It's Official--Timber sues county

[headshot5]

Even without the value of the timber, the underlying land is taxed at a much lower value than bare timberland sells for on the open market.  This "current use" value of the land is based on the quality of the ground for growing trees and the selling value of logs and is calculated by the dept of revenue.  Good Westside bare timberland would sell for between $500 and 1000 per acre on the open market in areas with no development value, but those same acres on average have a "current use value" of about $130 per acre.  The standard property tax rate is calculated on this value.

I understand the above, and I agree they are taxed less than the rate it would sell for.  If taxed at the full rate (your proposed sale rate) it would make it hard for someone with say 10-20 acres in designated forest land to pay the full rate taxes for 40+ years and then finally get a payoff (harvest).  At some point, you have paid more in taxes than you did buying the property initially.  Nothing guarantees what price you will get on the logs at time of harvest either as it is based off market prices, so all of the sudden raising timber becomes more of a gamble than an investment.  All the smaller owners are going to get rid of their timber ground as opposed to rolling snake eyes in investment potential.               

[Antlershed]

Interestingly, every time someone brings up removing the Timber Company's tax break, several HuntWa members reply, saying how stupid the other member is, claiming that the Timber industry does NOT get a tax break, or that it has nothing to do with allowing access...

This should be an interesting lawsuit.  I wonder how much it'll cost tax payers?

The tax rate paid by timber is set by land use.  To say that they get a tax break would be like saying a SFR gets a tax break because they pay a different rate than does a twenty story condo on almost the same lot size.

It will cost the Tax payer of Grayss Harbor Co,   but not the State of WA.

The tax break is NOT for allowing public access. It is because they pay the tax when they harvest the timber. Grays Harbor County is essentially making the tax break all about access. The timber companies should shut down all access and not lose their classification as "open space". 

Oops, my "should" should have been "could". I paid for a WeyCo pass this year, and will probably continue to do so to a certain price point. 

[Antlershed]

Fireweed- the law you posted says the states policy ENCOURAGES timber companies to maintain all those benefits. Nowhere does it say it requires it for the tax break. It also doesn't say free recreational spaces.

[bmccalister]

All I ask is for some consistency to the fee's to access timber lands and that they try to make it affordable for everyone. I know each timber company has a right to regulate access to their land they way they see fit, but why should it be $75.00 for a general access for this area, $250.00 for this area, $200 for that area, $300 for this other area, and so on by one timber company while other timber companies charge a flat fee of $300 and allow you to get five cords of wood. Just wanted to add my 

[Coastal_native]

Fireweed- the law you posted says the states policy ENCOURAGES timber companies to maintain all those benefits. Nowhere does it say it requires it for the tax break. It also doesn't say free recreational spaces.

Good point. The state's policy to encourage timber companies to maintain those benefits is obviously not working anymore... so all we need to do is change the policy.  Their companies have been restructured in a way that they no longer care about maintaining those benefits, so the state should no longer care about giving timber companies "special" tax considerations.  Seems simple.   

[Blacktail Sniper]

All I ask is for some consistency to the fee's to access timber lands and that they try to make it affordable for everyone. I know each timber company has a right to regulate access to their land they way they see fit, but why should it be $75.00 for a general access for this area, $250.00 for this area, $200 for that area, $300 for this other area, and so on by one timber company while other timber companies charge a flat fee of $300 and allow you to get five cords of wood. Just wanted to add my 

Free enterprise in action...

[bowbuild]

I remeber reading about a similar lawsuit on the east coast. It was actually between a high end duck club and a state about  taxable land use.  There was also some kind of tax break for "open space" but the state made the case that if you charge $ to access it, it bcomes recreational property and lies under a different tax catagory. I want to say the article was in Outdoor Life or Feild and stream a couple years back.

This is exactly what I have been saying since this began...different use... different tax class, but this has been ignored.....guess we will see.

[timberfaller]

  back at ya, knocker of rocks!

I wonder WHY the "company's" have gone down this road of "access" issue??

Could it be they don't want to see their land turn into what the Federal lands has?

Dumping grounds, Mudder boggs, fairies and leprechaun encampments, etc etc

Could it be that "liability" lawsuits have taken over timber company boards??

[pianoman9701]

I remeber reading about a similar lawsuit on the east coast. It was actually between a high end duck club and a state about  taxable land use.  There was also some kind of tax break for "open space" but the state made the case that if you charge $ to access it, it bcomes recreational property and lies under a different tax catagory. I want to say the article was in Outdoor Life or Feild and stream a couple years back.

This is exactly what I have been saying since this began...different use... different tax class, but this has been ignored.....guess we will see.

Are you somehow of the opinion that HuntWA is the reason that the timber companies have been taken on? Because if so, you're way off. Sure we discuss it, but there were only a couple of HuntWA members at the county commissioner's hearing about this and the room was was packed with people who were upset. HuntWA is a tiny part of this. There are a great many people living around those tree farms which have taken this as a betrayal by the timber companies. Many aren't even hunters.

As far as the east coast thing is concerned, there's no comparison to what's happening here and I've stated the reasons for that before. The tax law is different, the population density is different, the state is different. The fact that the timber companies are suing comes as no surprise to anyone. They may well prevail. However, they're losing community support for closing their lands and what is the appearance at least of taking advantage of the tax code and making our elk sick with their chemicals. One thing that's been lost with the death of most small timber companies is a connection to the surrounding communities. Up until the late 80s before they were mostly put out of business by the greenies and their owl, many timber companies were local people working with local people and the communities were largely dependent on them. That's no longer the case. Big timber could care less about their local communities and is all about profit, period.

If they succeed closing down the county decision, I can see a great possibility that the state tax structure will be changed, either in the legislature or by ballot initiative.

