Citizen's Initiative for timber tax rate change.

[pianoman9701]

There needs to be something added to give this thing its' proper direction otherwise we'll pass it and the state will send a letter out saying "sure wish you would open your gates" and that will be it.

How to phrase something specific enough to get the needed results without creating a negative ripple.

Oh, and I have a buddy who works for Weyerhaeuser. According to him, we're already being watched by corporate here at this website.

Good. I hope they change their tune before they lose money. Opening their lands back up to all would be a good move that would squash this immediately.

[Curly]

It is unfortunate that it too WEYCO jumping in on the lease and permit game to get people to really start discussing the issues of timber companies locking out the public.  But I guess that is how it goes.  How long has Rayonier, Hancock, etc. been charging? 

Just wait until WEYCO implements the fee program and locks out most people from St. Helens.  That is when the ___ will really hit the fan.

[fireweed]

My intent with this conversation is to try and bring in as many ideas and you as possible.

What if the rates stay the same right now; Freeze them. Then, offer a lower rate for timberlands offering public access? That way, nobody can twist this around to say we are forcing public access on someone.

I would be for that. Make it an incentive NOT a penalty.

Problem is, the system is already an incentive, and everyone else is already subsidizing the industry.  So now we are going to subsidize them more?  I would support lowering the tax value for industrial timberland (5,000+) acres that allows free public access if the difference was made up by the other industrial timberland companies that do charge or do not allow access--that way the overall tax brought in doesn't go up, and our subsidy doesn't increase.

How are we subsidizing them? 

From my County:
If land is approved for classification in the Current Use Open Space Program, it is then taxed according to its current use rather than its highestand best use. The Assessor’s Office keeps a dual roll for these properties—
one indicating the true market value of the property and one for the
taxable (or Current Use) value. This reduction in taxable value causes a tax
shift when applying the levy formula:
Total District Levy ÷ Total Value in the District = Levy Rate
Taxing Districts still collect their full levy, but since it is collected on a
reduced taxable value, a portion of the tax obligation for the district is
shifted to the other taxpayers within the district. In other words, the same
total tax is collected, but the rate is a little higher for everyone because of
the reduction in value. 

It's gets worse  if you think about it.  Timberland is now an "investment" with many groups not interested in trees, so much as the selling value of "flipping timberland".If timberland "fair market values" increase based on recent sales, then the difference between "fair marked value" and "current use value" gets bigger, thus increasing timberlands tax break.  The tax generated on this value difference is then shifted to other taxpayers like homeowners and businesses.  The distance between the current use and the FMV increase, thus increasing the shift.  It's ironic--timberland flipping gets more profitable due to the interest of TIMO's, REITS and foreign investors, which raises the true overall values in a county,  but the current use value on timberland stays the same, so the tax break gets larger and is then shifted homeowners!  EEEEKKKK.  What a system!

[steelhead]

First thing, thank you fireweed for the insight.  This topic has motivated me to register, create, and post after "lurking" for years.  Timber companies have been reducing the amount of open land for years without much orginized protest from hunters.  The hunter, hikers and environmentalists finally have something in common: losing access.  I believe and strongly support higher taxes to any timber company that elects to live under the pretence of private property.  If Weyco, Rayonier, Green Diamond, ect... choose to charge for access to thier "private property" then inturn they should be taxed as such.  This is a win-win, the general fund will be in surplus and parents will be able to show their sons and daughters the lands they grew up hunting, hiking or exploring.  If nothing else, the timber company's greed is bringing all outdoor groups together in addition to the citizens who will support a tax raise that is not on their backs.  Show the public the initiative and we will sign!    

[Special T]

I have not voted yet... I can say i had a VERY interesting talk with my brother about the new rules for the WYCO land in the skagit county area that was Longview Fiber land. I can NO LONGER ride with him to his work site. Unless you are an employee you are NOT allowed in a vehicle first offense is the banishment of the employee from WYCO land... IE cannot work there any longer. There are several "Zero Tolerence" polices that are BS That is just one of them. IMO if you want to exclude ANYONE from your property that is ok but i will be looking into the tax status more in depth after hearing about WYCO's  management coming near me.

