No need to subsidize a mere right
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Paul Accad
Albemarle County
Published: May 28, 2008
On May 19 The Daily Progress published an editorial titled “What defines farmland?” I must say that I agree every one of the nine paragraphs of the editorial. I’d like to simply add two things.
l As a growth-area resident, I support land-use tax deferral on any parcel in a conservation easement. I do not support land-use tax de-ferral on any parcel without one.
If a landowner keeps his development rights, I can only assume that he will use them when the time is right. I feel no obligation to, nor do I have any interest in, subsidizing that landowner. The re-cent history of Albemarle County has taught me that big farms often become big developments. The only guarantee that land-use tax deferral will not aid a developer is a conservation easement.
l The Daily Progress editorial helped to clarify my thoughts on the county’s ad-ministration of the land-use tax deferral program for the last 30 years. Once it accepts land into the program, the county has never gone back to verify, through established procedures and adequate documentation, that the parcel continues to qualify for this deferral. It has taken more than 30 years for the county to even approach re-validation.
The “KISS Rule” should apply here. Put land in a conservation easement, get land-use tax deferral. No easement, no deferral. Simple!
I don’t think the county wants to, or can, active-ly administer this program as is. Requiring a conservation easement is a fair option for all in Albemarle County — those who pay for the program and those who participate in the deferral — and will not place an ongoing administrative burden on the county.
Thankfully, this Board of Supervisors has gone further than any other board on this topic. I call on the supervisors to make the re-validation a true test of the current participants eligibility for inclusion in this program and then adopt a policy that grants land-use tax deferral only to those who will not develop their land, guaranteed.
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( FirstAmendment ) on May 29, 2008 at 7:59 am
As Albemarle City becomes more populated and those who live in urban areas, as I assume the writer does, expect more city services it is no surprise the ubanites want more money to pay for their comfort and safety. I can safely guess it cost ALOT more for Joe-urbanite to the county than Joe-rural per acre.
Albemarle already has been buying development rights and spending millions on their ACE program for several years. Will Albemarle City now pay up to everyone who opts for conservation easment? I think not!
Report Inappropriate Comment