E-mail from WDFW

[bobcat]

What some fail to realize is they are still providing access. They are only charging for Vail and Pe ell. So the st helens tree farm is still available (for now). So they are actually proving some access.

I think most people realize that. The Aberdeen tree farm is also still open for access. But what's going to happen next year? I fully expect them to implement the access fee on all their lands. Why would they not? I assume they just aren't quite ready to lock it all up at this point. Maybe they need to get a few more gates installed. Or maybe they just wanted to ease into it and not upset everyone all at once.

[pianoman9701]

[/quote]
Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed!   
[/quote]

I have no idea what this means.

[bobcat]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

[bobcat]

It seems like what we need is to somehow get the funding and pay Weyerhaeser for conservation easements, with the stipulation that the public will always have FREE access.

Something like what King County just did with Hancock's White River tree farm:

King County, continuing a decade long drive to protect working forests from urban sprawl, has struck a deal to buy development rights on a 43,000-acre tree farm east of Enumclaw.
County Executive Dow Constantine announced the $11.1 million agreement with Hancock Timber Resources Group on Thursday, saying it would — if approved by the Metropolitan King County Council — expand the county’s “green wall against sprawl.”
One of the largest deals of its type, the transaction would allow the county to reach its goal of protecting 200,000 acres of forestland from development, Constantine said.
“We’ve made steady progress, but there was always one missing piece of the puzzle — the White River Forest in South King County,” he said.
He said the forest is the largest block of privately owned land in the county not already protected from development. It would continue to be operated as a working forest, with the public allowed to use the land for recreation.
Hancock’s board approved the deal Thursday. County Councilmembers Larry Phillips and Reagan Dunn, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, declared their support Thursday.
Dunn said he would urge the council to approve it “as expeditiously as possible.”
The forest lies mostly north of Highway 410 and the White River, stretching from the Enumclaw city limits to east of Greenwater on the route to Crystal Mountain ski resort and Chinook Pass.
Without the county’s purchase of development rights, Hancock or a future landowner could have built 857 homes on 40- and 80-acre lots. The land is zoned for commercial forestry.
“There aren’t going to be subdivisions and shopping malls and sprawl to the Cascade crest,” Phillips said.
The County Council last fall set aside $3 million from the countywide parks levy and the conservation-futures levy toward a possible purchase of development rights on the White River Forest.
Constantine has asked the council to authorize the sale of bonds backed by conservation futures for the $8.1 million needed to close the purchase.
The county has acquired forestland in the form of either land ownership or, more often, purchase of development rights. Those rights can be sold to developers, who use them to increase the density of their projects in urban areas.
King County paid Hancock Timber $22 million in 2004 for development rights on its 89,000-acre Snoqualmie Forest, which stretches from the Snohomish County line almost to Snoqualmie and North Bend.
In a 2008 deal, the county acquired — at no cost to taxpayers — a conservation easement preventing future development of Plum Creek Timber’s 45,500-acre forest at the headwaters of the Green River. Plum Creek agreed to the deal in exchange for the ability to sell development rights.
Cynthia Welti, executive director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, said she was “stunned” to learn of the latest deal, calling it “enormous for the region.”
Purchasing development rights instead of buying land makes sense, Welti said. “The county cannot afford to buy this land, and shouldn’t,” she said. “It’s a perfect use of the transfer of development-rights program.”
Dan Christensen, CEO of Boston-based Hancock Timber, said in a statement the deal brings the company’s protection of “sensitive lands” around the globe to 470,000 acres — of which about 132,000 are in King County.
“We are pleased to move one step closer to our common goal of protecting the impressive White River property as a working forest in perpetuity,” he said.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com

[6x6in6]

Ok, so you can't show me how after you said we were.
I didn't think we were but I just wanted make sure of that cuz I would then be pissed!   
[/quote]

I have no idea what this means.
[/quote]

Just like I had no idea why you made the statements that started our dialogue here.     

[6x6in6]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

OK, then you answer it for me.   
I really, really want to know.   

[6x6in6]

Fee for access is the only issue with regard to the general public. We're already paying to access the land through their tax exemptions under recreational use. We pay the added taxes. They're paid through these expemtions for the public service of offering land that all of us can enjoy. As soon as it becomes pay-to-play, the deal's off.

Would you mind showing me how all of this happens and how that directly affects you and I, tax wise?
Basically, show me how you and I are past/present paying for timberland tax reductions/exemptions.

Here, made it easy for you bobcat so we don't get confused on what you understand here.

Fire away..........

[bearpaw]

  now you are getting somewhere

It seems like what we need is to somehow get the funding and pay Weyerhaeser for conservation easements, with the stipulation that the public will always have FREE access.

