VINALHAVEN, Maine — To Vinalhaven Town Manager Marjorie Stratton, elements of the state’s Tree Growth Tax Program just don’t make sense.
The 40-year-old law allows landowners to set aside their forested properties for eventual timber harvesting and pay much lower property taxes, but Stratton said that in many cases in her island community the program looks to her like a way for people to dodge their financial liabilities.
“A lot of people who have very valuable property in the shoreland zone put it in tree growth, but then never really do anything with it,” she said. “They’re not following through with any kind of forestry plan. It greatly reduces the amount of property taxes we can collect.”
Stratton is not alone in her concerns. The Legislature’s Taxation Committee last month unanimously endorsed a bill, sponsored by Senate President Kevin Raye, R-Perry, that would direct the Forest Service to perform an annual, random survey of properties in Tree Growth to check for conformance.
The bill would focus the Forest Service’s efforts on waterfront properties. Raye said most of the complaints he hears about Tree Growth occur in coastal towns where it seems unlikely that a landowner can commercially harvest timber while adhering to shoreland zoning standards.
Under the law, which is meant to ease development pressure with the goal of preserving woodlands for the forest products industry, landowners must hire a licensed forester to develop a decade-long management plan, which is held by the town. That plan may or may not call for timber to actually be harvested during the 10-year life of the plan and may state that a forest will not be mature enough for harvest for many years.
“The requirement is that the primary use of the property has to be the growing of trees for commercial forest products,” said Don Mansius, director of forest policy and management for the Maine Forest Service. “Realistically, at some point in the course of that forest’s life, that forest is going to get cut.”
But the management plans are secret, which Mansius said is a provision that protects proprietary information that a forester wouldn’t want his competitors or customers to know. Some say that leaves municipalities with no way to determine if a plan is being followed or if a property owner is simply dodging taxes.
“We can look at the application but we’re not supposed to look at the plans, which is another thing that seems ridiculous to me,” said Stratton, who in addition to her municipal job is a member of the Maine Municipal Association’s Legislative Policy Committee. She said Vinalhaven has about 1,300 acres enrolled in the program, which in 2007 cost the town about $27,000 in revenue collections that had to be shifted to other property owners.
“A large landowner who would sell to the large pulp factories, that’s an example where I can see they wouldn’t want their plan to be open to the public,” said Stratton. “But for a guy who’s got a summer home on the shore, what’s the secret?”
In a 2009 report to the Legislature on the Tree Growth Program, the Maine Municipal Association raised concerns about the misuse of the program, especially in waterfront areas. The group cited examples of heavily wooded shorefront land that showed no signs of harvesting and wooded plots being set aside as “common areas” in campgrounds or subdivisions.
Even if such practices conform to the legality of the Tree Growth Statute, they are likely to violate its purpose, the MMA said.
Mansius said of the 11.2 million acres in the program statewide — which comprises about 60 percent of Maine’s forested land — the vast majority of landowners use the program appropriately.
Still, there are some who don’t agree, which is one reason why the Taxation Committee supported the bill requiring random reviews of tree growth properties to make sure the law isn’t being abused.
In fact, the Maine Forest Service supports the bill. “The proposed legislation for carrying out random annual surveys by the Maine Forest Service would help determine if and where and how big or small the problem is,” Bill Beardsley, commissioner of the Maine Department of Conservation, which oversees the Maine Forest Service, said in a statement Friday. “It would separate fact from hearsay and provide a foundation for modifications.”
Rep. L. Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls, is co-chairman of the taxation committee.
“It’s long been rumored that many people, especially along the coast, have gone into tree growth for the wrong reasons,” said Knight. “The bottom line is that there’s got to be a plan to ultimately harvest the wood.”
The tree growth law has come under additional scrutiny lately when State Treasurer Bruce Poliquin of Georgetown was accused of having land in the program that, according to his deed, can never be logged. But Knight said that issue has nothing to do with the bill being crafted by the committee.
“When those bills were filed I don’t think any of us on the committee knew Mr. Poliquin had property in tree growth,” said Knight. “This is not about Bruce Poliquin. It’s about getting information on the tree growth program.”
Earlier this week, Poliquin applied to the Georgetown Board of Selectmen to withdraw his land from the Tree Growth program. Poliquin will attempt to transfer about 10 acres of his property into the state’s Open Space program, according to the Lewiston Sun Journal.
If approved by the Georgetown selectmen, Poliquin would still receive a significant property-tax break — about 50 percent of his most recent valuation of $943,000.
However, the abatement would be far less than Poliquin has received under the Tree Growth program, which has allowed the treasurer to pay about $30 a year on the 10-acre parcel, a savings of roughly $30,000 every year since he enrolled in the program in 2004, the paper reported.
