Tax-exempt status of conservation land in dispute

[4eyedbuzzard]

"A wide range of conservation groups in Massachusetts are worried their finances could take a major hit if a small town in the Berkshires wins a case slated to come before the state’s highest court Monday.

The case could determine whether cities and towns, which are hungry for cash, can tax conservation land owned by groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the Massachusetts Audubon Society. More than 1.25 million acres in Massachusetts have been protected from development." . . . Full story at: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...6SM/story.html

This case could have wide ranging impact including affecting some AT (and other trail) lands. Lets hope the court rules to let conservation lands remain tax-free.

[Starchild]

What's unusual as I read this is if the town wins the nature conservatories may need to make their land more pubic accessible, however if the Massachusetts Audubon Society wins there is a precedent that the land can remain closed (or perhaps hidden is a better word) to the public and remain tax free.

So it may have the opposite effect then you stated, tax free would remain if the land was openly accessible to the public but the land would be taxed if it was not open enough.

But yes the door can swing further where all the land would be taxed regardless, but that's not how I read it.

[Rain Man]

I didn't read the article, but if conservation land were to be taxed, how would its value be determined, as there would be no "willing buyers" to buy the land, so far as I can imagine. So, a tax rate may be applied, but the taxable value may be zero and rightly so.

What would the impact on churches be? Fair's fair, after all.

RainMan

.

[4eyedbuzzard]

One of the biggest issues is that the trusts would have to pay property taxes, which would reduce their capital available for operations and for purchase of additional lands. But where do you draw the line on what use is too little, or too much?
Here's a brief explanation on how land trusts (conservation type) work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tr...on_land_trusts
Valuation would obviously be hotly debated, but could definitely be done. Typically such valuations wind up in court or arbitration.

[Starchild]

I didn't read the article, but if conservation land were to be taxed, how would its value be determined, as there would be no "willing buyers" to buy the land, so far as I can imagine. So, a tax rate may be applied, but the taxable value may be zero and rightly so.

The tax bill was $173 for 120 acres.

What would the impact on churches be? Fair's fair, after all.

RainMan

.

As I understand it, none, unless the church does not welcome the public in, which won't apply to most of them.

[Sly]

The town is arguing if the New England Forestry Foundation wants to remain tax free they need to open the land to benefit the public. Otherwise, the New England Forestry Foundation would have to pay $173 on 120 acres. Seems about right to me.

[GoldenBear]

> The town is arguing if the New England Forestry Foundation wants to remain tax free
> they need to open the land to benefit the public

Not quite correct.
As the article clearly states:
The foundation bought the land, known as the Stetson-Phelps Memorial Forest, from a couple in 1999,
and opened it to the public, posting a sign that reads, “We invite respectful public visits.”

The land IS open to the public. Signs make very clear that this is the case. Nobody is saying that the NEFF is forbidding public access to this land.

What the city is saying is that NEFF isn't making the land open enough.
Again, as the article states:
there was a lack of signage on the road to the forest, that there was no mention of it on the foundation’s website,
and that it was located at the end of a dirt road that appeared to be a private driveway.
...
the town of Hawley, which suggested the foundation could have hosted nature walks or scientific research.
“They should freely invite people to use the land, to have public programs on the land, and have it more than just sit there,”


The Appalachian Trail is fundamentally different from the American Discovery Trail because the former intentionally goes through land with some of its natural essence still undesecrated. This essence -- both along the AT and elsewhere -- can be preserved either by government fiats and seizures, or by the generosity of private owners. If the latter must expend resources in order to continue their generosity, then (obviously) there will be less generosity. Which means either more desecration or more government interference. Take your pick.

[4eyedbuzzard]

> The town is arguing if the New England Forestry Foundation wants to remain tax free
> they need to open the land to benefit the public

Not quite correct.
As the article clearly states:
The foundation bought the land, known as the Stetson-Phelps Memorial Forest, from a couple in 1999,
and opened it to the public, posting a sign that reads, “We invite respectful public visits.”

