Now that Tree Farms are all going "Pay-to-play",...

[biggfish]

If they're going to be selling licensing to the public they should have to get a business license and a store front to do so; and with it will come all inherent taxes and fees.  Granted if the access pass were in the $20-$30 range I wouldn't care but withe kind of profit margin they are looking at I see as a fully separate business.

They're a timber company. I guarantee they have a business license.

I ran a business all licensing is specific to industry I doubt they have a retail license and I know they don't have a store front.

[mpetersen]

Cboom give me a break ! You mentioned in a earlier post that you enjoy hunting leased property, something about getting away from the crowds. I understand where your coming from but you don't have to tell people they don't understand the issue of private property rights ! If you like the idea of the majority of hunters being priced out of these areas thats fine but you sound like an weyco lawyer ! All I want is a level of fairness and paying through the nose for access sure aint it ! How about a tax break for corporations that still allow free access ? Would offering an incentive be fair or does that interfere with some guys plan for pay to play in this state and price out the competition ?

[Alan K]

Tax incentives would be fine, sure, tax penalties for not allowing access, no.  I don't know that anyone who's arguing in favor of Weyerhaeuser (and other land owners that charge for access for that matter) is doing so because they're in support of weeding out other hunters.  Me personally, since I've heard of Weyco doing this, I've put away enough money for my girlfriend and I to purchase permits into Vail, but I'm still not 100% sure I'll go through with it.  The main reason being it's in my back yard and I could hunt in the evenings during the week. Has nothing to do with wanting to keep other people out for 'less competition'.  There is plenty of game to go around, you just have to hunt more or less hard in different areas.

I've said it before, I'm not in favor of Weyerhaeuser going the way of access permits, but am in favor of their rights to do so (without incurring any undue tax penalties).  It really erk's me hearing all the people crying rivers over this.  It's private property, we should all be thankful we were allowed access free of charge for as long as we were.  Clearly some of us were spoiled by their generosity over the years.

[fireweed]

As a person who strongly supports forestry, and who's entire extended family is deeply involved in all aspects of growing and harvesting trees--and has been for four generations--I can unequivocally say that timberland taxes are already too low--according to the intentof the laws, and the resulting impact on other taxpayers.  I am also a homeowner and I am tired of subsidizing actions that hurt my community, and reduce our quality of life.  It seems to be the USA system to fight like mad dogs to protect taxbreaks and "perks" through lobbyists and bought legislators, even if it hurts neighbors and communities, and isn't in the best interest of the budget and citizens.

On Nov. 5, 1968 the voters changed the constitution by passing House Resolution 1, allowing property taxes on certain uses of land (timber, ag, open space) to be valued at their "current use" instead of highest (development) value.  Makes sense as a carrot for keeping sprawl at bay.  However, over the years once this tax break door was opened, the definition of "current use" has eroded from what timberland would sell for to some formula based on the price of logs that has no bearing on the going-price of timberland.  Meanwhile, companies are now trading these tree farms like stock--most TIMO's and REITS aren't even in it to grow trees long term.  They buy-hold-log-sell. The voters gave this tax break and they can un-give it.   

[fireweed]

  It really erk's me hearing all the people crying rivers over this.  It's private property, we should all be thankful we were allowed access free of charge for as long as we were.  Clearly some of us were spoiled by their generosity over the years.

NO!  NO! NO!  The companies are the ones that are spoiled and entitled!!!!  They forget who gave them the tax breaks in the first place--the people directly voted this in.  They are biting the hand that has fed them since 1968, and you say we the people now need to be THANKFUL that they have allowed us access all these years?!!!!!  Spoiled by their generosity???  It's not generosity, its called good public policy and it worked for them for years.  Now, their tax breaks are in real jeopardy and their standing in the communities is mud.   According to Weyerhaeuser own policy statements they operate with a license from the public.  They need to remember that.

[pianoman9701]

As a person who strongly supports forestry, and who's entire extended family is deeply involved in all aspects of growing and harvesting trees--and has been for four generations--I can unequivocally say that timberland taxes are already too low--according to the intentof the laws, and the resulting impact on other taxpayers.  I am also a homeowner and I am tired of subsidizing actions that hurt my community, and reduce our quality of life.  It seems to be the USA system to fight like mad dogs to protect taxbreaks and "perks" through lobbyists and bought legislators, even if it hurts neighbors and communities, and isn't in the best interest of the budget and citizens.

