Post by: fireweed on August 10, 2014, 11:37:27 AM
Post by: returnofsid on August 10, 2014, 11:49:44 AM
This should be an interesting lawsuit. I wonder how much it'll cost tax payers?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 10, 2014, 12:33:04 PM
Post by: fireweed on August 10, 2014, 01:02:00 PM
It's not about protecting private landowners taxbreaks, but protecting their "rights"...Ya, right.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on August 10, 2014, 01:49:02 PM
:yeah:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 11, 2014, 06:13:27 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 11, 2014, 07:38:08 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 11, 2014, 07:46:59 AM
I love the name of the timber industry association - The WA Forest Protection Association. I'd be interested to hear their idea of what protecting the forests is. Even if they prevail in the lawsuit, they're not going to benefit from it. The citizens of the state, especially those who live in these areas, are starting to take a whole different view of big timber companies.You are now on Timberfallers hippy list
Post by: Antlershed on August 11, 2014, 07:52:20 AM
:yeah: 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". :twocents: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.
Post by: headshot5 on August 11, 2014, 08:23:11 AM
Post by: Special T on August 11, 2014, 09:33:23 AM
Post by: huntnphool on August 11, 2014, 09:47:39 AM
:yeah: 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". :twocents: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.
+1
Post by: fireweed on August 11, 2014, 12:16:38 PM
Reason for the tax break is laid out by the legislature in the findings of the LAW 84:33:010:
(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.
To recap the tax structure was set out for the PUBLIC WELFARE and so that "present and future generations enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide" and then those benefits are listed. One of the benefits listed is recreional spaces, so it logically follows that a portion (not all) of the tax break is to compensate for recreation. Yes, it should be more specific, but clearly the legislative intent was to set up a system that rewards ALL forest benefits including recreation.
AND the excise tax at harvest does NOT replace the property tax on the land, just the tax in the value of standing timber:
(a) the ad valorem system for taxing timber be modified and discontinued in stages over a three year period during which such system will be replaced by one under which timber will be taxed on the basis of stumpage value at the time of harvest, and
(b) forest land remain under the ad valorem taxation system but be taxed only as provided in this chapter and RCW 28A.150.250.
The belief that the excise tax on harvested timber is supposed to replace or compensate for the property (land) tax is not supported by the law.
Additionally "open space" has it's own rules and classifications. We are primarily discussing DFL (designated forest land). It is a bit confusing to call it Open Space, since the "open space" wording sends you to a different set of laws,
Post by: headshot5 on August 11, 2014, 12:30:48 PM
Quote
AND the excise tax at harvest does NOT replace the property tax on the land, just the tax in the value of standing timber:
Correct, that is why there is both a property tax and an excise tax..., it is also why timber ground is taxed cheaper (property tax), because it is taxed without taking into account the value of the standing timber on it.
Quote
Additionally "open space" has it's own rules and classifications. We are primarily discussing DFL (designated forest land). It is a bit confusing to call it Open Space, since the "open space" wording sends you to a different set of laws,
FYI (so you can have your facts straight... :tung:)
Fireweed, the above is no longer technically correct...
Check out "HOUSE BILL REPORT SB 6180" see link http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/6180%20HBR%20APH%2014.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/6180%20HBR%20APH%2014.pdf)
Counties are now incorporating Open Space and Designated Forest Land into one tax code DOR Code 88 (Designated Forest Land). So as of now most counties are transitioning all Open Space timber to Designated forest land. Thus Designated forest land is availble for properties 5 acres and larger.
Edit to add. Directly from link above.
Quote
County legislative authorities are authorized to merge a county's open space timber land
program into its designated forest land program. In order for a county to merge programs,
the county must enact an ordinance that terminates its open space timber land program and
declares that land that had been in the timber land program to be as designated forest land.
The date that property was classified as open space timber before the ordinance is considered
to be the date of designation under the forest land program.
Post by: fireweed on August 11, 2014, 12:42:55 PM
Post by: headshot5 on August 11, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Antlershed on August 11, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
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. :twocents::yeah: 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". :twocents: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.
Post by: Antlershed on August 11, 2014, 05:14:19 PM
Post by: bmccalister on August 11, 2014, 05:43:00 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on August 11, 2014, 05:44:56 PM
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. :twocents:
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. :chuckle:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 11, 2014, 06:02:22 PM
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 :twocents:
Free enterprise in action...