Something like what King County just did with Hancock's White River tree farm:

King County, continuing a decade long drive to protect working forests from urban sprawl, has struck a deal to buy development rights on a 43,000-acre tree farm east of Enumclaw.
County Executive Dow Constantine announced the $11.1 million agreement with Hancock Timber Resources Group on Thursday, saying it would — if approved by the Metropolitan King County Council — expand the county’s “green wall against sprawl.”
One of the largest deals of its type, the transaction would allow the county to reach its goal of protecting 200,000 acres of forestland from development, Constantine said.
“We’ve made steady progress, but there was always one missing piece of the puzzle — the White River Forest in South King County,” he said.
He said the forest is the largest block of privately owned land in the county not already protected from development. It would continue to be operated as a working forest, with the public allowed to use the land for recreation.
Hancock’s board approved the deal Thursday. County Councilmembers Larry Phillips and Reagan Dunn, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, declared their support Thursday.
Dunn said he would urge the council to approve it “as expeditiously as possible.”
The forest lies mostly north of Highway 410 and the White River, stretching from the Enumclaw city limits to east of Greenwater on the route to Crystal Mountain ski resort and Chinook Pass.
Without the county’s purchase of development rights, Hancock or a future landowner could have built 857 homes on 40- and 80-acre lots. The land is zoned for commercial forestry.
“There aren’t going to be subdivisions and shopping malls and sprawl to the Cascade crest,” Phillips said.
The County Council last fall set aside $3 million from the countywide parks levy and the conservation-futures levy toward a possible purchase of development rights on the White River Forest.
Constantine has asked the council to authorize the sale of bonds backed by conservation futures for the $8.1 million needed to close the purchase.
The county has acquired forestland in the form of either land ownership or, more often, purchase of development rights. Those rights can be sold to developers, who use them to increase the density of their projects in urban areas.
King County paid Hancock Timber $22 million in 2004 for development rights on its 89,000-acre Snoqualmie Forest, which stretches from the Snohomish County line almost to Snoqualmie and North Bend.
In a 2008 deal, the county acquired — at no cost to taxpayers — a conservation easement preventing future development of Plum Creek Timber’s 45,500-acre forest at the headwaters of the Green River. Plum Creek agreed to the deal in exchange for the ability to sell development rights.
Cynthia Welti, executive director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, said she was “stunned” to learn of the latest deal, calling it “enormous for the region.”
Purchasing development rights instead of buying land makes sense, Welti said. “The county cannot afford to buy this land, and shouldn’t,” she said. “It’s a perfect use of the transfer of development-rights program.”
Dan Christensen, CEO of Boston-based Hancock Timber, said in a statement the deal brings the company’s protection of “sensitive lands” around the globe to 470,000 acres — of which about 132,000 are in King County.
“We are pleased to move one step closer to our common goal of protecting the impressive White River property as a working forest in perpetuity,” he said.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com

[pianoman9701]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

OK, then you answer it for me.   
I really, really want to know.

I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.

When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.

But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.

Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)

Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.

[bearpaw]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

OK, then you answer it for me.   
I really, really want to know.

I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.

When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.

But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.

Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)

Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.

Piano you seem to be making an assumption that timberland taxes were lowered and yours were raised. They pay a lower rate for undeveloped timber land just as I do or any other timber land owner. If I convert that acreage with improvements or clearing it to farm my tax rate will go up, that is incentive to keep it undeveloped. Remember, logs are the slowest growing crop and provide the slowest rate of return, it is only fair that taxes are less on timber lands. If you make the rate the same as farm ground or developed property you will see a net loss of timber lands in this state. 

But I can assure you that assessed value of timberland has been increasing just as assessed value on farmed or improved land has been increasing. Taxes are more, not less, for timberland than they were even only 10 years ago.

[pianoman9701]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

OK, then you answer it for me.   
I really, really want to know.

I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.

When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.

But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.

Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)

Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.

Piano you seem to be making an assumption that timberland taxes were lowered and yours were raised. They pay a lower rate for undeveloped timber land just as I do or any other timber land owner. If I convert that acreage with improvements or clearing it to farm my tax rate will go up, that is incentive to keep it undeveloped. Remember, logs are the slowest growing crop and provide the slowest rate of return, it is only fair that taxes are less on timber lands. If you make the rate the same as farm ground or developed property you will see a net loss of timber lands in this state. 

But I can assure you that assessed value of timberland has been increasing just as assessed value on farmed or improved land has been increasing. Taxes are more, not less, for timberland than they were even only 10 years ago.

I can assure you, Bearpaw, that when we give tax exemptions to corporations, the first thing the elected spenders in Olympia ask is "where and with what can I replace it". This is not a valuation adjustment. It is an exemption form regular timber taxation rates.

[6x6in6]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

OK, then you answer it for me.   
I really, really want to know.

I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.

When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.

But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.

Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)

Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.

No you didn't piano.
Unless of course you can directly show me how the candy, soda, gas tax........heck, I'll even pitch in your etc, was created/raised because of the tax exemptions given to timber companies for the purpose of recreational use.  Heck, skip the recreational use part of it.  Show me the direct ties of those taxes you referred to as a the result of exemptions on timber taxes!!!!

[6x6in6]

Pman, don't worry, I understood exactly what you were saying.

OK, then you answer it for me.   
I really, really want to know.

I already answered you. I'll try and lay it out more clearly for you.

When a company gets an exemption from paying taxes, that exempted money no longer exists to go into the general fund because it's no longer being paid.

But, the government already has that money spent. It has to find it somewhere else.

