes it easier for them to just allow the land to sit fallow. In fact, this is exactly what many do. Fox hunting, a popular sport in rural counties, requires many acres of uncultivated land to really enjoy the thrill of open-country chases, which can, and in some cases is, funded by these benefaction programs.
This gift-mentality taxation policy for the land-rich also creates additional burdens on the other citizens who make up the vast majority of taxpayers. Since the land is valued for less, the taxes collected are less. Add to this the funding of pay-outs for the additional tax breaks offered and the burden for all other taxpayers becomes greater. On top of that, if the land does not produce marketable products yet another source of tax revenue is lost and even more burden is heaped on the (anyone-who-does-not-have-a-conservation-easement) citizen.
Unintended Consequences
Going against the conservation easement tide is not a popular position to take, but that is where Joel Salatin finds himself. The Shenandoah farmer, called “the high priest of the pasture” by the New York Times, warns all who venture into the “negative servitude” arena to enter with caution. Writing in Flavor Magazine, which touts itself as “the only independent publication dedicated to local food, Virginia wine, and sustainable agriculture in the Capital foodshed”, Salatin writes about his inability to build a chicken coop, or even a doghouse, on the eased property he leased to enlarge his farmed land.
Using his usual flare for colorful descriptions, Joel laments “To have a nonfarmer group from 200 miles away telling the landowner what is appropriate according to the easement is like putting an Amish man in charge of nuclear reactor regulations….What good is protecting farmland if we don’t protect the farmers and their economic viability on the land?”
Salatin goes on to say “Economic viability today demands value-adding, which means onfarm infrastructure like you would expect to see in Williamsburg. Too often those policing these easements want to see cows, pretty pastures, and bucolic gambrel barns without realizing that such a landscape never existed sustainably. Ultimately, these easements reduce farm viability and gradually turn Virginia’s pastoral landscape into a wilderness area. That’s probably not the green space folks have in mind. Giving over farm decisions to people who neither farm nor adapt their approaches jeopardizes farmers’ livelihoods. Ultimately, preserving farmers is the only sustainable way to preserve farms.”
As you might imagine, the defenders of conservation easements sounded off angrily in their letters to the editor of Flavor Magazine, saying they were “bewildered” and calling Salatin’s remarks a “disservice” and having “inaccurate and maligned information”.
However, fellow farmer Joshua Grizzle of Lexington, VA wrote in his letter (also found in preceding link) to explain how he had experiences similar to Salatin. Since I found his personal experiences were pertinent to the discussion here, I will let his words frame the discoveries of many who are involved in these conservation programs. “I also speak from experience here as my family has considered such a (conservation easement) program on our land. I believe, however, that this program is a step in exactly the wrong direction. If we are afraid that our land is going to become developed into a subdivision or Walmart, the solution is exactly not to try to put up blind barriers to development and further decrease land value. Instead we must figure out a way for landowners and the broader community to place a higher value on land used for things other than strip malls. We do that by creating value-added businesses on those lands that enhance, rather than destroy, the natural beauty.”
It would appear Salatin and Grizzle are backed up by learned professionals that have long studied land and farming issues. Dana J. Gattuso, Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research says “These (conservation easements) are largely anti-farm production programs, restricting land use on private farmland to support wetlands, grasslands, and non-threatened species while doing precious little to grow the nation’s crop supply and stabilize rising food prices.”
Certainly it is not the aim of the “conservation benefaction” programs to create the classification of unintended consequences known as the perverse effect, but there is ample evidence that, like the urban policy discussed earlier, that is the path the new rural policy is taking. Many across the country are now taking a good, hard look at what unintended consequences are being wrought with the full implementation of conservation easements.
“Model Community”
From The Nerve, a publication in South Carolina, reporter Donna Linsin writes “As more and more land is grabbed by federal, state, county and municipal governments, and land banks, and is placed in conservation easements, the rest of us will have to put up with living in crowded conditions, noisy and intruding neighbors, the unworkable schedules of public transportation, and lack of clean air and water. Is this how we want to live, work and play? These land-grabbing tactics can only drive up the cost of (non-easement) land that only a few people will be able to afford to buy.”
Winners and Losers
If you have read through these articles thoughtfully, YOU should have the ability to begin the process of establishing the winners and losers of conservation policies. With a better understanding of how our governmental policies affect us, and armed with that knowledge, we can all take steps to insure we are working toward long-ranging answers, not sugar-coated missteps sweetened by our tax dollars.
If you have made up your mind, call your local or state representative and share your knowledge. Find out what their understanding is and if it is fact-based or just wishes and hopes. Become involved in the process. Get your thoughts out. Only then can we all be winners in the future. It is the future for your kids and their kids, into perpetuity, that we are planning for today.
Why Land Trust and Conservation Easements Threaten Private Property Written by Pamela Leslie on April 16, 2014 ·
Are land trusts organizations (hereafter land trusts) of today organizations that preserve plant and habitat sensitive land and open spaces from development through conservation easements for public good? Conservation easements claim to allow the private property owner to maintain ownership, use & transfer their private property while permanently removing development rights. Property owners passionate about non-development can donate land to land trusts for conservation easements in exchange for federal, state and inheritance tax incentives and can also be financially compensated for conservation easements on their land. “Although the tax benefits were intended to aid the land-rich, cash-poor farmer or small business, struggling because of exorbitant property and estate taxes to hold on to their land, the federal tax benefits disproportionately favor wealthy landowners.” 1
Government can take private property by eminent domain, government regulations & rezoning. Owners can be forced to put their property into easements to avoid intrusive high cost government regulations they can’t afford or rezoning that limit the use of what they can do on their own property sometimes negating their life income previously afforded by use of their land like farming, fishing or harvesting from the ocean.