Post by: bowbuild on August 11, 2014, 07:36:20 PM
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. :)
Post by: timberfaller on August 12, 2014, 08:18:57 AM
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 :yike:
Could it be that "liability" lawsuits have taken over timber company boards??
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 08:21:36 AM
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.
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2014, 08:38:11 AM
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.
Post by: Special T on August 12, 2014, 08:42:54 AM
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 09:27:03 AM
Quote
We are not the reason. I do think that HW spreads the word, and helps refine a good argument.
:yeah:
Post by: bowbuild on August 12, 2014, 09:38:12 AM
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
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 09:57:30 AM
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.
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 10:33:11 AM
Quote
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 10:42:44 AM
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 11:10:52 AM
The Department of Revenue is not getting screwed by any means (they get their's), and as such all profits (access fees) from golf-courses are caught somewhere (taxed) and it is not on the property tax. So it seems strange that everyone wants it to be captured as such for timber companies. I'm not sure, it seems like a strange way to do it just for one business (timber growing).
Please note: Open space listed above is generally for smaller chunks of property, so different somewhat from the giant timber properties... Probably cause golf course around here are not that big.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 11:19:41 AM
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 11:56:41 AM
Quote
Again, you didn't address other taxes that golf courses DO pay and collect.
Correct I did not. Like mentioned before this is me pondering. Maybe looking for someone who would know... You? My point is... Why would access fees be tied to property tax in one instance (timber) and a sepertate for golf courses. Seems like a silly system. Wouldn't it be easier to capture income from access for timberlands the same as you would a golf course. I'm sure they are taxed on income from green's fees annual membership etc. I'm sure there is a system already in place to do this so why would we (public through legislation) want to re-invent the wheel?
Please note: Since golf courses are listed as open space... they would need provide the same benefits to the public as a 5-20 acre timberground would prior to them being moved to designated forest land per the above listed SB.
Post by: Netminder01 on August 12, 2014, 12:25:04 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 12:34:26 PM
QuoteAgain, you didn't address other taxes that golf courses DO pay and collect.
Correct I did not. Like mentioned before this is me pondering. Maybe looking for someone who would know... You? My point is... Why would access fees be tied to property tax in one instance (timber) and a sepertate for golf courses. Seems like a silly system. Wouldn't it be easier to capture income from access for timberlands the same as you would a golf course. I'm sure they are taxed on income from green's fees annual membership etc. I'm sure there is a system already in place to do this so why would we (public through legislation) want to re-invent the wheel?
Please note: Since golf courses are listed as open space... they would need provide the same benefits to the public as a 5-20 acre timberground would prior to them being moved to designated forest land per the above listed SB.
Please also note that as has been mentioned, smaller land owners would be exempted - <5000 acres. I think that would cover most golf courses wouldn't it? :dunno: As far as reinventing the wheel is concerned, that's what the timber companies did when they decided to go pay-to-play. That was the first hat in this ring.
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 01:21:03 PM
Quote
Please also note that as has been mentioned, smaller land owners would be exempted - <5000 acres. I think that would cover most golf courses wouldn't it? As far as reinventing the wheel is concerned, that's what the timber companies did when they decided to go pay-to-play. That was the first hat in this ring.
So far the 5000 acres is just a number thrown out there by someone. There is nothing concrete about it at all, and it is possible that that # will change in either direction before it is pushed through as legislation (if it ever is), so I won't base my opinions off of what is proposed in someone else's mind somewhere. Also, WEYCO is in my opinion still acting within the law, which the lawsuit in GH county will either prove or disprove. If someone could please show me with links where forest land is broken into <5000 acres and >5000 acres in the WACs or RCWs. How are they differentiated?
I was not born back in '71 when the current timber tax structure was implemented, so I can't pretend to know what the overall plan was. All I can base it off of is the law that is on the books. I don't see anything about free access in the RCW's. Thus these current talks of legislation to clarify/re-write the existing structure...
Is it wrong that I think Designated Forest Land should be property taxed in accordance with the following (current system) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-40-540 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-40-540) which values are determined by the Department of Revenue and vary depending on the productivity of the soil and other factors. The values for each productivity class are updated annually by the Department of Revenue using a formula, which ties changes in land values to the long term trend in timber values.
