Free: Contests & Raffles.
It becomes undevelopable at the designated forest land tax rates. Yes, the option to develop is there, but you pay the back taxes as though it never had the designation. That is what the whole point of it is. So you really don't believe the public is 'getting something' by keeping forest lands as forest just because the landowner doesn't allow free and uncontrolled access to their lands? And you're exactly right that pieces are being developed still despite the designation. That's how valuable land gets as population expands. Now imagine the rate of development when the tax burden of growing a forest is increased several times over? It would be that much worse. The forestland designation is not an absolute end to development, but it certainly serves as an anchor to slow things down. The $3000/acre value includes the timber value, not just the bare land. You're saying the timber itself should be taxed year after year and then get a hefty lump sum tax bill at harvest too? I also think you're kidding yourself if you believe our taxes will ever go down! As always, the government would just find something else to waste it on while development pushes into the hills...
I am unclear what you think the public benefits from subsidizing a timber company when all you can do is drive by and look at no trespassing signs.
You are right about that, a bit of a loophole too. If you have 640 acres of designated timber, you can divide it into 64 ten acre parcels. Then each of those ten acre parcels can have 1 acre removed for a homesite while the remaining 9 remain in designated forest. As far as the 234/acre unless its specific to your county I think its outdated. I just clicked on the first designated forest section I came acres and it was valued at over 100k/640 acres. Many of the landowners I have encountered have been around that 2k/acre rate.
To stir the pot a bit, for those proposing increasing taxes on forest land that doesn't provide public access, would that only apply to forest land or would it also include ag and ranch properties that also get very similar tax breaks?