The 1930s and 1940s was the first time a government organization; the National Park Service used conservation easements to manage parcels of land rather than purchasing the entire property (fee simple ownership). The purpose was for scenic use and public access in what we know today as the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Natchez Parkway. 2 Today government uses land trusts as a way acquire conservation easements, but to hide from the public that the government is the ultimate land owner. Rather than for scenic use and public access, conservation easements today are used to prevent development. Many conservation easements of today promoting non-development don’t substantially benefit the public at large because often times, public access is denied.
Over time, the number of land trusts has exploded from only 40 in 1950 3. In 2010 land trusts numbered “1,723 organizations since the last Census (of 2000 or 2005). This includes 1,699 state and local groups and 24 organizations categorized as national land trusts.” 4
Proponents assert that conservation easements altruistically preserve land for public benefit without acknowledging how their organizations financially benefit. They claim the property owner retains ownership, use and transfer and conservation easements are the best way for the future of our environment. But are these claims supported by evidence? Who benefits and who pays for the land acquired by a non-profit land trust organization?
Let’s examine the supposedly altruistic motives for public benefit of the land trust. Do they raise money through private donations for conservation easements and are these easements for public benefit? Many people believe that if the property owner requires financial reimbursement in addition to tax incentives, land trust use like-minded member private donations to acquire the land. Therefore land trusts would be limited by budget constraints of private donations plus numerous tax incentives . Budget constraints force individuals and organizations to make the most efficient use of their funds. Decisions would be discretely reviewed for properties that are most beneficial and financially affordable for conserving favoring no wealthy land owner, political group, non-profit organization (like their own) or non-government organization (NGO). What happens when average working people’s individual taxes are confiscated to exponentially increase land trust budgets through national, state, county & municipal grants without their consent or even their knowledge?
The federal government provides exorbitant amounts of money for land use control growing from $630 million in 1998 “for transportation enhancements, which include greenways, bike trails, and open space easements” to billions today (very difficult to discover exact number) through the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the acquisition of wetlands and the Land and Water Conservation Fund…See more at: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents#sthash.pFoabIcC.dpuf 5. This money is taken non-consensually from the average tax payer. Would the average tax payer in this recession willing allocate billions of dollars for land conservation when they are having trouble feeding their families?
Government stealing land from private property owners through eminent domain (owner forced against their will to sell) or government regulations (government reallocates use of land against owner’s will) has become increasingly unpopular. The American constitution guarantees individuals ownership of private property. In order for governments not to appear tyrannical and greedy, governments partner with land trusts organizations that acquire private property with conservation easements only to sell them to the government often at a handsome profit. The “altruistic” land trusts receive financial compensations for turning what was once private property into government property by spending taxpayer money they didn’t earn. “Land trusts are largely acquiring land on a prearranged flip to government, or else maintaining their holdings on the basis of the government’s selective treatment of them with a 100 percent exemption from real estate taxes. In New York State, the pre-arrangement for one $2.6 million acquisition was made even without a source of funding.” 6 How altruistic is that?
A department of Agriculture report notes “voluntary acquisitions” provides “opportunities for public agencies to influence resource use without incurring the political costs of regulation or the full financial costs of outright land acquisition.” (emphasis mine). 7
A Clemson University professor Bruce Yandle writes: “Such programs encourage land trusts to serve as government land agents, often quite profitably. If land trusts continue to respond to this temptation, land conservation will become ever more political…History teaches us that market incentives for conservation are strongest when individuals pay market prices and receive market rewards. They are weakest when government agents spend someone else’s money and get no reward for good management.” 8
Land trust can also benefit from the tax incentive offered to the land owner that may be transferred to the land trust. The land trust can then sell that tax incentive on the open market through a tax credit exchange. In South Carolina, South Carolina Conservation Credit Exchange direct their clients to:
• “Save this year and every year on their state income tax
• Direct their tax dollars to conservation” 9
For example, a land owner transfers tax credits to the land trust because they don’t have taxable income in that state. This is not a tax deduction to lower taxable income but rather a tax credit that lowers the total amount of state taxes paid. It can be deducted on both state & federal tax forms. A wealthy land owner might have enough deductions to minimize state taxable income or they could be a non-resident so they donate (transfer) the tax credits along with the donation of the conservation easement to the land trust . Using an example of a tax credit worth $10,000, the land trust can sell the credit at a discount on a state tax exchange for instance $7,000. The client buying the tax credit from the exchange just received an additional $3,000 in tax credit and the land trust pocketed a cool $7,000 pure profit. Who pays for all this? The average taxpayer’s property taxes are increased to make up for the shortfall in overall state revenue. Keep in mind, the state’s revenue demands didn’t change so if taxes are lowered on the conservation property, they are raised for those of us who don’t have conservation property and who don’t benefit from that transaction.
When an inherited conservation easement is in perpetuity, the heir is saddled with the restrictions that come with the conservation easement that limit development. Even an avid non-development land owner would not want his family prevented from selling the land in order to financially support a life and death health issue such as a debilitating disease or life threatening condition. Restrictions from the conservation easement would prevent market value compensation for the land that could be required for life-saving treatment for their grandchild. None-the-less, easements restrictions are mostly impossible to change, challenging the notion that the owner retains ownership, USE and transference.
As for the best solution for future conservation, over time conservation issues change. Consequently a conservation easement that once supported a fish habitat in a river that redirected itself, no longer supports the species for which the conservation easement was written but it’s almost impossible to change down the road. Would an easement for wetland that dried up that once protected a habitat or for an endangered species that either becomes extinct or becomes plentiful be the best solution for future conservation?
Changes can be made to prevent land trust, NGOs and government abuses.
First, stop federal funding of non-profit conservation organizations. They already benefit from numerous tax incentives. The temptation is simply too great to capitalize on free money. Private citizens that would like to acquire the property using their own hard earned money can’t compete with free city, county, state & federal tax money given to land trusts.