I guess I really don't see a place for Public Access being tied in with property taxes. Is the land worth more or less to the landowner if the public can access it? Should that be a determining factor in what land value is worth? If the property is used primarily for growing and harvesting trees it is my feeling that it should be taxed as such. Maybe a whole seperate tax should be made called an access tax and it can apply to everyone. Let the public access your and my front yard/back field etc or have your private property be private but pay more.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 01:30:00 PM
No one said that WEYCO is breaking the law and no one said that open public land use was in the tax code. They aren't and it isn't. However, when that code was written, the assumption was made that WEYCO would continue to cooperate with the state and its residents in allowing use of their inactive parcels for recreation. A lot has changed, specifically large timber companies changing to a pay-to-play system. So, many think that the structure of the tax code should change as well. I get it that you're not one of them. :tup:
Post by: Special T on August 12, 2014, 01:47:42 PM
We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.
We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.
IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 12, 2014, 01:53:03 PM
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 02:00:20 PM
Quote
Back in 71 there were very few gates. It was considered "normal" to take the 4x4 for a drive in the woods. Set up a tent, may do some fishing or hunting on "private" timberland.
We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.
We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.
IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.
So far, all I have heard is it was assumed public access would be free. Not all assumptions are true. Nothing in the law reflects this access, and I don't think it should, at least not in property taxes.
I agree maybe the DOR needs to adjust their calculator. I don't think it should reflect public access though. Public access doesn't make trees grow faster or more straight, or change the physical attributes of the property (besides the garbage). So why should it be tied to a property tax? Make a seperate access tax structure.
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2014, 02:03:34 PM
The 5,000 acres was a value that was suggested I think.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
QuoteBack in 71 there were very few gates. It was considered "normal" to take the 4x4 for a drive in the woods. Set up a tent, may do some fishing or hunting on "private" timberland.
We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.
We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.
IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.
So far, all I have heard is it was assumed public access would be free. Not all assumptions are true. Nothing in the law reflects this access, and I don't think it should, at least not in property taxes.
I agree maybe the DOR needs to adjust their calculator. I don't think it should reflect public access though. Public access doesn't make trees grow faster or more straight, or change the physical attributes of the property (besides the garbage). So why should it be tied to a property tax? Make a seperate access tax structure.
We get clearly that you don't think the property tax structure should be changed. But, this should be tied to the property tax because the rate for the unlogged land was set when the companies were letting the citizens use their land for free. It was tied to property tax then and should be now that it's gone. It doesn't matter that it was an assumption it would stay that way. It didn't. It changed. Because public access was the reasons they get that rate, and there's no longer free public access, take that rate away and replace it with one that more adequately taxes their land that is of little benefit to the citizens of WA.. No separate structure. No new taxes. Just change what they pay. They can make their millions charging hunters to perform a service for them and the state can make millions charging them a fair value for their land. Maybe I could pay a little less with the largest land owners in the state kicking in a more fair tax based on value.
Post by: bowbuild on August 12, 2014, 07:07:16 PM
QuoteI 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?
Yes, I think that should be changed, and yes they (the golf course) should pay a higher tax if that is the case. I just don't see why they (or anyone ) deserves special tax breaks....I get none.
So it is fair for a large land owner to pay less, why smaller land owners pay more?? :bash: How is this fair again? (I know this is not the way it is.) I feel you want a "open space" tax break, then it should be open to the public....period.... unless you pay full tax assessed at it's true value. Why should the public foot the bill for large landowners for their sole benefit?? You can have a choice, opt in/out. That's the way I would like it.
Post by: fireweed on August 14, 2014, 07:57:40 AM
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. :twocents:
This is a flaw in the law. Every timber owner gets the same full tax break, with the law assuming that they all provide equal public benefits. We have new forest practice rules that force landowners to keep mud out of creeks (clean water) prevent landslides, and some of the other public benefits listed, but there is no consideration for "scenic or recreational spaces". By charging for those, the companies are essentially double-diiping. The law doesn't say they must provide free wildlife habitat, either, but imagine the outrage if they charged the state for each elk they feed, or cities for clean water. They might try this next, since they want to make money off "ecosystem services". In our state, they are already getting tax breaks for those things, so charging, too, is double-dipping. Clearly the system needs an overhaul.
