Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: blackdog on December 11, 2013, 09:20:30 AM
-
http://thedailyworld.com/news/local/county-commissioner-presents-plan-tax-timber-companies-then-changes-his-mind (http://thedailyworld.com/news/local/county-commissioner-presents-plan-tax-timber-companies-then-changes-his-mind)
-
Very interesting. It's good to see some politicians are at least thinking about the issue, and working to come up with solutions. Although I seriously doubt anything will change for the better.
-
I would agree with his initial claim that timber companies should be limited to profiting from permit sales if the land is considered no-tax or reduced-tax while not being actively logged.
What's more disturbing to me is the government quit claiming property to timber companies while its harvested, then the timber companies quit claiming it back. That seems corrupt to me.
-
Too bad the commissioner changed his mind. Hopefully he is still thinking up solutions to the access problem. Hopefully other counties follow suit.
-
Let me interpret this for some of you. He makes the comment, and then some one in industry or in his office says "Hey dummy do you realize you just made this office and yourself an enemy to an industry with DEEP pockets that employs lots of voters in this area! You might want to re think how your going to address this."
-
This is a bad report on the part of the Daily world. This still could happen. Other counties and legislators are watching this. What you need to do is call your commissioner and legislators and let them now how you feel about fee access.
-
Let me interpret this for some of you. He makes the comment, and then some one in industry or in his office says "Hey dummy do you realize you just made this office and yourself an enemy to an industry with DEEP pockets that employs lots of voters in this area! You might want to re think how your going to address this."
:chuckle:
I think you just nailed it.
-
That's exactly what I thought when he changed his mind so quickly. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Blackdog.
-
Listen to dreamunelk this County Commission is going to pursue this! They need your support. The reporting is inaccurrate. Now is not the time to get lazy or complacent. People are watching to gauge whether hunters care about this issue.
:hello:
-
Don't get me wrong, if the timber companies want to keep tax breaks then tey need to keep the forrests open. I just stated my reaction to the article.
-
This may be a good opportunity to bring timber companies, hunters, and politicians together to work toward a positive solution that will work for all.
-
Its too bad this commissioner commented before sitting down and seriously talking with the assessor to figure out how property taxes work. There really is no "Tax Break" here, instead it is a TAX SHIFT. Timber companies, and other "current use" lands pay taxes on less than fair market value, which makes the rate go up for everyone else. If big timber paid more, no more taxes would be collected, and the rate would drop a little for everyone else. If existing property is reclassified and valued differently, the amount collected overall doesn't change, it's just reshuffled. In conservative Grays Harbor, tax raises won't fly--but readjusting the tax shift--timber pays more and everybody else pays a little less--is only fair if public benefits are taken away. (and affects way more voters, too.)
-
In conservative Grays Harbor
I could be wrong, but last I checked the people in Grays Harbor would not be classified as conservative. They almost always vote democrat. :twocents:
-
In conservative Grays Harbor
I could be wrong, but last I checked the people in Grays Harbor would not be classified as conservative. They almost always vote democrat. :twocents:
Strangely there are some 'conservative' Dems. Hargrove is Dem from Hoquiam and is rather conservative. It really annoys the liberals around the peninsula. But they'll vote a conservative D before any R.
-
The Commissioner understands the tax shift involved. :)
-
The Commissioner understands the tax shift involved. :)
That's good. Maybe it's who wrote the article that needs educated, because reading it sounds like the commissioner backed off because the idea could be considered a tax increase, or could open the door to tax increases.
On another note, The legislative intent of the law doesn't even mention or suggest that the reason timberland is getting lower property tax values is because they use less services, as suggested at the end of the article. I have seen where they are exempt from certain special levies (water/sewer type) because of this.
-
http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/letters/stop-timber-companies-charging-access-their-land (http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/letters/stop-timber-companies-charging-access-their-land) This clarifies things somewhat.
-
Great article black dog.
-
Local timber companies have begun to restrict access to their lands. For example, Hancock as a matter of policy keeps gates locked and denies vehicle access while Weyerhaeuser is proposing entry fees and Rayonier has already implemented them. These actions are inconsistent with past policy of only restricting public entry for active timber operations and for times of high fire danger. Weyerhaeuser, for one, followed this policy for well over half a century. To the extent that interpretation of existing tax codes allows, we should encourage our commissioners to consider revising land classifications to reduce or eliminate the favorable tax treatment for tree farms that follow these restrictive practices. In addition our legislators should consider reducing or eliminating tree farm tax benefits for companies that follow general restricted access policies. A much better solution would be for the timber companies to voluntarily end their restricted access and fee access policies. The benefits of these policies may not be worth the loss of good will and the possible loss of favorable tax treatment. Truman Seely Aberdeen - See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/letters/companies-may-pay-new-policies#sthash.O9qNALhg.dpuf (http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/letters/companies-may-pay-new-policies#sthash.O9qNALhg.dpuf)
-
This letter to the editor is from a retired Weyco manager folks. We can do this if we stand our ground. This is important please be sharing with your County commissioners and Legislators.
-
Passing this letter on.
Thanks.
-
Amongst the other questions in the survey there is a comment area where you can adress this issue. I have done so and if you care about this and other issues please comment by the 3rd of JanDon't hold anything back, but make sure you tell them the problem AND a solution. For me i said it was ok to lock us out and pay an acess fee, but then its not really forrestry property its rec property and is subject to different tax status. :twocents:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/)
-
I personally have no issue with gating side roads. I think it's actually a good thing, but locking up main lines and charging fees I'm completely against. I will be contacting the Grays Harbor commissioners about the issue. This is the time to let them know your position. They've (at least commissioner Cormier) have taken the first step, but they need support if it's going to go anywhere. If the timber companies want the tax structure to stay the way it is they need to provide access for the public good period.