Second, “preflip agreements” should be illegal. Preflip agreements encourage non-profit organizations to acquire land with other people’s money so they don’t make the most financially prudent decisions because there is no accountability and no consequences for bad decisions.
Third, conservation easements should not be perpetual. They should be negotiated so that in the event of an emergency or changing environmental concerns, the terms can be amended.
In conclusion, conservation easements of today are frequently not about preserving land for public good but rather to financially benefit the non-profit conservation organization. Decisions are based on using other people’s money to acquire property to flip to government or advance their agenda for less development. They do not convey the same owner rights as before the easement was written and therefore do not allow the owner to own, use and transfer the property in case of an emergency or changing environmental issues without severe penalties. As the amount of land in conservation easements increase, the amount of land that can be developed and taxed as other property decreases thereby increasing housing costs and taxes for the public at large. Conservation easements are a costly threat to private property ownership.
References
1: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html
2: ibid
3: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
4: http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census
5: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
6: http://prfamerica.org/positions/LandTrustsThreatenPP.html
7: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AER744
8: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
9: http://www.conservesc.com/advisors.htm
Are land trusts organizations (hereafter land trusts) of today organizations that preserve plant and habitat sensitive land and open spaces from development through conservation easements for public good? Conservation easements claim to allow the private property owner to maintain ownership, use & transfer their private property while permanently removing development rights. Property owners passionate about non-development can donate land to land trusts for conservation easements in exchange for federal, state and inheritance tax incentives and can also be financially compensated for conservation easements on their land. “Although the tax benefits were intended to aid the land-rich, cash-poor farmer or small business, struggling because of exorbitant property and estate taxes to hold on to their land, the federal tax benefits disproportionately favor wealthy landowners.” 1
Government can take private property by eminent domain, government regulations & rezoning. Owners can be forced to put their property into easements to avoid intrusive high cost government regulations they can’t afford or rezoning that limit the use of what they can do on their own property sometimes negating their life income previously afforded by use of their land like farming, fishing or harvesting from the ocean.
The 1930s and 1940s was the first time a government organization; the National Park Service used conservation easements to manage parcels of land rather than purchasing the entire property (fee simple ownership). The purpose was for scenic use and public access in what we know today as the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Natchez Parkway. 2 Today government uses land trusts as a way acquire conservation easements, but to hide from the public that the government is the ultimate land owner. Rather than for scenic use and public access, conservation easements today are used to prevent development. Many conservation easements of today promoting non-development don’t substantially benefit the public at large because often times, public access is denied.
Over time, the number of land trusts has exploded from only 40 in 1950 3. In 2010 land trusts numbered “1,723 organizations since the last Census (of 2000 or 2005). This includes 1,699 state and local groups and 24 organizations categorized as national land trusts.” 4
Proponents assert that conservation easements altruistically preserve land for public benefit without acknowledging how their organizations financially benefit. They claim the property owner retains ownership, use and transfer and conservation easements are the best way for the future of our environment. But are these claims supported by evidence? Who benefits and who pays for the land acquired by a non-profit land trust organization?
Let’s examine the supposedly altruistic motives for public benefit of the land trust. Do they raise money through private donations for conservation easements and are these easements for public benefit? Many people believe that if the property owner requires financial reimbursement in addition to tax incentives, land trust use like-minded member private donations to acquire the land. Therefore land trusts would be limited by budget constraints of private donations plus numerous tax incentives . Budget constraints force individuals and organizations to make the most efficient use of their funds. Decisions would be discretely reviewed for properties that are most beneficial and financially affordable for conserving favoring no wealthy land owner, political group, non-profit organization (like their own) or non-government organization (NGO). What happens when average working people’s individual taxes are confiscated to exponentially increase land trust budgets through national, state, county & municipal grants without their consent or even their knowledge?
The federal government provides exorbitant amounts of money for land use control growing from $630 million in 1998 “for transportation enhancements, which include greenways, bike trails, and open space easements” to billions today (very difficult to discover exact number) through the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the acquisition of wetlands and the Land and Water Conservation Fund…See more at: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents#sthash.pFoabIcC.dpuf 5. This money is taken non-consensually from the average tax payer. Would the average tax payer in this recession willing allocate billions of dollars for land conservation when they are having trouble feeding their families?
Government stealing land from private property owners through eminent domain (owner forced against their will to sell) or government regulations (government reallocates use of land against owner’s will) has become increasingly unpopular. The American constitution guarantees individuals ownership of private property. In order for governments not to appear tyrannical and greedy, governments partner with land trusts organizations that acquire private property with conservation easements only to sell them to the government often at a handsome profit. The “altruistic” land trusts receive financial compensations for turning what was once private property into government property by spending taxpayer money they didn’t earn. “Land trusts are largely acquiring land on a prearranged flip to government, or else maintaining their holdings on the basis of the government’s selective treatment of them with a 100 percent exemption from real estate taxes. In New York State, the pre-arrangement for one $2.6 million acquisition was made even without a source of funding.” 6 How altruistic is that?