Post by: fireweed on August 14, 2014, 08:09:36 AM
QuoteI 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?
Golf courses and other properties that could qualify as "open space-open space" are treated very differently than timber or agricultural lands. I looked into getting a forested campground into this category, so I've done some research. The open space-open space is set up for things like Nature Conservancy land, parks, swamps, or for land that someone likes to look at but says they aren't going to ever log. In Cowlitz Co. there are only a handfull of properties, and yes one is a golf course.
Heres the big difference: to enroll in this (open space-open space) category you must show, on paper, that you provide specific PUBLIC BENEFITS and each single benefit gets you so many "points" and as these points lower the taxable value as they add up. Public Access is specifically identified as one of the eligible benefits. You can CHOOSE to let the public on the property, and this is worth an extra 10% or so off the value of the property. Its called a weighted benefit system. This is a huge difference from timberland, where every landowner gets the same full tax break regardless of that particular land's public benefits. This weighted benefit system could be the model for re-vamping the tax on timberland--a base rate, then if non-motorized public access is allowed the value is further reduced, if motorized access, it could be again reduced.
PS the big problem with enrolling in open space-open space is the fee that counties have tacked onto the process so only rich golf courses can afford it.
Post by: fireweed on August 14, 2014, 08:20:56 AM
I believe 5000 Acres was used as a guideline by the Gray's Harbor County commissioners. Not sure.
No one said that WEYCO is breaking the law and no one said that open public land use was in the tax code. They aren't and it isn't. However, when that code was written, the assumption was made that WEYCO would continue to cooperate with the state and its residents in allowing use of their inactive parcels for recreation. A lot has changed, specifically large timber companies changing to a pay-to-play system. So, many think that the structure of the tax code should change as well. I get it that you're not one of them. :tup:
In the Department of Natural Resources forest practice rules, landowners with 5,000 acres or more are defined as "industrial timberland". The DNR has different rules for them as opposed to small forestland owners and medium sized. This category is already estabilshed in state law, and they already must follow different rules so a precedent is set to use 5,000 acres as a cut-off. Grays Harbor used the 2-million board feet of harvest (which is also used in places by the DNR etc) to separate small from industrial landowners. I have proposed we use this 5,000 acre existing category in revisions to the tax laws. That's the logic behind it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 08:22:54 AM
Post by: headshot5 on August 14, 2014, 08:23:42 AM
Quote
Heres the big difference: to enroll in this (open space-open space) category you must show, on paper, that you provide specific PUBLIC BENEFITS and each single benefit gets you so many "points" and as these points lower the taxable value as they add up. Public Access is specifically identified as one of the eligible benefits. You can CHOOSE to let the public on the property, and this is worth an extra 10% or so off the value of the property. Its called a weighted benefit system. This is a huge difference from timberland, where every landowner gets the same full tax break regardless of that particular land's public benefits. This weighted benefit system could be the model for re-vamping the tax on timberland--a base rate, then if non-motorized public access is allowed the value is further reduced, if motorized access, it could be again reduced.
Is there a specific WAC or RCW that covers this point system? Or is it something set up by the County? I appreciate the information. :tup:
Post by: Antlershed on August 14, 2014, 08:24:22 AM
Plus, the fees they charge would be included in taxable income subject to ~40% tax :twocents:
Also, aren't Rayonier and Hancock taxed the same way as Weyco? How come nobody had cared all the years they have been doing the same thing? :dunno:
Post by: fireweed on August 14, 2014, 11:54:48 AM
Great information Fireweed. So not only do the open space-open space properties pay a lump sum tax up front, they only get breaks depending on which services they offer the public. I agree it would be a good idea to look at for any changes that would affect how timber companies are tax in the future,Here's my county's web page on it and links to Dept of Revenue general forms. I have the actual "checklist" of points somewhere, but didn't find it. http://wa-cowlitzcounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=1134 (http://wa-cowlitzcounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=1134)
Post by: headshot5 on August 14, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
The Golf Courses that own property in the Counties I am familiar with do not use this system as the Counties have opted to not implement them.