On Nov. 5, 1968 the voters changed the constitution by passing House Resolution 1, allowing property taxes on certain uses of land (timber, ag, open space) to be valued at their "current use" instead of highest (development) value.  Makes sense as a carrot for keeping sprawl at bay.  However, over the years once this tax break door was opened, the definition of "current use" has eroded from what timberland would sell for to some formula based on the price of logs that has no bearing on the going-price of timberland.  Meanwhile, companies are now trading these tree farms like stock--most TIMO's and REITS aren't even in it to grow trees long term.  They buy-hold-log-sell. The voters gave this tax break and they can un-give it.   

Current use isn't supposed to have anything to do with what the land would sell for. It is supposed to be based off average income made off that type of land. And this is not a tax break, it is the tax rate for land with that use. The voters can try to fight for higher taxes on timberland but I think there are enough people out there that understand the negative effects it would have. And you say your quality of life is effected? I think its sad somebody would make that comment because they aren't allowed on somebody's private property    The guy down the street from me has a pool in his back yard, by your reasoning my quality of life is reduced because he doesn't let us in to use it for free.

The guy down the street pays taxes on the full value of his developed land. He's already paying his fair share like the rest of us homeowners. CBoom, I gather you're connected to the timber industry in some way. You're never going to agree that timber companies don't pay enough taxes, so just leave it at that - we're not going to agree on this issue. I, on the other hand, would be all for changing the tax structure.

[bobcat]

When home values increase, the tax each individual homeowner pays  does not increase. The tax for a particular home only goes up if its assessed value increases more than all the other houses in the county.

[bobcat]

I'm in Thurston county but it works the same way no matter where you are. Just as an example, our county just increased the assessed value of my house by about 7.5%. But ALL assessed values increased by the same amount. Therefore the property tax I pay will not go up, at least not due to the increase in my assessed value.

Hopefully someone else can explain it better than I can.

[pianoman9701]

When home values increase, the tax each individual homeowner pays  does not increase. The tax for a particular home only goes up if its assessed value increases more than all the other houses in the county.

I'd have to agree, somewhat. Although my taxes increased slightly each year that my house's value increased, it also increased when the value started decreasing.

[Special T]

Pman that rub is because they do assement every 2 years. When the prop value goes up there are lots of comperable sales to compare. when they go down less people sell and it takes MUCH longer. Less compables to change your tax burden. ITs the dirty little secrete that the state uses in land tax. It works in thier favor to climb as quickly as possible, but does not drop as quickly.

[bobcat]

Special T, your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense either. It doesn't mater if the county is late in adjusting values downward. As long as the assessed values are all too high (or too low) you will still be paying the same tax as you would after they do the adjustment.

[Curly]

Ok, who can explain why my taxes have gone up even though my assessed value has dropped over $100,000? 

[bobcat]

cboom, you're wrong, but I don't have any time to try to explain it.

Use Google and do some research.

[fireweed]

"Current use isn't supposed to have anything to do with what the land would sell for. It is supposed to be based off average income made off that type of land. " 


I have looked up articles on the 1968 amendment to the state constitution.  The people voted on changing from highest use value taxation to "current use" value taxation.  There was no talk of income, yield, stumpage values, timber excise etc.  The intent was current use value based on sales of that type of land.  Rather quickly after the current use language was adopted, the legislature started modifying the current use meaning.  They separated out timber from land, and because then it was hard to find the price of bare land, they use a productivity formula for the land.  But the original language that was voted on says nothing about basing values on income production.

If you support continued valuation based only on income potential, you must admit these Leases/fees are increasing the average income per acre above and beyond the income from timber.  If today's values top out at $243 per acre, and now with leases/fees each acre is making say $20 more per year, the taxable values should go up accordingly. 

[xd2005]

So here, in a nutshell is how property taxes work in the state of Washington.

First, counties can only increase their tax by 1%, overall. So say they brought in $1,000,000,000 in taxes last year, they can only increase that to $1,010,000,000 (think I did my math right there). The exception to this 1% rule is new development (new house, additions, etc). Any increases associated with the new development is separate from the 1% rule, although after the first year it must follow the 1% rule as well.

So it's assessment time. The county does their assessment for the year and come up with the aggregate property values, they then simply tax each property an equal amount (same amount per $1,000). If your property increased (as a percent) in value more than the rest of the county as a whole, your taxes go up more than 1%. If it does not grow as fast as the rest of the county, if goes up less than 1% (or goes down). If it grows at the same rate as the county, taxes go up 1%.

So the overall collection for the county can only increase 1%, but individual parcels are more than likely changing by more or less than 1%.

State website discusses this, probably better than me (and if something I say contradicts them, they are right, I am wrong) 
http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/taxtopics/propertytax/onepercentqna.aspx