A department of Agriculture report notes “voluntary acquisitions” provides “opportunities for public agencies to influence resource use without incurring the political costs of regulation or the full financial costs of outright land acquisition.” (emphasis mine). 7
A Clemson University professor Bruce Yandle writes: “Such programs encourage land trusts to serve as government land agents, often quite profitably. If land trusts continue to respond to this temptation, land conservation will become ever more political…History teaches us that market incentives for conservation are strongest when individuals pay market prices and receive market rewards. They are weakest when government agents spend someone else’s money and get no reward for good management.” 8
Land trust can also benefit from the tax incentive offered to the land owner that may be transferred to the land trust. The land trust can then sell that tax incentive on the open market through a tax credit exchange. In South Carolina, South Carolina Conservation Credit Exchange direct their clients to:
• “Save this year and every year on their state income tax
• Direct their tax dollars to conservation” 9
For example, a land owner transfers tax credits to the land trust because they don’t have taxable income in that state. This is not a tax deduction to lower taxable income but rather a tax credit that lowers the total amount of state taxes paid. It can be deducted on both state & federal tax forms. A wealthy land owner might have enough deductions to minimize state taxable income or they could be a non-resident so they donate (transfer) the tax credits along with the donation of the conservation easement to the land trust . Using an example of a tax credit worth $10,000, the land trust can sell the credit at a discount on a state tax exchange for instance $7,000. The client buying the tax credit from the exchange just received an additional $3,000 in tax credit and the land trust pocketed a cool $7,000 pure profit. Who pays for all this? The average taxpayer’s property taxes are increased to make up for the shortfall in overall state revenue. Keep in mind, the state’s revenue demands didn’t change so if taxes are lowered on the conservation property, they are raised for those of us who don’t have conservation property and who don’t benefit from that transaction.
When an inherited conservation easement is in perpetuity, the heir is saddled with the restrictions that come with the conservation easement that limit development. Even an avid non-development land owner would not want his family prevented from selling the land in order to financially support a life and death health issue such as a debilitating disease or life threatening condition. Restrictions from the conservation easement would prevent market value compensation for the land that could be required for life-saving treatment for their grandchild. None-the-less, easements restrictions are mostly impossible to change, challenging the notion that the owner retains ownership, USE and transference.
As for the best solution for future conservation, over time conservation issues change. Consequently a conservation easement that once supported a fish habitat in a river that redirected itself, no longer supports the species for which the conservation easement was written but it’s almost impossible to change down the road. Would an easement for wetland that dried up that once protected a habitat or for an endangered species that either becomes extinct or becomes plentiful be the best solution for future conservation?
Changes can be made to prevent land trust, NGOs and government abuses.
First, stop federal funding of non-profit conservation organizations. They already benefit from numerous tax incentives. The temptation is simply too great to capitalize on free money. Private citizens that would like to acquire the property using their own hard earned money can’t compete with free city, county, state & federal tax money given to land trusts.
Second, “preflip agreements” should be illegal. Preflip agreements encourage non-profit organizations to acquire land with other people’s money so they don’t make the most financially prudent decisions because there is no accountability and no consequences for bad decisions.
Third, conservation easements should not be perpetual. They should be negotiated so that in the event of an emergency or changing environmental concerns, the terms can be amended.
In conclusion, conservation easements of today are frequently not about preserving land for public good but rather to financially benefit the non-profit conservation organization. Decisions are based on using other people’s money to acquire property to flip to government or advance their agenda for less development. They do not convey the same owner rights as before the easement was written and therefore do not allow the owner to own, use and transfer the property in case of an emergency or changing environmental issues without severe penalties. As the amount of land in conservation easements increase, the amount of land that can be developed and taxed as other property decreases thereby increasing housing costs and taxes for the public at large. Conservation easements are a costly threat to private property ownership.
References
1: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html
2: ibid
3: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
4: http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census
5: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
6: http://prfamerica.org/positions/LandTrustsThreatenPP.html
7: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AER744
8: http://perc.org/articles/land-trusts-or-land-agents
9: http://www.conservesc.com/advisors.htm
ACTION ALERT "Beaches to Bluegrass" Statewide Land Grab
"What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." - Friedrich A. Hayek - Author of "The Road to Serfdom"
Private property across southern Virginia from the Cumberland Gap to Virginia Beach is at risk. See the "Beaches to Bluegrass Statewide Trail" map below. If you live in these area's of the state, now is the time to contact your city councils, and county supervisors and urge them to protect private property in Virginia and to refuse to participate in the "Beaches to Bluegrass" scheme. We can not continue to trade our freedom for more government controlled "Recreation," scenic rivers and trails. It's time to hold our local governments responsible for the damage that's being done to this country.
According to Fraser’s 2013 “Economic Freedom of the World” report:
U.S. protection of property rights drops to 30th among nations!!!This is not America. Once a Mecca for those who value their personal and property rights, today the U.S. places a meager 30th among the world’s nations. Even Socialist countries like Finland (1), Germany (15) and Chile (26) have a greater respect for property rights than the U.S. Many of us are aware that using the premise of protecting the environment, we are losing our freedoms at a lightning pace. The end game is to implement The United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. And unless we finally recognize what we are doing to this country and learn to value the protection of private property again, our "Land of the free" America will be lost forever.
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
Karl Marx
5 acres of private property is lost every HOUR in Virginia, That is what Virginia Outdoors Foundation boasts about. http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/ Today, more than 675,000 acres across Virginia is under VOF control, with about 3,500 conservation easements in its portfolio — more than any land trust in the nation. That's 5 acres an hour out of the tax base and into the hands of others to manage your land rights!
From the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Of the estimated total land area of Virginia, 25.27 million acres, almost 3.8 million acres or 15.03% is "currently protected." August, 2012
Almost 20% of VA is regulated under the Chesapeake Bay Act. 50,000 identified endangered species habitats (1/2 are on private property) Without the Crooked Road, 22% of VA is under the US Parks Dept. as National Heritage areas (Shenandoah Battle Fields & The Journey Through Hallowed Ground)
All that is just for starters.
Overlay all these maps and VA is almost at goal re: the U.N. Biodiversity Wildlands map. View Conservation Lands Data Online: https://vanhde.org/content/map
Click on the link above , then click on Trails in Virginia. You may be surprised; Trails cover the state. Now they plan to link all these existing Trails.Also Click on Managed Conservation Lands, Cultural Asset Model, Recreational Assets, Scenic Rivers to get the picture. Private property in Virginia is under constant assault.