The land IS open to the public. Signs make very clear that this is the case. Nobody is saying that the NEFF is forbidding public access to this land.

What the city is saying is that NEFF isn't making the land open enough.
Again, as the article states:
there was a lack of signage on the road to the forest, that there was no mention of it on the foundation’s website,
and that it was located at the end of a dirt road that appeared to be a private driveway.
...
the town of Hawley, which suggested the foundation could have hosted nature walks or scientific research.
“They should freely invite people to use the land, to have public programs on the land, and have it more than just sit there,”


The Appalachian Trail is fundamentally different from the American Discovery Trail because the former intentionally goes through land with some of its natural essence still undesecrated. This essence -- both along the AT and elsewhere -- can be preserved either by government fiats and seizures, or by the generosity of private owners. If the latter must expend resources in order to continue their generosity, then (obviously) there will be less generosity. Which means either more desecration or more government interference. Take your pick.

Thanks for filling in these details. What worries me a bit is when the towns can start defining for themselves what is "open enough". Open to what exactly? Just hiking, hiking and camping, bicycles, ATV's, 4 wheel drive vehicles, hunting, timber cutting . . . Every piece of land has unique conservation considerations based upon the intent of the trust. Some notable examples of public lands originally created at least partially using conservation land trusts are Baxter State Park in ME, Harriman State Park in NY, many National Parks, and of course, large sections of the AT and other trails.

[Dogwood]

It's no surprise. We can get thoroughly mired down in the details with this specific event but there's a bigger far reaching much deeper domino like process at work than just the changing of tax exempt status of conservation land trusts though. As govt's - local, state, and National/Federal - have increasingly become insolvent and have become so bloated and complex they will seek to save/maintain themselves by whatever measures. It's similar to someone drowning who will grab onto anything to keep themselves from drowning, including someone else who is attempting a rescue, resulting in two people then drowning. This drowning scenario can be real ugly and not just for the initial entity drowning. Likewise, as an increasingly greater number of U.S. cities and states become insolvent - go bankrupt - we'll witness more of this type of resource and money grab by the most powerful.

This isn't a "the sky is falling" knee jerk doomsday conspiracy crazy scenario either. It's happening. And, the domino effect consequences are real. As municipalities financially fail it can lead to cities failing which has consequences on states which has consequences on National/Federal Govt's which has regional consequences which will have global consequences.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/32-...ent-ca-mi-ny-w

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...pt-in-one-map/

To bring this full circle and apply it to this website, it's clear that the Federal gov't, and in some State gov'ts, when having economic budget issues(aren't they always these days?), don't always put a high priority on National Parks, State Parks, etc NO MATTER HOW IT'S SPUN.

What's next?

[Tri-Pod Bob]

As a born & bred inhabitant for 56 yrs, minus 6 yrs of military/job time somewhere else, I have the right to say.......they don't call this place "Taxachusetts" for nothing! What the town of Hawley is trying to do disgusts me! Most of the revenue generating tactics used in this "Commonwealth" have the same effect. Now that I'm retired, after my AT thru hike this year, I'll be living in NH.

[4eyedbuzzard]

As a born & bred inhabitant for 56 yrs, minus 6 yrs of military/job time somewhere else, I have the right to say.......they don't call this place "Taxachusetts" for nothing! What the town of Hawley is trying to do disgusts me! Most of the revenue generating tactics used in this "Commonwealth" have the same effect. Now that I'm retired, after my AT thru hike this year, I'll be living in NH.

Welcome to NH, and I hate to inform you, but we have revenue and tax issues as well - no income tax (except investment income over 50K) or sales tax (except rooms and meals tax) means higher property taxes (on homes and motor vehicles). And fewer services, which we are also noted for. That said, NH is a good place to live all things considered.

[Mags]

Let's keep it about the specific parcel in question folks and less about overall tax policies (re: the comment about churches) . Post #8 is a great example of what this discussion should be about.



Thanks!