[Curly]

Yep.  No surprise about the lawsuit.  I think everyone expected it to happen.

It is going to be real interesting to see what happens.  I think the state legislature really needs to revise the laws in their next session.

[Special T]

We are not the reason. I do think that HW spreads the word, and helps refine a good argument.

[headshot5]

We are not the reason. I do think that HW spreads the word, and helps refine a good argument.

   

 

[bowbuild]

I remeber reading about a similar lawsuit on the east coast. It was actually between a high end duck club and a state about  taxable land use.  There was also some kind of tax break for "open space" but the state made the case that if you charge $ to access it, it bcomes recreational property and lies under a different tax catagory. I want to say the article was in Outdoor Life or Feild and stream a couple years back.

This is exactly what I have been saying since this began...different use... different tax class, but this has been ignored.....guess we will see.

Are you somehow of the opinion that HuntWA is the reason that the timber companies have been taken on? Because if so, you're way off. Sure we discuss it, but there were only a couple of HuntWA members at the county commissioner's hearing about this and the room was was packed with people who were upset. HuntWA is a tiny part of this. There are a great many people living around those tree farms which have taken this as a betrayal by the timber companies. Many aren't even hunters.

As far as the east coast thing is concerned, there's no comparison to what's happening here and I've stated the reasons for that before. The tax law is different, the population density is different, the state is different. The fact that the timber companies are suing comes as no surprise to anyone. They may well prevail. However, they're losing community support for closing their lands and what is the appearance at least of taking advantage of the tax code and making our elk sick with their chemicals. One thing that's been lost with the death of most small timber companies is a connection to the surrounding communities. Up until the late 80s before they were mostly put out of business by the greenies and their owl, many timber companies were local people working with local people and the communities were largely dependent on them. That's no longer the case. Big timber could care less about their local communities and is all about profit, period.

If they succeed closing down the county decision, I can see a great possibility that the state tax structure will be changed, either in the legislature or by ballot initiative.

I can see the net is not a place for discussion..... as what I was trying to simply say was (my feeling right or wrong) is that they are no longer using their lands for strictly growing trees. They have stepped into a "for profit" land use situation and this should be considered a seperate use for the land in which they should be taxed for HOW THE LAND IS USED. The minute they started taking money for access the tax on that property should be changed, they could lock it down, that's fine.

Forgot to mention I live in Montesano, and I was at the meeting. No I don't live in a fantasy world where I think timber companies are logging into HuntWa. to gauge their next move....that is just plain idiotic to even consider.


Bowbuild

[pianoman9701]

I remeber reading about a similar lawsuit on the east coast. It was actually between a high end duck club and a state about  taxable land use.  There was also some kind of tax break for "open space" but the state made the case that if you charge $ to access it, it bcomes recreational property and lies under a different tax catagory. I want to say the article was in Outdoor Life or Feild and stream a couple years back.

This is exactly what I have been saying since this began...different use... different tax class, but this has been ignored.....guess we will see.

Are you somehow of the opinion that HuntWA is the reason that the timber companies have been taken on? Because if so, you're way off. Sure we discuss it, but there were only a couple of HuntWA members at the county commissioner's hearing about this and the room was was packed with people who were upset. HuntWA is a tiny part of this. There are a great many people living around those tree farms which have taken this as a betrayal by the timber companies. Many aren't even hunters.

As far as the east coast thing is concerned, there's no comparison to what's happening here and I've stated the reasons for that before. The tax law is different, the population density is different, the state is different. The fact that the timber companies are suing comes as no surprise to anyone. They may well prevail. However, they're losing community support for closing their lands and what is the appearance at least of taking advantage of the tax code and making our elk sick with their chemicals. One thing that's been lost with the death of most small timber companies is a connection to the surrounding communities. Up until the late 80s before they were mostly put out of business by the greenies and their owl, many timber companies were local people working with local people and the communities were largely dependent on them. That's no longer the case. Big timber could care less about their local communities and is all about profit, period.

If they succeed closing down the county decision, I can see a great possibility that the state tax structure will be changed, either in the legislature or by ballot initiative.

I can see the net is not a place for discussion..... as what I was trying to simply say was (my feeling right or wrong) is that they are no longer using their lands for strictly growing trees. They have stepped into a "for profit" land use situation and this should be considered a seperate use for the land in which they should be taxed for HOW THE LAND IS USED. The minute they started taking money for access the tax on that property should be changed, they could lock it down, that's fine.

Forgot to mention I live in Montesano, and I was at the meeting. No I don't live in a fantasy world where I think timber companies are logging into HuntWa. to gauge their next move....that is just plain idiotic to even consider.


Bowbuild

It was really hard from your post to tell exactly what you were getting at. Thanks for clarifying. The net is most certainly a place for discussion. Although, it's more important to be clear in your meaning on the net because you don't have the benefit of inflection or tone of voice. It's very easy to be misunderstood. It's also easy to come off like a jerk without meaning to for the same reasons.

[headshot5]

I can see the net is not a place for discussion..... as what I was trying to simply say was (my feeling right or wrong) is that they are no longer using their lands for strictly growing trees. They have stepped into a "for profit" land use situation and this should be considered a seperate use for the land in which they should be taxed for HOW THE LAND IS USED. The minute they started taking money for access the tax on that property should be changed, they could lock it down, that's fine. 

So here is something I have been pondering.  In response to the above.  A Golf Course pays a Property Tax with DOR Code 94 Open Space Land in accordance with RCW 84.34...   So where is it captured that they are profiting from revenue generated charging members (or public depending on the golf course).  They are not strictly using the property for Open Space.  What I am wondering is how is it that timber should get taxed more on property taxes because they have access fees, but their is no outcry for golf-courses to pay more for having all their fees.  Am I wrong in thinking these are similar situations, is it fair to only go after timber properties?