Vail/ PeEll tree farm permits

[Humptulips]

6x6in6,

I actually don't want to see their taxes go up. I do think it is our only wedge to reopen the pay to hunt timberlands. I for one am all for using whatever it takes.
Will  this raise the price of their product? I don't think so. Competition determines what they can charge and there is more timberland outside of WA then in. The amount they are going to take in from pay to hunt is pretty small potatoes anyway. If they are smart they would back off and we would keep the status quo. No price increases there.
The only question is could something along those lines be passed? If it can you beat them over the head with it 'till they cave.

I'd like to add I am a retired logger and in the past I was pretty pro-timber and saw the good in allowing timberlands a tax break. As the years have went by however the big companies have become less and less community friendly. Seen too many gypos screwed by them and an end to community involvement. All they are interested in now is the bottom line. Fair enough, let's take the same attitude. If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.

P.S. 
You wrote this: "That would equate to the same as your property being taxed at it's sales rate, or fair market value "

I'm not sure I see the inequity in this. It seems those are the rules everyone else has to play by.

[6x6in6]

The inequity would be that you said that the timberland should be taxed at the sales price once it was conveyed to a new buyer and remained timberland.
That places WeyCo in a higher position of taxable value than other property owners across the State. 
So no, it is not the same rules everyone else has to play by.  WeyCo, and other timberland holders, would be held to a higher effective tax rate then the average Joe.

Yes, I agree, that they are only interested in the bottom line.  This is why they would pocket the fee entry/lease monies and not apply them to the higher tax rate they have incurred.  This is where the the prices would jump and the consumer would swallow the increases.
WeyCo likes money just like you an I do.  If they can cut a better margin, of course they are.

I don't like the whole pay to play issue at hand either.  It sucks!!!  Apparently WeyCo has found a tax loophole (or decided this is a windfall opportunity without tax implications) and is going to use it.  But taxing them higher is only going to cause those user fees to go up further, cause the raw materials that they produce to the consumer to elevate and sit back and cut a fat hog on the whole deal.  It's business.  Screw thy neighbor is the name of the game now days.  Screwing thy neighbor in this instance is a cash cow. 
It just blows and I have no clue what the answer is but higher taxes is a disaster in the making. 

[bobcat]

It just blows and I have no clue what the answer is but higher taxes is a disaster in the making. 

But isn't Humptulips saying that as long as they allow public access to their lands the tax rate would not go up?

[fireweed]

6x6in6,

I actually don't want to see their taxes go up. I do think it is our only wedge to reopen the pay to hunt timberlands. I for one am all for using whatever it takes.
Will  this raise the price of their product? I don't think so. Competition determines what they can charge and there is more timberland outside of WA then in. The amount they are going to take in from pay to hunt is pretty small potatoes anyway. If they are smart they would back off and we would keep the status quo. No price increases there.
The only question is could something along those lines be passed? If it can you beat them over the head with it 'till they cave.

I'd like to add I am a retired logger and in the past I was pretty pro-timber and saw the good in allowing timberlands a tax break. As the years have went by however the big companies have become less and less community friendly. Seen too many gypos screwed by them and an end to community involvement. All they are interested in now is the bottom line. Fair enough, let's take the same attitude. If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.

P.S. 
You wrote this: "That would equate to the same as your property being taxed at it's sales rate, or fair market value "

I'm not sure I see the inequity in this. It seems those are the rules everyone else has to play by.

RIGHT ON!!!!!  The property tax breaks they enjoy are our best leverage.   I don't think it is a  coincidence that the fee-to-enter was announced just as the state legislature was quitting for the year.  They hope we will all forget and calm down by the time it is in session again. 

[grundy53]

I love how you guys want to tell a private entity what to do with THEIR own land. Be careful what you wish for. If the state sees that this tactic of threatening to raise taxes works you bet your sweet hiney they will pull this with YOU.  Hope no one here owns any of their own land....

sent from my typewriter

[6x6in6]

It just blows and I have no clue what the answer is but higher taxes is a disaster in the making. 

But isn't Humptulips saying that as long as they allow public access to their lands the tax rate would not go up?

Yes he is.
But what I am saying is that WeyCo has apparently found a way to implement the public access fees without property tax implications.
WeyCo isn't interested in allowing free public access anymore.  They are interested in revenue generation to improve their bottom line. 
They may very well understand that the State cannot reinvent the timberland tax wheel due to what the economic impact would be.  <------  Pure speculation by me!!

[bobcat]

Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?

If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.

[bobcat]

Does anyone know about the Weyerhaeuser fee hunting that was in place somewhere in western Oregon a few years ago? And then it seems like Weyerhaeuser gave up on that program and they no longer charge for access? I could be wrong but I remember reading something along those lines. I'll have to do some research and find out what happened with that.

[grundy53]

Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?

If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.

It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next  40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).

sent from my typewriter

[Humptulips]

The inequity would be that you said that the timberland should be taxed at the sales price once it was conveyed to a new buyer and remained timberland.
That places WeyCo in a higher position of taxable value than other property owners across the State. 
So no, it is not the same rules everyone else has to play by.  WeyCo, and other timberland holders, would be held to a higher effective tax rate then the average Joe.

So where do you live in the state that you buy some property and the Assessor doesn't look at the sales price and use it to put a valuation on your new property?

[headshot5]

Yep raise the rates.   


I might be able to use my retirement to buy 1 EA 2X6.   

[headshot5]

Feel free to look over the following...


http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/openspace.pdf



Edit:  Any private owner can have his land classified as such (if you meet requirements).  If you try to increase taxes for the large timber companies the smaller private owners will also be hit.

Also note: Timber is not taxed at its assessed value until it is cut (excise tax)http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/default.aspx. 

Otherwise, owners would lose more money to taxes than you would get out of harvest (read 30-50 year production cycle on most timber), so large timber companies would no longer want to raise timber (net loss of money).

They call it private land for a reason.    
 

[Humptulips]

Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?

If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.

It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next  40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).

sent from my typewriter

You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be  a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber. 

[grundy53]

Grundy, so do you not agree with the below quote?

If they buy land for $3000/acre how can anyone think it is OK to value that land for tax puposes at $150/acre unless the public is shown some benefit. If they want it to be just dollars and cents so be it, their choice.

It isn't for public access. It is because the land becomes basically useless for the next  40 years ( while the trees grow). The state makes the difference up when Weyerhaeuser PAYS THE EXCISE TAX on the harvested timber. So they end up pay more taxes. Same as a wheat farmer in eastern Washington (who isn't forced to allow public access).

sent from my typewriter

You don't understand the excise tax on timber. It applies to all timber sold regardless of if it comes off a tree farm or not. We sold timber off our land, 7 acres, not tree farm status, no tax break. The land has a tax valuation of $4500/acre. The adjoining property is timberland but the same type land. It has a tax valuation of $150/acre.
We pay the same exact percentage tax when timber is sold. To say the timber excise tax makes up for the timberland tax break is not true. It works out to be  a seperate tax that applies to all who sell timber.

I bet 90 percent of timber comes off of timber lands. Your example is the exception not the rule. You aren't tying up thousands of acres making them basically worthless for 40 years at  a time.  7 acres is  not even a drop in the hat....

sent from my typewriter

[headshot5]

Yep updated my above post with links to tax information, and open space tax breaks. 

Please read them and notice that public access is not required for tax breaks although it helps to qualify.  Other things like scenery, protecting a watershed etc, providing wildlife habitat etc are all things that fit in.