Citizen's Initiative for timber tax rate change.

[pianoman9701]

Correction.
Maintaining the current tax rate for timber lands open to public access.

Our State lands aren't even open to public access without a fee.  I think that is where I would be a little more upset about.

One problem is not mutually exclusive of the other. We pissed about both. In addition, the timber companies are asking for a lot more than $30.

Look CBoom and Goshawk, trying to convince the people who pay the new fees, or especially those who now can't afford to pay the fees that this is justified cost and that the logging companies shouldn't pay higher taxes as a result isn't going to work. No one likes paying for something that used to be free. I'm sure your argument is that yes, we got it free and should be thankful for all of those years that it was. But we aren't. We're pissed because the land is now unavailable to us without putting up what is for some, a too big chunk of cash. In addition, Rayonier decided last week that regardless of permit and adult supervision, those under 18 will no longer be allowed to hunt their land. So even if you can afford it, the family experience is gone for many. You're not going to dispel the image that the timber companies are getting away with our tax dollars.

I would suggest that the next time you two go to one of your logging association meetings that you mention to all who attend that the perception of the general hunting public (maybe the camping public, as well), is that they're getting a free ride and it's not going to last forever. The tide will change for them. The present tax rate may stand this year and next, maybe for another 5 years. But, I guarantee that if the timber companies continue to make access to public hunting on their land a thing of the past, they're going to end up paying for it with a higher tax rate. Fair  or not, that's the situation you'll be faced with.

[grundy53]

How are they getting away with our tax dollars? I think you might want to research a these so called "public access tax breaks".

sent from my typewriter

[Special T]

I cant remember the name of the duck hunting club, but it has been hunted by many president's and such. it employs ONLY row boats and old cork decoys....
Anyway this club had an open space type tax exception. It was however reevaluated that it was more of a recreational piece of property than open space and the taxes were changed accordingly.

If you want to keep access to the public, you must be/seem reasonable.... Paying for access and making age limitations sounds more like managing recreation  than  safety of property from theft and garbage.  I would make the argument that controlling vehicle traffic on private property would be reasonable with existing use however regulating non motorized traffic would not.

[pianoman9701]

I cant remember the name of the duck hunting club, but it has been hunted by many president's and such. it employs ONLY row boats and old cork decoys....
Anyway this club had an open space type tax exception. It was however reevaluated that it was more of a recreational piece of property than open space and the taxes were changed accordingly.

If you want to keep access to the public, you must be/seem reasonable.... Paying for access and making age limitations sounds more like managing recreation  than  safety of property from theft and garbage.  I would make the argument that controlling vehicle traffic on private property would be reasonable with existing use however regulating non motorized traffic would not.

  x2. I have no problem walking in. I have a problem with not getting in at all.

[headshot5]

I would suggest that the next time you two go to one of your logging association meetings that you mention to all who attend that the perception of the general hunting public (maybe the camping public, as well), is that they're getting a free ride and it's not going to last forever. The tide will change for them. The present tax rate may stand this year and next, maybe for another 5 years. But, I guarantee that if the timber companies continue to make access to public hunting on their land a thing of the past, they're going to end up paying for it with a higher tax rate. Fair  or not, that's the situation you'll be faced with.

I'd like to know when hunting (a privilege in Washington), became more important than private property rights?

[pianoman9701]

I would suggest that the next time you two go to one of your logging association meetings that you mention to all who attend that the perception of the general hunting public (maybe the camping public, as well), is that they're getting a free ride and it's not going to last forever. The tide will change for them. The present tax rate may stand this year and next, maybe for another 5 years. But, I guarantee that if the timber companies continue to make access to public hunting on their land a thing of the past, they're going to end up paying for it with a higher tax rate. Fair  or not, that's the situation you'll be faced with.

I'd like to know when hunting (a privilege in Washington), became more important than private property rights?

It didn't and won't. You can do what you want with your own property. That includes, but is not limited to allowing the general public to recreate on it. It's absolutely up to you. I would never seek to take that away.

[fireweed]

Here's a re-cap of what we've learned about the property tax policies to get all folks up to speed:

1) in 1968 the voters changed the state constitution to allow "current use" values instead of full fair market value taxation on farms, open space, and timberland.  This was done to slow the loss of open space, and make if affordable to keep open land in rapidly developing areas.  At the time, critics called it a "giveaway" to big timber with no guarantees that the land would remain in timber or farm.  Supporters said it would stop sprawl.  The initiative passed and legislature then implemented this policy in 1970.

2) Over time the legislature has re-examined the "current use" program.   Today there are several categories based on how the land is used and parcel size.  One is called Open Space.  This is mostly for smaller parcels of Farm/ag or timber.   Additionally open space/open space is for conservation or recreation lands.  Designated farm or "designated timber" is for larger parcels over 20 acres.   Farm land must show income.  Many counties require a management plan for open space/timberland.  Most of our discussions are around "designated timber"  belonging to "industrial timberland" over 5,000 acres.

 3) Open space/open space property values are calculated completely different than other types of lands in the program.  It is hard and expensive to get land in this category.  The value is based on a "weighted benefit" system--the more public benefits the land has, the more the taxable value is reduced.  Public access is worth a 10% reduction in value.  This is the only type of land assessed this way. Golf courses or private parks or conservation areas can use this category.

4) Taxable timberland values are no longer based on selling value of pure timberland at all.   Designated timberland value is based only on the value of logs harvested in the state, and how good the land is for growing trees.  A chart is published for assessors to use.  Currently  the value tops out at about $240 per acre.  In addition if the land is logged, the state collects a 5% excise tax on the value of logs minus certain expenses.  This covers the value of the trees (vs. the land).  It is possible to never log the land, never pay the excise tax, and continue to reap the benefits of land supposed to be used "primarily" for growing and harvesting trees.

