Okay, so maybe they didn’t say it quite like that… But farmers in Minnesota are taking it that way.
A program in Minnesota called the Green Acres Program was supposed to offer property tax relief to farmers in the state, much like programs in other states. In Pennsylvania, for example, there is a similar “Clean and Green” program. The idea is to keep property taxes low for land that is used for farmland but would otherwise have a higher fair market value if sold off to build McMansions, strip malls and the like.
Only, the legislators in Minnesota apparently don’t *get* farming. This year, after hearing that developers were reportedly getting tax breaks under the program, the legislature tweaked the rules to make it more difficult to qualify for the tax breaks.
A noble goal, perhaps. But the implementation is a bit pathetic, um, lacking. Now, nonproductive land – generally considered that which is not tilled – will be taxed at a higher rate regardless of the intended use of the land. In other words, even if the purpose of the land is farming, if the government determines that it’s not productive land, there will be an increase in taxes. In some cases, the taxable value of the land as “unproductive” is reportedly as high as 20 times the farming value of the land.
It’s not entirely clear what the government believes is productive, though indications are that it must be tillable – meaning no trees. To prove that land could be productive, farmers feel that they have no choice but to cut down trees, no matter the age or purpose of the trees. Trees which may have been used as windscreens or buffers to protect farmland – or on land that is not actively being farm after years of use on a crop rotation system – could be classed as unproductive land according to memos that have been flying around the state. So, the farmers reason, the trees have to go.
Farmers are, of course, furious that they have been put in this position. Thom Petersen, director of government relations for the Minnesota Farmers Union, has said: “I’m sick when I hear that farmers — strong conservationists — are clearing their land because they don’t know what else they can do.”
Nonetheless, as a Jan 2 deadline for proving that the land is productive approaches, farmers are still rushing to clear trees to make the land look “productive.”
Which is great, Minnesota. Cause exactly what we need to curb development is cutting down more trees.
Well done.
With all due respect, taxgirl, you are falling for the “Chicken Little” propaganda of the farming lobby on this issue. Legitimate farmers will NOT be taxed at non-agricultural rates merely due to the presence of a few rows of trees at the end of a field for a windscreen. The purpose of tweaking Minnesota’s Green Acres law was to collect appropriate tax revenues from owners of country estates or hunting land, both of whom primarily use land for recreational purposes, along with so-called “farmers” on the suburban fringe who have basically become land speculators.
The following Minneapolis Star Tribune article (which is ironically intended to be sympathetic toward those impacted by the changes) provides a perfect example of exactly the type of abuse the legislative changes were designed to thwart:
http://www.startribune.com/local/north/36709579.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Quoting from the first two paragraphs of the article (emphasis mine):
Larry and Wanda Thoreson once grew alfalfa on their 135 acres just northeast of Zimmerman. Then Larry decided to plant trees, lots of trees, figuring the land would be more appealing to developers that way.
“We’re on fixed incomes now and we looked at this land as our retirement, our nest egg,” said Larry Thoreson, 67. “We had some trees coming up that we were really happy with.”
FYI, Zimmerman is a semi-rural community about 40 miles north of Minneapolis, and there were tons of crappy tract homes being constructed around the area until the real estate market correction of the last few years. As one who was born and raised in a similar community west of Minneapolis (my parents still reside there), I am all for these legislative changes. The tales of abuse under the prior Green Acres provisions were legendary, to the point where the law was a joke. Putting a couple horses out to graze in a pasture or even planting small plots of hay does not constitute “farming.”
Thanks for your comment and for the link!
I have no doubt that the legislature was trying to fix exactly the problem that you mention – I just think they went about it the wrong way.
And while I tend to be sympathetic to many causes, unions aren’t traditionally one of them… I did, however, read the annual report from the Minnesota Farmers Union (which I suspect does not represent many of those who own country estates), the full report from the MN legislature and the official statements from the Department of Revenue/Taxation in MN (all of these are available online if you’re interested). I’ve also read several articles and snippets of the infamous memos – dating back to August 2008. Most of my sources indicate that this legislation might have been tweaked for the right reasons – but that the implementation is sketchy. Even Revenue states that the land must be for “actual agricultural production” – which would mean that any working farm with nonproductive acreage would face a higher tax bill.
I can think of better ways to accomplish this goal (examining the ratio of productive to nonproductive lands, for example) – I can’t understand why MN legislators are unable to.
God Bless Government, and whoever works for them, including the lobbyist. Our lives are made richer by their action (or inaction) across this great country. Ever wonder what made the Founding Fathers want change? The early Americans had a great government who told them how to live and taxed them to insure they understood. Good thing our forebearers had the good sense to create change, and followed through with it.
Maybe Minnesota government doesn’t understand farming.