[Knocker of rocks]

It's gets worse  if you think about it.  Timberland is now an "investment" with many groups not interested in trees, so much as the selling value of "flipping timberland".If timberland "fair market values" increase based on recent sales, then the county's pot gets bigger, and they can collect more tax--most of which is then shifted to other taxpayers like homeowners and businesses.  The distance between the current use and the FMV increase, thus increasing the shift.  It's ironic--timberland flipping gets more profitable due to the interest of TIMO's, REITS and foreign investors, which raises the overall values in a county, allowing the collection of more tax, which is then shifted homeowners!  EEEEKKKK.  What a system!

I think Weyco, Hancock, Plum Creek and just about everybody else are now REIT's

[Northway]

It's gets worse  if you think about it.  Timberland is now an "investment" with many groups not interested in trees, so much as the selling value of "flipping timberland".If timberland "fair market values" increase based on recent sales, then the county's pot gets bigger, and they can collect more tax--most of which is then shifted to other taxpayers like homeowners and businesses.  The distance between the current use and the FMV increase, thus increasing the shift.  It's ironic--timberland flipping gets more profitable due to the interest of TIMO's, REITS and foreign investors, which raises the overall values in a county, allowing the collection of more tax, which is then shifted homeowners!  EEEEKKKK.  What a system!

I think Weyco, Hancock, Plum Creek and just about everybody else are now REIT's

REIT's have to distribute 90% of income to shareholders. It's maximizing shareholder value in its purest form, with a greater emphasis on short-term profits. They would ditch most of their existing employees in a heartbeat if there was even a slightly more profitable short-term use for their timberlands, IMO. 

[fireweed]

Wisconsin's program there is a considerable tax reduction for managed forests if the land is open to hunting etc at no charge:
"If landowners want the maximum tax break, they must open the land to hunting, fishing, hiking, cross-country skiing and sightseeing. If they do, they pay 67 cents per acre each year on land enrolled before 2005 or $1.67 per acre of land enrolled that year and thereafter.

Landowners can avoid the public access requirement by paying a higher rate of $8.34 per acre, shrinking their tax break."
(Wisconsin's situation isn't parallel to what we are proposing since even very small parcels in Wisconsin are enrolled, and we are only targeting industrial  5000 acre plus landowners, but directly tying full tax break to public access has been done.  This article talks about how it's hard to find these small parcels enrolled.  Keep in mind the current property tax paid on timberland in Washington is less than $2 per acre per year as you read this article).


http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/state-programs-open-hunting-land-tough-to-find-io6kuag-169914196.html

[Goshawk]

After this hunting season, I wonder how much more support this will generate.

One of the side effects that has occurred, is Weyerhaeuser has effectively land locked MANY privately held and other corporate lands from hunters who had permission to hunt, but did not purchase permission.

Lots of folks just went from "Not my problem, I hunt X Lumber Co. Lands, or Old Man George's Place" to standing outside a locked gate being told they can't even walk into their old non Weyerhaeuser stomping grounds.

[Goshawk]

Been a long time since I updated this, but my efforts in Olympia fell on deaf ears.  Nobody, and I mean Nobody wants to take on Weyerhaeuser.

If progress is going to be made, it will only occure at the "boots level" not out of a movement in Olympia.

Anyone here young enough and educated enough to know how to get this rolling online?

[pianoman9701]

WEYCO has both sides of the aisle deep in their pockets. Thank you for trying.

[fireweed]

Been a long time since I updated this, but my efforts in Olympia fell on deaf ears.  Nobody, and I mean Nobody wants to take on Weyerhaeuser.

If progress is going to be made, it will only occure at the "boots level" not out of a movement in Olympia.

Anyone here young enough and educated enough to know how to get this rolling online?

Ran into the same thing with my state reps from SW Washington.  I am going to try the governor--if we are going to have a democrat might as well see if he is willing to take on corporate welfare.  All we need is a legislative review of the current system--to see if it is still working for the people.  There are a few other states that could work as models: Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine.  In these states the lowest current use values are tied to public access, with a 20-25% additional reduction in the value (that the tax is then calculated on) if the land is open to public access.