[bamboo bob]

Thanks for filling in these details. What worries me a bit is when the towns can start defining for themselves what is "open enough". Open to what exactly? Just hiking, hiking and camping, bicycles, ATV's, 4 wheel drive vehicles, hunting, timber cutting . . . Every piece of land has unique conservation considerations based upon the intent of the trust. Some notable examples of public lands originally created at least partially using conservation land trusts are Baxter State Park in ME, Harriman State Park in NY, many National Parks, and of course, large sections of the AT and other trails.

The land IS timbered by the alleged charity. I am a member of a conservation area in VT. We pay property taxes so we wont be a burden on the town. I think we encourage conservation land if we don't weaken a small rural towns tax base.

[4eyedbuzzard]

The land IS timbered by the alleged charity. I am a member of a conservation area in VT. We pay property taxes so we wont be a burden on the town. I think we encourage conservation land if we don't weaken a small rural towns tax base.

The case has become more a legal test case than anything else. The tax bill is $173 on 120 acres in a town with a population of 300 or so people. This isn't the larger issue. It's the other 1.2 million acres of land trust holdings in MA, and many millions more acres elsewhere, that could be affected by a precedent setting court ruling. Do we want take away the tax incentive to put privately held lands in conservation trusts for the sake of small tax revenue increases? It just seems short sighted to me.

[Shutterbug]

"A wide range of conservation groups in Massachusetts are worried their finances could take a major hit if a small town in the Berkshires wins a case slated to come before the state’s highest court Monday.

The case could determine whether cities and towns, which are hungry for cash, can tax conservation land owned by groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the Massachusetts Audubon Society. More than 1.25 million acres in Massachusetts have been protected from development." . . . Full story at: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...6SM/story.html

This case could have wide ranging impact including affecting some AT (and other trail) lands. Lets hope the court rules to let conservation lands remain tax-free.

As with any law suit, this one is about the specific wording of a Massachusetts law. It would not have any impact on other AT lands. When one claims a tax exemption he or she has to meet the requirements. It seems reasonable that a piece of property that is exempt because it is "public use" property should have to be actually open to the public.

[bamboo bob]

The case has become more a legal test case than anything else. The tax bill is $173 on 120 acres in a town with a population of 300 or so people. This isn't the larger issue. It's the other 1.2 million acres of land trust holdings in MA, and many millions more acres elsewhere, that could be affected by a precedent setting court ruling. Do we want take away the tax incentive to put privately held lands in conservation trusts for the sake of small tax revenue increases? It just seems short sighted to me.

We are not talking about National Parks here.. In many areas land is "put in trust" as a charitable donation for which the donor gets tax credits. However the public has little if any access to the land. In my opinion this is not short sighted case at all. The establishment of so called conservation trusts, especially of relatively small acreage is simply a tax dodge. The Public should get real benefit like hiking trails maintained by volunteers. I know of one place where land was donated for the public including a "locked Cabin" . Just try and get access to the cabin if your not a friend or relative of the "donor" This is a tax loophole is all.

[GoldenBear]

It seems reasonable that a piece of property that is exempt because it is "public use" property should have to be actually open to the public.

You might want to read the article.
Even the city of Hawley agrees that the area IS open to the public. The city is contending that the owners of this property aren't doing enough to encourage people to come to this place.

The only question is whether a failure to have guided tours of the place means the place has no "public use."

[Sly]

You might want to read the article.
Even the city of Hawley agrees that the area IS open to the public. The city is contending that the owners of this property aren't doing enough to encourage people to come to this place.

The only question is whether a failure to have guided tours of the place means the place has no "public use."

It has no access. A area for 4 parked cars, a short trail and a kiosk would probably satisfy the requirements.

[Dogwood]

I didn't read the article, but if conservation land were to be taxed, how would its value be determined, as there would be no "willing buyers" to buy the land, so far as I can imagine. So, a tax rate may be applied, but the taxable value may be zero and rightly so.

What would the impact on churches be? Fair's fair, after all.

RainMan

.

What blew my mind is the NFL officially has tax exempt status. WOOOOOWWWWW!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_1321635.html