Post by: 1bugman on August 14, 2014, 12:34:49 PM
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 becomes 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.
:yeah:
I agree. it would put the property into a different use.
Post by: Humptulips on August 14, 2014, 01:43:16 PM
QuoteBack in 71 there were very few gates. It was considered "normal" to take the 4x4 for a drive in the woods. Set up a tent, may do some fishing or hunting on "private" timberland.
We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.
We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.
IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.
So far, all I have heard is it was assumed public access would be free. Not all assumptions are true. Nothing in the law reflects this access, and I don't think it should, at least not in property taxes.
I agree maybe the DOR needs to adjust their calculator. I don't think it should reflect public access though. Public access doesn't make trees grow faster or more straight, or change the physical attributes of the property (besides the garbage). So why should it be tied to a property tax? Make a seperate access tax structure.
We get clearly that you don't think the property tax structure should be changed. But, this should be tied to the property tax because the rate for the unlogged land was set when the companies were letting the citizens use their land for free. It was tied to property tax then and should be now that it's gone. It doesn't matter that it was an assumption it would stay that way. It didn't. It changed. Because public access was the reasons they get that rate, and there's no longer free public access, take that rate away and replace it with one that more adequately taxes their land that is of little benefit to the citizens of WA.. No separate structure. No new taxes. Just change what they pay. They can make their millions charging hunters to perform a service for them and the state can make millions charging them a fair value for their land. Maybe I could pay a little less with the largest land owners in the state kicking in a more fair tax based on value.
"Companies were letting the citizens use their land for free" or were the citizens simply using the land for free without the companies consent. Legally the company can not be held responsible for the liberties taken by the citizens without express consent. Crying foul now is akin to pleading ignorance of the law. If someone can produce a legit piece of legislation or WA Code that states the tax rate is linked to unfettered access then this arguement wouldn't matter. The state or local government to my knowledge never connected the dots between tax rates and citizen access. Without that there is no legal basis for changing the tax rate.
It seems pretty obvious they were letting their land be used with consent. There used to be signs at WEYCO gates that said "Welcome hunters". My how times have changed but even now the gates are mostly all posted with the red dot system signs if they are open to the public. They specifically say they are open to entry with some restrictions on type of travel. That surely is consent.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 01:58:38 PM
QuoteBack in 71 there were very few gates. It was considered "normal" to take the 4x4 for a drive in the woods. Set up a tent, may do some fishing or hunting on "private" timberland.
We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.
We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.
IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.
So far, all I have heard is it was assumed public access would be free. Not all assumptions are true. Nothing in the law reflects this access, and I don't think it should, at least not in property taxes.
I agree maybe the DOR needs to adjust their calculator. I don't think it should reflect public access though. Public access doesn't make trees grow faster or more straight, or change the physical attributes of the property (besides the garbage). So why should it be tied to a property tax? Make a seperate access tax structure.
We get clearly that you don't think the property tax structure should be changed. But, this should be tied to the property tax because the rate for the unlogged land was set when the companies were letting the citizens use their land for free. It was tied to property tax then and should be now that it's gone. It doesn't matter that it was an assumption it would stay that way. It didn't. It changed. Because public access was the reasons they get that rate, and there's no longer free public access, take that rate away and replace it with one that more adequately taxes their land that is of little benefit to the citizens of WA.. No separate structure. No new taxes. Just change what they pay. They can make their millions charging hunters to perform a service for them and the state can make millions charging them a fair value for their land. Maybe I could pay a little less with the largest land owners in the state kicking in a more fair tax based on value.
"Companies were letting the citizens use their land for free" or were the citizens simply using the land for free without the companies consent. Legally the company can not be held responsible for the liberties taken by the citizens without express consent. Crying foul now is akin to pleading ignorance of the law. If someone can produce a legit piece of legislation or WA Code that states the tax rate is linked to unfettered access then this arguement wouldn't matter. The state or local government to my knowledge never connected the dots between tax rates and citizen access. Without that there is no legal basis for changing the tax rate.
Since they announced that they're now charging and previously, those roads were open to the public AND were patrolled by WDFW LE who checked licenses, it's actually very clear that their land was open to the public except when they closed it for fire danger. You're stretching way too much on this.