Read more: Virginia's Long Distance Trail Network: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/documents/grtrtfrep.pdf Pay close attention to the plans to link Trail's in your area of the state.
See the "Beaches to Bluegrass Statewide Trail" map below.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation with partners like Roanoke River Rails to Trails, the Dan River Basin Association and Activate Martinsville-Henry County, this trail system is rapidly under development through Southern Virginia.
From Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/tr-sbiib2e.shtml Beaches to Bluegrass Trail The concept is a trail that traverses southern Virginia from its western borders in Appalachia to the Atlantic Coast. Utilizing existing trails that currently traverse spectacular scenery from the mountains of southwestern Virginia to the marshes and sandy beaches of the Tidewater, this trail system would include views of the New River Valley, vistas of the eastern Piedmont from the crest of the Blue Ridge, and encounters with rivers, old forests, and mountain meadows. This trail will also cross through the industrial centers of Martinsville, Danville, and South Boston, and continue through productive agricultural regions along the abandoned railroads that make up the Tobacco Heritage Trail. As one travels eastward, the tobacco, corn and soy bean fields give way to pine plantations, cotton, peanut, and pork farms. Finally, only the busy commercial port of Hampton Roads stands between the trail and the ocean terminus.
The trail is envisioned as a braided trail system made up of paralleling trails sharing a common direction, but managed by different local partners. Some trails will be multi-use and non-motorized. Others may include carriage riders, while some will support paddling. Some sections will require bicycle riding on paved roads, while in other cases, the trail may be too narrow and steep to allow bicycles and only pedestrians will be allowed. As the trail evolves, the multiuse portions may be expanded and connected so that long-range trips are possible for both equestrians and bicyclists.
It is not hard to comprehend the amount of control and force they plan to exert over a large portion of our state.
Quotes From Friedrich A. Hayek - Author of "The Road to Serfdom"
What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.
It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem. Once wide coercive powers are given to governmental agencies for particular purposes, such powers cannot be effectively controlled by democratic assemblies. It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that the greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern government, namely, the efficient expert administrators exclusively concerned with what they regard as the public good.
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.
The more the state "plans" the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.
The effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go; with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.
Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society ( protection of private property ) once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.
Regionalism and effects upon your Rights.
United States of America was founded on the principal of a Government by the People! Regionalism circumvents that process!
Regionalism: division of a country into administrative regions having partial autonomy
If one carefully looks at our present governmental process, they will see that we already enjoy regionalism. Beginning with the nation then breaking down to the states, counties, towns, cities and Communities. The difference between this regionalism and that proposed by certain parties and groups is; the people elect the representatives of our present governmental regions.
It is my understanding that what is proposed by certain parties and groups, are regions where Administrators are appointed by a committee made up of not just elected officials, but those who have a vested interest in circumventing our present Representative System.
These administrators will not be elected and those who live in any particular region will have no voice in the administration of their region. This is vastly different from the present form of regionalism, or government as we call it. The people at least have a voice at our local level of the region, the county, through the boards we elect.
The most glaring example of unrepresentative regionalism is the National Parks Service.
Thank God we stopped the Crooked Road National Heritage Area from forming a National Heritage Area that comprised 19, {including Patrick}, Counties in Southwestern Virginia!
Who would like to be under control of the National Park Service the way they are handling the so called shutdown? Below is a sample of the National Park Service and the power they impose!
http://m.wdbj7.com/meadows-of-dan-open-for-business-seeing-impact-of-government-shutdown/-/20129166/22338992/-/123we4q/-/index.html "I believe it's unethical, I believe it's illegal, it's clearly unjust, and just plain stupid," said Felecia Shelor, owner of Poor Farmer's Market in Meadows of Dan..”
“In all the years I have worked with the National Park Service, I have never worked with a more arrogant, arbitrary and vindictive group representing the NPS,” said Anna Eberly, who manages the facility. http://watchdog.org/109878/federal-tourist-blockades-called-vindictive-in-virginia/
The federal government has vested the NPS with administrative powers that both transcends the limits of law and the control of those we have elected. An area is chosen as a national park or heritage area and the extensive rules, written by the NPS, are applied. Almost instantaneously, the private property owner has lost control of what occurs on his/her own property and yet, they are still required to pay the taxes on that property.
This then becomes the simplest and most “feel good” form of taxation without representation. Normally this is all done in the name of preservation, yet, when one takes an honest look at it, they should realize that they are allowing a non-elected group of people to take control to preserve an area that , the residents, could have affected themselves. The same preservation on their property can be accomplished without the auspices of this un-elected group.
I propose we keep and maintain the present form of regionalism we have, the county. In that respect, we will maintain our voice in what happens to OUR property. RogerT Hayden
Regionalism: division of a country into administrative regions having partial autonomy
If one carefully looks at our present governmental process, they will see that we already enjoy regionalism. Beginning with the nation then breaking down to the states, counties, towns, cities and Communities. The difference between this regionalism and that proposed by certain parties and groups is; the people elect the representatives of our present governmental regions.
It is my understanding that what is proposed by certain parties and groups, are regions where Administrators are appointed by a committee made up of not just elected officials, but those who have a vested interest in circumventing our present Representative System.
These administrators will not be elected and those who live in any particular region will have no voice in the administration of their region. This is vastly different from the present form of regionalism, or government as we call it. The people at least have a voice at our local level of the region, the county, through the boards we elect.
The most glaring example of unrepresentative regionalism is the National Parks Service.
Thank God we stopped the Crooked Road National Heritage Area from forming a National Heritage Area that comprised 19, {including Patrick}, Counties in Southwestern Virginia!