Then the government creates a new tax or raises the rate of an existing tax (new tax on candy and soda, raising the gas tax, etc.)

Now, you and I are paying that tax because of the exemption for the timber company for our recreational use of their land. If they're no longer allowing recreational use, they should start paying the tax again.

Piano you seem to be making an assumption that timberland taxes were lowered and yours were raised. They pay a lower rate for undeveloped timber land just as I do or any other timber land owner. If I convert that acreage with improvements or clearing it to farm my tax rate will go up, that is incentive to keep it undeveloped. Remember, logs are the slowest growing crop and provide the slowest rate of return, it is only fair that taxes are less on timber lands. If you make the rate the same as farm ground or developed property you will see a net loss of timber lands in this state. 

But I can assure you that assessed value of timberland has been increasing just as assessed value on farmed or improved land has been increasing. Taxes are more, not less, for timberland than they were even only 10 years ago.

I can assure you, Bearpaw, that when we give tax exemptions to corporations, the first thing the elected spenders in Olympia ask is "where and with what can I replace it". This is not a valuation adjustment. It is an exemption form regular timber taxation rates.

Great, assure both bearpaw and I.
Show us the ties.
That's all I ask.
Your assurances don't me squat piano.  With all due respect!!!

[pianoman9701]

Don't me squat? I'm sorry, but I don't speak Ebonics and can't figure out a lot of what you're saying.

I care about tax revenues. Maybe you don't, and that's OK for you. I personally like to know that someone who's getting an exemption is earning it. If they aren't, they should pay full taxes like I pay. In this case, we're talking about a mighty big corporation who has just marked two large chunks of land out of public use. If they're getting a deduction for recreational use and they're taking away recreational use, then I want them to lose the deduction. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

As far as proving to you that we pay for their deduction, I can't. But I do know that that money is gone when they take it for a deduction. And next year, my local school district will be asking for a levy or a bond measure because there's not enough money.

[Northway]

It seems like what we need is to somehow get the funding and pay Weyerhaeser for conservation easements, with the stipulation that the public will always have FREE access.

Something like what King County just did with Hancock's White River tree farm:

King County, continuing a decade long drive to protect working forests from urban sprawl, has struck a deal to buy development rights on a 43,000-acre tree farm east of Enumclaw.
County Executive Dow Constantine announced the $11.1 million agreement with Hancock Timber Resources Group on Thursday, saying it would — if approved by the Metropolitan King County Council — expand the county’s “green wall against sprawl.”
One of the largest deals of its type, the transaction would allow the county to reach its goal of protecting 200,000 acres of forestland from development, Constantine said.
“We’ve made steady progress, but there was always one missing piece of the puzzle — the White River Forest in South King County,” he said.
He said the forest is the largest block of privately owned land in the county not already protected from development. It would continue to be operated as a working forest, with the public allowed to use the land for recreation.
Hancock’s board approved the deal Thursday. County Councilmembers Larry Phillips and Reagan Dunn, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, declared their support Thursday.
Dunn said he would urge the council to approve it “as expeditiously as possible.”
The forest lies mostly north of Highway 410 and the White River, stretching from the Enumclaw city limits to east of Greenwater on the route to Crystal Mountain ski resort and Chinook Pass.
Without the county’s purchase of development rights, Hancock or a future landowner could have built 857 homes on 40- and 80-acre lots. The land is zoned for commercial forestry.
“There aren’t going to be subdivisions and shopping malls and sprawl to the Cascade crest,” Phillips said.
The County Council last fall set aside $3 million from the countywide parks levy and the conservation-futures levy toward a possible purchase of development rights on the White River Forest.
Constantine has asked the council to authorize the sale of bonds backed by conservation futures for the $8.1 million needed to close the purchase.
The county has acquired forestland in the form of either land ownership or, more often, purchase of development rights. Those rights can be sold to developers, who use them to increase the density of their projects in urban areas.
King County paid Hancock Timber $22 million in 2004 for development rights on its 89,000-acre Snoqualmie Forest, which stretches from the Snohomish County line almost to Snoqualmie and North Bend.
In a 2008 deal, the county acquired — at no cost to taxpayers — a conservation easement preventing future development of Plum Creek Timber’s 45,500-acre forest at the headwaters of the Green River. Plum Creek agreed to the deal in exchange for the ability to sell development rights.
Cynthia Welti, executive director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, said she was “stunned” to learn of the latest deal, calling it “enormous for the region.”
Purchasing development rights instead of buying land makes sense, Welti said. “The county cannot afford to buy this land, and shouldn’t,” she said. “It’s a perfect use of the transfer of development-rights program.”
Dan Christensen, CEO of Boston-based Hancock Timber, said in a statement the deal brings the company’s protection of “sensitive lands” around the globe to 470,000 acres — of which about 132,000 are in King County.
“We are pleased to move one step closer to our common goal of protecting the impressive White River property as a working forest in perpetuity,” he said.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com

This is in addition to 90,000 acres of the Snoqualmie Tree farm that was put under conservation easement in a deal between Hancock & King County that was facilitated by Forterra. The price of the easement was over $20 million. The tree farm will remain a working forest.