Post by: pd on August 14, 2014, 02:32:29 PM
A citizen's referendum (or initiative---I always forget which is which) would do wonders to solve this problem. Like him or hate him, Tim Eyeman plays this game very well, and a lot could be learned from his success.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 02:55:21 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 14, 2014, 03:10:03 PM
Agreed and agreed. I don't know who Eyeman is.
The $30.00 car tab guy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Eyman (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Eyman)
Post by: Mike450r on August 14, 2014, 03:24:46 PM
For a site with what seemed to be a majority of members favoring less legislation, litigation, and regulation the hypocrisy shown on this particular issue amuses me.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 14, 2014, 03:32:04 PM
There was a time when there were no gates. Then some gates but most were open. Then a lot of gates and most were closed. Then almost all closed. It has been a progression and it took a long time to get here. Now we are looking at fee access and I am on the side that thinks it will be determined that it complies with any public access agreements that were in place. It's still privately owned property and a privilege to access, not a right.
For a site with what seemed to be a majority of members favoring less legislation, litigation, and regulation the hypocrisy shown on this particular issue amuses me.
Apparently you haven't read through the thread then. No one's talking about more legislation. No one's saying a private landowner shouldn't be able to do with their land as they wish, as long as their practices don't negatively affect the wildlife or the ecology. We're talking about an adjustment in the existing tax code for their rate established in 1971. Be amused all you want. There are a lot of locals all around the west side who aren't amused, who've supported the timber industry in their communities when many didn't, and who've helped them with their animal-related damage through cooperation. Many people can barely afford the licenses and tags, let alone an extra access fee to go hunting out of the back of their own land. I'm luckily in a position where I could afford the fee were I inclined to want to hunt for limping elk. I'm not inclined.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 15, 2014, 09:57:59 AM
Post by: Goshawk on August 16, 2014, 09:40:58 AM
1. Generate Revenue for the State and Local Governments (like rural school districts).
2. Encourage responsible Corporate behavior to the benefit of the Citizens where they do business. That's what led up to this in the first place. When the current tax codes went into effect you could walk, ride or drive from the Hwy 702, south to Hwy 508 and never even see a gate all 12 months of the year. That was the standard for open public access that the Timber Tax Rates were based on, not highest bidder.
It's companies like Weyerhaeuser who's screwed this up, not the hunters, so lets go back and see how to best encourage them to go back to being responsible neighbors. Grays Harbor County has only done what the Washington State Legislature were too cowardly to do; represent the citizens and not the profits of a few rogue timber CEO's.
If this practice is allowed to continue, it will do more to kill off Hunting license and tag sales in Washington State than the anti-hunting movement could ever have accomplished. WSDFW might as well start laying off folks now, or loaning them out to Idaho.
And, yes I own some land that I do allow hunting on. There are several kids who took their first deer on my grounds with their youth tags. No fees, just them with their parents. Of course they would have gone on the clearcut next door, but Gary of Manke Lumber posted it closed. I'm guessing it's either for an outfitter, or he just want's an exclusive to a small band of elk there. Either way, it's no longer public access and that's too bad. I once had the pleasure of a conversation with the late Virgil Manke while working on a common fence line. Seemed like a great guy who got a kick out of my small kids trying to carry my tool bucket in the underbrush. I'm betting he would not be too pleased with the idea those same kids who now have kids of their own can no longer walk, fish or hunt on his old timber lands.
Post by: fireweed on August 18, 2014, 05:12:46 PM
It seems the intent and wording of the law encourages and rewards but does not guarantee public recreational access. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that tax payers believe they have granted this tax break in part for compensation for recreational access. When they voted back in 1969 this is what everyone believed. Even the ads supported by the timber companies themselves showed a father and son out hunting.
We still believe it 45 years later, and the legislature believed it because they added it in their findings for the law:part of the property tax shift is because of recreational access to forests.
It's pretty clear if that 1969 initiative would never pass today. If citizens no longer support the law, it is clearly broken. Time to change the law back to what we thought it was all along--lowest property taxes for public access. Not just a suggestion, but a requirement.
Post by: whacker1 on August 19, 2014, 09:17:15 AM
What really matters in a court room is exactly the details of the written law, when it was signed and made a law. Nothing else. Public opinion and ad campaigns from 45 years ago are not even admissable in matters such as these. Opinion of the people is absolutely worthless in a court of law.