Who would like to be under control of the National Park Service the way they are handling the so called shutdown? Below is a sample of the National Park Service and the power they impose!
http://m.wdbj7.com/meadows-of-dan-open-for-business-seeing-impact-of-government-shutdown/-/20129166/22338992/-/123we4q/-/index.html "I believe it's unethical, I believe it's illegal, it's clearly unjust, and just plain stupid," said Felecia Shelor, owner of Poor Farmer's Market in Meadows of Dan..”
“In all the years I have worked with the National Park Service, I have never worked with a more arrogant, arbitrary and vindictive group representing the NPS,” said Anna Eberly, who manages the facility. http://watchdog.org/109878/federal-tourist-blockades-called-vindictive-in-virginia/
The federal government has vested the NPS with administrative powers that both transcends the limits of law and the control of those we have elected. An area is chosen as a national park or heritage area and the extensive rules, written by the NPS, are applied. Almost instantaneously, the private property owner has lost control of what occurs on his/her own property and yet, they are still required to pay the taxes on that property.
This then becomes the simplest and most “feel good” form of taxation without representation. Normally this is all done in the name of preservation, yet, when one takes an honest look at it, they should realize that they are allowing a non-elected group of people to take control to preserve an area that , the residents, could have affected themselves. The same preservation on their property can be accomplished without the auspices of this un-elected group.
I propose we keep and maintain the present form of regionalism we have, the county. In that respect, we will maintain our voice in what happens to OUR property. RogerT Hayden
Home
Hayden concerned about taxes, spending
by Tom Joyce Staff Reporter
17 hours ago |467 Views | 0 Comments | | |
Roger Hayden Name: Roger Hayden
Age: 66
Address: Cox Ridge Road, Claudville
Occupation: School bus driver
Education: An associate degree in science and technology, Certified County Supervisor Graduate.
Experience: Is completing 2nd term on the Patrick County Board of Supervisors
Family: He and wife Mabel have resided on Cox Ridge Road for 50 years. They have a son, Bruce, an assistant Dean of Students at Virginia Tech, and a daughter, Lisa, a teacher in Charleston, SC., with over 20 years’ experience.
Question: Why do you want to seek re-election as a county supervisor?
Answer: I’ve served eight years on the board of supervisors, and basically there are still a lot of problems that face the county and I want to help solve those problems. I will continue to do my best Representing the people of Dan River District.
I ran for the board of supervisors (in 2009) because I felt that we were taxing and spending too much at a time when unemployment is up and the cost of living is increasing and Live-able wage jobs are hard to find. I’ve been addressing those problems and we’re making progress,and I want to continue that.
Question: What do you offer the citizens of the Dan River District and county?
Answer: I have simple agenda Less Tax, Less Debt, Less Government, suppport . I’m elected to represent the people of the Dan River District and the county, and I’m a person who does not rubber-stamp everything that comes before the board. I act based on facts, not hype, and I will research all the issues before making a decision.
Question: What would be your top goal if re-elected?
Answer: Less Taxes,
Question: Other than jobs, what do you see as the biggest need in Patrick County?
Answer: Volunteer Service needs immediate attention. A subsidy program for aid to the Volunteers would be a way to help those that serve. Our young are leaving Patrick for better paying and opportunities elsewhere. Older people are moving into our County as we slowly are become a retirement County. So better medical facilities are needed.
Question: Local voters also will decide in this election whether a 4 percent meals tax should be imposed countywide. What is your position on this?
Answer: My position is, let’s let the people decide, and at least the people have an opportunity — unlike the 25.5 million dollar lease revenue bonds and 3.5 million dollar Energy lease agreement, borrowed in the past without a referendum, nor public hearing for school improvements, without the public voting on the bond packages.
Question: In politics, there is often an over-emphasis on the negative. What do you consider the best thing about Patrick County and how can the local government enhance or maintain that?
Answer: Until one realizes that Patrick County is in a recession, negative growth, we will not move forward.
I think Patrick County has a really good educational program — our schools are doing well, but they do have some internal issues that need to be dealt with. I’d like to see the Board of Supervisors and School Board work together to solve those issues get back to what our schools are for, which is to teach our children. A good example has not been set by our school system recently, and I think it’s taken away from the educational experience of our children. And that’s very unfavorable to our county.
Question: What is the main thing you would like voters to keep in mind when they make their choice for Dan River District supervisor?
Answer: I will work for the people of the Dan River District and the people of Patrick County — not for special-interest groups, but the majority of the county. I will do due-diligence and research items that come before the board and make my decisions on facts. And again, we must hold the line on taxes — people are not willing or able to pay higher personal property and real estate taxes. Their personal income also has decreased and taxes and fees and the cost of living have increased, so basically they can’t afford to pay any more taxes. We’ve got to take the pressure off the real estate and personal property taxes.
I
Hayden concerned about taxes, spending
by Tom Joyce Staff Reporter
17 hours ago |467 Views | 0 Comments | | |
Roger Hayden Name: Roger Hayden
Age: 66
Address: Cox Ridge Road, Claudville
Occupation: School bus driver
Education: An associate degree in science and technology, Certified County Supervisor Graduate.
Experience: Is completing 2nd term on the Patrick County Board of Supervisors
Family: He and wife Mabel have resided on Cox Ridge Road for 50 years. They have a son, Bruce, an assistant Dean of Students at Virginia Tech, and a daughter, Lisa, a teacher in Charleston, SC., with over 20 years’ experience.
Question: Why do you want to seek re-election as a county supervisor?
Answer: I’ve served eight years on the board of supervisors, and basically there are still a lot of problems that face the county and I want to help solve those problems. I will continue to do my best Representing the people of Dan River District.
I ran for the board of supervisors (in 2009) because I felt that we were taxing and spending too much at a time when unemployment is up and the cost of living is increasing and Live-able wage jobs are hard to find. I’ve been addressing those problems and we’re making progress,and I want to continue that.
Question: What do you offer the citizens of the Dan River District and county?