5) Public access is not required for any of these programs.  In fact, for designated timberland, nothing is really required except that land must be stocked with trees.  The are few checks and balances to the program.  HOWEVER, the legislature currently justifies the designated timberland program this way:

RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
  (1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone.

There are many public benefits listed here but no "guarantees" for any of them.  The state's Forest Practice Rules cover some, but not scenic and recreational spaces, or jobs, or a logging requirement.  You could never log, never provide a job, hit the WDFW up for wildlife damage, and never allow public access to millions of acres, and still qualify for the full tax break under the current system.

[snowpack]

Here is another problem... Much of our state land IS behind a gate there is a lot of checkerboard property of mixed DNR and private. we are told we are locked out BECAUSE of the concerns of the private timber owners, yet we loose access to what is ours. If you have hunted the south, you know how common land leases are for hunting/recreation. I fear that is where we are headed.

Has WYCO "blocked up" most of its holdings? Or are there still significant checkerboards within their holdings?

This is one of my main concerns.  The hidden sections of state land.  I think it is fine if they block access to their own private land, but not when they block off state land.  DNR does land swaps at times, and I think they should be looking in to swaps or providing some kind of access easement.  Otherwise, they are benefiting by a de facto increase in the size of their tree farms and can control the animals in the DNR sections. 

[Special T]

Fireweed, Very insightful post thankyou. 

[fireweed]

Here is another problem... Much of our state land IS behind a gate there is a lot of checkerboard property of mixed DNR and private. we are told we are locked out BECAUSE of the concerns of the private timber owners, yet we loose access to what is ours. If you have hunted the south, you know how common land leases are for hunting/recreation. I fear that is where we are headed.

Has WYCO "blocked up" most of its holdings? Or are there still significant checkerboards within their holdings?

This is one of my main concerns.  The hidden sections of state land.  I think it is fine if they block access to their own private land, but not when they block off state land.  DNR does land swaps at times, and I think they should be looking in to swaps or providing some kind of access easement.  Otherwise, they are benefiting by a de facto increase in the size of their tree farms and can control the animals in the DNR sections.

In SW Washington an entire 35,000-acre state DNR Forest, about 40,000 acres of USFS land, and a 7,000-acre WDFW Wildlife area is landlocked by Weyerhaeuser.  None of this is checkerboarded--these are contiguous parcels!  They could charge fees to go to this public land, and currently they have much of the access here gated--including public trailheads.  This "issue" is perhaps why they haven't added fees to the St. Helens Tree Farm--yet.   

[SCRUBS]

Well, I can't find any more information on this, so it looks like if we want this to go forward it will be up to us. I'll be talking to an attorney to get  an educated direction on writing a citizens initiative.

Anyone on the board wanting to help who is a lawyer?

Contact Tim Eyman 

Eyman is about lowering taxes, not raising them like these guys want 

I know, what I figured was Tim would be able to help him out with how the whole process works.

[Goshawk]

Yea, but most of his get tossed out by the court.

I'm surprised how quickly this has been bent into a don't raise my taxes or tell me what to do with my land argument.
The intent is to keep open timberlands which have been open without raising anything. Lands that go under lease and thus bringing in an income other than timberland revenue would be taxed differently. Each of us from multinational corporate to Bob and Ann's Place pay according to what we do with it.
Why is providing a finical incentive to keep timberlands open to the public so bad?

Keep the conversation going. I'm learning!

[fireweed]

 The issue is simple. 
Our state gives a tax break to a certain company or industry for doing A-B-C&D.  For years this was a win-win.  The public gets something, and the industry gets something.  In this case the public even is willing to pay more in property taxes, so the industry can pay less. 

Then the industry stops doing "A" or charges for "A".  It's only responsible and reasonable for citizens to insist the state re-visit the tax break.   No business is "entitled" to a tax break--forever--without question--without changes, no matter what they do.  The entitlement mentality works both ends of the political spectrum, it seems.

[Knocker of rocks]

The issue is simple. 
Our state gives a tax break to a certain company or industry for doing A-B-C&D.  For years this was a win-win.  The public gets something, and the industry gets something.  In this case the public even is willing to pay more in property taxes, so the industry can pay less. 

Then the industry stops doing "A" or charges for "A".  It's only responsible and reasonable for citizens to insist the state re-visit the tax break.   No business is "entitled" to a tax break--forever--without question--without changes, no matter what they do. The entitlement mentality works both ends of the political spectrum, it seems.

I have read thru your posts, and I agree with you.  This would not be a taking (something that concerns me ) but would be a revisiting of what we (the State and citizens) agreed to.

[Bigshooter]

The issue is simple. 
Our state gives a tax break to a certain company or industry for doing A-B-C&D.  For years this was a win-win.  The public gets something, and the industry gets something.  In this case the public even is willing to pay more in property taxes, so the industry can pay less. 

Then the industry stops doing "A" or charges for "A".  It's only responsible and reasonable for citizens to insist the state re-visit the tax break.   No business is "entitled" to a tax break--forever--without question--without changes, no matter what they do.  The entitlement mentality works both ends of the political spectrum, it seems.

They are not getting a tax break. They are paying the specified rate for the type of land they have. If they are getting a tax break so are you, there are people that pay a higher income tax rate than you. Maybe its time you quit getting those subsidies and pay the highest rate?  At the end of the day this has nothing to do with taxes, it is all about some of you thinking you should be able to use something of somebody else's.

Yes they are.  They agreed with the state of WA years ago to keep there land open to the PUBLIC in exchange for lower taxes.