If your goal is to use higher property taxes as leverage against timber companies in order to force them to allow open access to their private lands, you'll need to rewrite the law to state that specifically. Ultimately no more of a task than changing an existing law. Of course like all matters open to debate and input, a new or changed law is just as negotiable from Timber's perspective as it is from the publics'. Which means they have just as much of a right to influence the wording of the law as you do. Not to mention the resources, lobbiest, and legal staffes of multinational corporations. I can see the timber company's ad campaign now: "Who can protect the forest better than us", "why should we be forced to let mean ole hunters kill all the deer", "WA forests are for recreation not killing".
I bet the Seattle voting block will have a ball with this one if it ever comes to a ballot initiative.
I see the higher property taxes equating to a couple of potential outcomes:
1. more access
2. Weyco and others lobbying for reduced taxes in other areas, such as: B & O, excise tax, etc. Fees will go higher and gates will remain closed.
3. Less community support from Weyco (which has been drying up over time)
I am sure there are other options, but I would be on #2 & #3 being more probable than #1. I think the increased property taxes will be a wash or close to a wash with what they can raise in access fees. Weyco still gets to keep the gates closed and restrict access. I think every other timber company out there is watching this to see how it shakes out, and seeing how the case is made. I think this has the potential to have more timber companies follow Weyco in other parts of the state and possibly into other states depending on the outcome and how polarizing each side gets on the subject.
I fear that the outcome of this case is going to bleed into unintended consequences in a much larger geography. i hope for the best, but fear the worst.
Post by: whacker1 on August 19, 2014, 09:25:38 AM
Here is the link that Weyerhaueuser suggest that they gave back to $5.2 million to communities in 2013. I am not hear to dispute whether that actually happened or not, but rather to say that I think it is a significant potential outcome that if the suit holds true and Grays Harbor County wins. Weyerhaueser will absorb the increased taxes and this number will go down in addition to the fee access costs going up to help offset increased taxes if it comes to that.
If Grays Harbor County loses and Weyco prevails I think that the situation stays the course and Weyco monitors more closely the local communities.
My two cents
Post by: fireweed on August 20, 2014, 09:14:22 AM
More detailed article where timber industry admits access was part of the tax deal
"Although the timber industry had said it would keep access open to the public when the tax breaks were put in place in the 1970s, Doumit argues that charging fees for access is still keeping the access open"
Post by: Special T on August 20, 2014, 10:25:08 AM
Post by: Special T on August 20, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 20, 2014, 10:45:44 AM
Post by: fireweed on August 20, 2014, 11:25:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 20, 2014, 01:15:58 PM
Post by: bmccalister on August 30, 2014, 03:30:21 PM
I agree that even by charging an access fee they are meeting the letter of the law by allowing the public to access their land. Where I see a problem is the timber companies are going against the intent of the tax break/law by not allowing access to all of the public. By limiting the number of permits, charging more for one area than the next or requiring permits for different areas (which cannot be used in other locations) is not fair to the general public and goes against the intent of what the voters wanted. Also, I believe the new permit access fees are not fair to our disabled or senior hunters. I know a few disabled hunters who will not be able to hunt this year because not only do they have to have a permit but the person hunting with them has to have a permit. This additional cost to them is not fair because these hunters are on fixed incomes and cannot afford the increased cost to hunt. I believe if the timber companies want to cry foul and claim property owner rights then they need to give up their tax cut (voted on by the same people they are know screwing over). If they want the same property owner rights as everyone else then they should pay the same property tax rate as everyone else. Then they can close off all their land and charge what every they want to allow the public to access their land.
Finally, I do agree the timber companies should be compensated for the public to access their land so they can maintain their roads. Again, all I ask is that they be reasonable and keep the fees affordable for all of the general public and not just the rich. The timber companies should get together and create the Washington Timber Pass available for $75.00 which allows access to all the land of all the timber companies in Washington.
Question: Are the timber company employees and subcontractors along with their families and friends required to purchase these permits or do they get a fee pass?
Post by: Coastal_native on August 30, 2014, 06:17:52 PM
Post by: grousetracker on August 30, 2014, 07:08:24 PM