Answer: I have simple agenda Less Tax, Less Debt, Less Government, suppport . I’m elected to represent the people of the Dan River District and the county, and I’m a person who does not rubber-stamp everything that comes before the board. I act based on facts, not hype, and I will research all the issues before making a decision.
Question: What would be your top goal if re-elected?
Answer: Less Taxes,
Question: Other than jobs, what do you see as the biggest need in Patrick County?
Answer: Volunteer Service needs immediate attention. A subsidy program for aid to the Volunteers would be a way to help those that serve. Our young are leaving Patrick for better paying and opportunities elsewhere. Older people are moving into our County as we slowly are become a retirement County. So better medical facilities are needed.
Question: Local voters also will decide in this election whether a 4 percent meals tax should be imposed countywide. What is your position on this?
Answer: My position is, let’s let the people decide, and at least the people have an opportunity — unlike the 25.5 million dollar lease revenue bonds and 3.5 million dollar Energy lease agreement, borrowed in the past without a referendum, nor public hearing for school improvements, without the public voting on the bond packages.
Question: In politics, there is often an over-emphasis on the negative. What do you consider the best thing about Patrick County and how can the local government enhance or maintain that?
Answer: Until one realizes that Patrick County is in a recession, negative growth, we will not move forward.
I think Patrick County has a really good educational program — our schools are doing well, but they do have some internal issues that need to be dealt with. I’d like to see the Board of Supervisors and School Board work together to solve those issues get back to what our schools are for, which is to teach our children. A good example has not been set by our school system recently, and I think it’s taken away from the educational experience of our children. And that’s very unfavorable to our county.
Question: What is the main thing you would like voters to keep in mind when they make their choice for Dan River District supervisor?
Answer: I will work for the people of the Dan River District and the people of Patrick County — not for special-interest groups, but the majority of the county. I will do due-diligence and research items that come before the board and make my decisions on facts. And again, we must hold the line on taxes — people are not willing or able to pay higher personal property and real estate taxes. Their personal income also has decreased and taxes and fees and the cost of living have increased, so basically they can’t afford to pay any more taxes. We’ve got to take the pressure off the real estate and personal property taxes.
I
The People of Dan River District put their trust in me to represent their interest as Board of Supervisor member.
|
|
CLAUDVILLE, Va. — The Patrick County Board of Supervisors has faced some tumultuous times recently, but that isn’t deterring the Dan River District representative from seeking re-election.
Roger T. Hayden has filed to run for another four-year term representing that district, which includes the Ararat, Claudville and Willis Gap communities. Hayden said he wants to continue being a watchdog against higher taxes and try to make headway against some of the county’s prevailing problems linked to the economy.
Hayden was elected to the county board of supervisors as a political newcomer in 2009 and now that his term is winding down, said it has been an interesting experience. “I think it was very informative,” Hayden said this week, adding that he believes he has lived up to his goal of representing Dan River District citizens and their unique interests.
“I’ve kept my promise not to raise taxes while I was in there, and I haven’t,” Hayden said of his time on the county’s five-member governing board.
Patrick has not been immune from the financial distress that has affected governmental units all over the country, and this remains a challenge, according to Hayden, who worked for nearly 40 years in local industries and is in his mid-60s.
He considers job growth the top priority, especially given the county’s poverty status. “Two-thirds of our children live below the poverty line and even a larger percentage are borderline. This is a direct relationship of their parents losing jobs due to the demise of tobacco, textile and furniture industries.”
However, Hayden, who has resided with his wife Mabel on Cox Ridge Road in Claudville for more than 45 years, believes there is hope. “We are making some progress for more employment opportunities.”
Along with serving as a county supervisor, Hayden, a former part-time employee of the USDA Farm Service Agency, is a member of various commissions involved with planning and tourism growth in the area.
He also has worked to increase Patrick County’s connectivity to high-speed Internet service, which has progressed from 20 to 95 percent in coverage.
Clashes Addressed
Tension has existed in recent years between the board of supervisors and Patrick County’s school leadership, centering on issues including funding.
Hayden said the supervisors have sought more accountability from educational officials regarding budgeting and believes that is occurring. “They are complying with that.”
The supervisors aren’t trying to run the schools, but want to ensure “quality, cost-effective education,” said Hayden, who has two grown children who are products of Patrick schools. “Once the board of supervisors approves the money the school board has, it’s up to the school board to spend the funds.”
One addition Hayden supports is having school resource officers at all campuses.
In addition, he wants to continue improvements in county safety and school mobile communications, and said a plan is in motion to construct a new tower in the Dan River District to fill voids in service.
At times, clashes have occurred among the supervisors themselves, notably between Karl Weiss of the Blue Ridge District and Locke Boyce, Peters Creek District representative. Most recently, Supervisor Hayden was caught in that cross-fire when Weiss is said to have tried to “bully” him into changing his vote on an issue in which Hayden sided with Boyce.
Boyce made public that encounter, which occurred in a closed session, leading him and Weiss to exchange verbal barbs. This included Weiss charging that Boyce was a “loose cannon” who could hurt the county’s ability to attract new industry because company representatives can’t depend on sensitive negotiations in closed sessions being kept secret.
“Well, I think the rhetoric is all political,” Hayden said this week of such conflicts. “I don’t think that all of us share the same ideology.”
However, Hayden objects to recent reports that the Patrick County Board of Supervisors has become “dysfunctional.”
“I disagree with that — I think we’ve done a lot of things well,” he said. “I don’t think that (the bickering) is affecting the functions of the board.”
Dirt Roads
Another problem Hayden wants to see addressed involves the paving of roads in the Dan River District. It has 90 miles of dirt routes that are maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, more than the other four districts in the county combined.
“This day and age, all county DOT roads should be paved,” said Hayden, who added that he is constantly working with the DOT on this issue. “We have made some progress,” he said, with resources limited.
“We depend on the state to pave the roads, and the state has cut back on funding.”
Holding The Line
Hayden believes the supervisors should keep real estate taxes stable, but said citizens need to understand that tax cuts must be accompanied by slashing the county’s budget. Any reductions should occur “in areas that least affect the majority,” he said.
“People tell me they are not willing or financially able to pay higher taxes or fees” and are struggling to provide basic needs to their families, Hayden said of avoiding further burdens on county resources.
The incumbent also thinks Patrick should avoid going into debt, since its debt-service-to-revenues ratio is at its limit. “As a young man born on a dirt farm in Patrick, I quickly learned to do the best with what God gave me.”
Along with the responsibilities of balancing the county’s budget and seeking to maintain quality education, law enforcement and other services, Hayden believes a supervisor should work to safeguard citizens’ individual and property rights under the U.S. Constitution.
With the candidates’ filing period not ending until June, Hayden could face opposition come election time. But he expressed appreciation for Dan River District voters having the confidence to elect him in 2009, and hopes that will continue with another term.
Reach Tom Joyce at 719-1924 or [email protected].
Read more: Mount Airy News - Patrick supervisor to seek re election
Roger T. Hayden has filed to run for another four-year term representing that district, which includes the Ararat, Claudville and Willis Gap communities. Hayden said he wants to continue being a watchdog against higher taxes and try to make headway against some of the county’s prevailing problems linked to the economy.
Hayden was elected to the county board of supervisors as a political newcomer in 2009 and now that his term is winding down, said it has been an interesting experience. “I think it was very informative,” Hayden said this week, adding that he believes he has lived up to his goal of representing Dan River District citizens and their unique interests.
“I’ve kept my promise not to raise taxes while I was in there, and I haven’t,” Hayden said of his time on the county’s five-member governing board.
Patrick has not been immune from the financial distress that has affected governmental units all over the country, and this remains a challenge, according to Hayden, who worked for nearly 40 years in local industries and is in his mid-60s.
He considers job growth the top priority, especially given the county’s poverty status. “Two-thirds of our children live below the poverty line and even a larger percentage are borderline. This is a direct relationship of their parents losing jobs due to the demise of tobacco, textile and furniture industries.”
However, Hayden, who has resided with his wife Mabel on Cox Ridge Road in Claudville for more than 45 years, believes there is hope. “We are making some progress for more employment opportunities.”
Along with serving as a county supervisor, Hayden, a former part-time employee of the USDA Farm Service Agency, is a member of various commissions involved with planning and tourism growth in the area.
He also has worked to increase Patrick County’s connectivity to high-speed Internet service, which has progressed from 20 to 95 percent in coverage.
Clashes Addressed
Tension has existed in recent years between the board of supervisors and Patrick County’s school leadership, centering on issues including funding.
Hayden said the supervisors have sought more accountability from educational officials regarding budgeting and believes that is occurring. “They are complying with that.”
The supervisors aren’t trying to run the schools, but want to ensure “quality, cost-effective education,” said Hayden, who has two grown children who are products of Patrick schools. “Once the board of supervisors approves the money the school board has, it’s up to the school board to spend the funds.”
One addition Hayden supports is having school resource officers at all campuses.
In addition, he wants to continue improvements in county safety and school mobile communications, and said a plan is in motion to construct a new tower in the Dan River District to fill voids in service.
At times, clashes have occurred among the supervisors themselves, notably between Karl Weiss of the Blue Ridge District and Locke Boyce, Peters Creek District representative. Most recently, Supervisor Hayden was caught in that cross-fire when Weiss is said to have tried to “bully” him into changing his vote on an issue in which Hayden sided with Boyce.
Boyce made public that encounter, which occurred in a closed session, leading him and Weiss to exchange verbal barbs. This included Weiss charging that Boyce was a “loose cannon” who could hurt the county’s ability to attract new industry because company representatives can’t depend on sensitive negotiations in closed sessions being kept secret.
“Well, I think the rhetoric is all political,” Hayden said this week of such conflicts. “I don’t think that all of us share the same ideology.”
However, Hayden objects to recent reports that the Patrick County Board of Supervisors has become “dysfunctional.”
“I disagree with that — I think we’ve done a lot of things well,” he said. “I don’t think that (the bickering) is affecting the functions of the board.”
Dirt Roads
Another problem Hayden wants to see addressed involves the paving of roads in the Dan River District. It has 90 miles of dirt routes that are maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, more than the other four districts in the county combined.
“This day and age, all county DOT roads should be paved,” said Hayden, who added that he is constantly working with the DOT on this issue. “We have made some progress,” he said, with resources limited.
“We depend on the state to pave the roads, and the state has cut back on funding.”
Holding The Line
Hayden believes the supervisors should keep real estate taxes stable, but said citizens need to understand that tax cuts must be accompanied by slashing the county’s budget. Any reductions should occur “in areas that least affect the majority,” he said.
“People tell me they are not willing or financially able to pay higher taxes or fees” and are struggling to provide basic needs to their families, Hayden said of avoiding further burdens on county resources.
The incumbent also thinks Patrick should avoid going into debt, since its debt-service-to-revenues ratio is at its limit. “As a young man born on a dirt farm in Patrick, I quickly learned to do the best with what God gave me.”
Along with the responsibilities of balancing the county’s budget and seeking to maintain quality education, law enforcement and other services, Hayden believes a supervisor should work to safeguard citizens’ individual and property rights under the U.S. Constitution.
With the candidates’ filing period not ending until June, Hayden could face opposition come election time. But he expressed appreciation for Dan River District voters having the confidence to elect him in 2009, and hopes that will continue with another term.
Reach Tom Joyce at 719-1924 or [email protected].
Read more: Mount Airy News - Patrick supervisor to seek re election