Moving the property into Open Space would allow Poliquin to avoid larger penalties that would come if he simply withdrew from Tree Growth.
Board Chairman Geoffrey Birdsall said the board was likely to approve Poliquin’s transfer application. Birdsall added that the town would not seek to penalize Poliquin or to recoup the taxes he hasn’t had to pay over the past eight years.
Birdsall told the Sun Journal the Poliquin scrutiny was likely “an intent to personally attack” the treasurer. However, he said, the matter had brought some needed attention to the Tree Growth program and other abatement laws were sheltering “millions” in property valuation.
Birdsall said the town would continue its evaluation of all town properties in Tree Growth.
According to data from Maine Revenue Services, the state’s organized territories had about 3.6 million acres split among 22,700 parcels in tree growth in 2010, worth approximately $519 million. About 200 parcels were removed from the program that year, which led to penalties for the property owners of nearly $100,000.
David Ledew, direct of Maine Revenue Services’ Property Tax Division, said there are no records concerning how much money property owners have saved in the program because the formulas are complex, set county-by-county and administration of the program happens at the local level.
“It’s just not as simple as computing what their tax would have been if the property were assessed at just value,” said Ledew. “No one has ever attempted to quantify” how much property tax revenue is diverted through the tree growth program.
“I’d be surprised if anyone has even attempted that in one municipality,” Ledew said.
Stratton said the program is just one example of the Legislature trying to provide relief for landowners without regard for the impact on municipal revenues.
“Some people feel like their taxes go up as all of this land comes out of being taxed at full value,” she said. “Tree growth is a mess. It doesn’t seem to be working but they keep adding more current-use legislation loopholes. If I had a magic wand I’d probably do away with the whole current-use tax law.”
The forest products industry sees it differently, according to Jonathan Metrick, a spokesman for the Maine Forest Products Council.
“We’re totally supportive” of the tree growth tax law, he said. “The contractors and loggers who are cutting it depend on the flow of wood.”
Mansius, of the Maine Forest Service, agreed and noted that the program helps property owners avoid paying exorbitant property taxes and by extension, keeps some of Maine’s most prized land from being developed.
“Under the program, land is valued for its ability to grow timber, and not for its ability to grow houses and housing developments,” he said. “The key is that landowners want to keep working forest land as working forest land. Maine would be a very different place if we didn’t have the tree growth tax law.”
The headline focuses on the coast, the text on Poliquin, yet the graphic shows the majority of tree growth is inland.
I wouldn’t say the text focuses on Poliquin, but he is one of the highest profile abusers of the program. I would say he is like the welfare queen who drives the proverbial Caddilac, or the recent probe into the unemployment fraud. The difference is, Republicans have risen to the defense of Poliquin, but even a cursory glance at the facts shows him to be a tax cheat. Of course, the Right splits hairs with his defense and with the support he has gotten from his fellow Republicans, he has no reason to change.
Sort of like the Dems defending the Tax Cheat in Chief, Tim Geitner?
No not at all like Geitner. He paid the back taxes. Poliquin hasn’t even admitted to his scheme, but keep defending him and he’ll never have to admit he’s a cheat.
He has not “admitted” to any “scheme” , is not a “cheat”, and has no “back taxes” for what he did not have to pay under the tree growth program.
Really? Not a cheat? Then neither is the person who receives welfare while living with a partner who make 100 thou, has 3 kids with the partner and still collects a check. This person is not married to the rich person, so he/she is still entitled to welfare aren’t they? You would have no problems with that scenario either?
You would have no problem with the person collecting unemployment while collecting a cash salary for work, you know, getting paid under the table? Because Poliquin got into the program and nobody caught it, even though the program is set up for land that produces trees, you still believe it is ok for him to pay less taxes than his neighbor who didn’t lie about having land that will never be harvested. This is part of the reason we are in the shape we are in in this country. Rich folks who abuse the tax system and people like you who defend them. Makes everybody pay more.
Not paying more in taxes than one has to is not “abusing the system”. Poliquin’s not paying more than the exorbitant over $13,000 a year he is already paying in property taxes is not making anyone else pay more. He is subsidizing others. Land in tree growth does not cost the town anything for schools and other services.
His land does “produce trees”. There is no evidence that he lied about his land, nor did he hide the fact that he is using a legal current-use assessment program for land in tree growth. Thousands of landowners all over Maine are in this program. The town suggested that he could apply to the program, he hired a professional forester to make the plan, filed the necessary paper work with the town, and has been paying the taxes assessed by the town under the program for years. There was nothing to “catch”.
The downward spiral of this once great country is not coming from “rich people” who don’t pay more taxes. It is coming from the anti-American, anti-individualists filled with resentment, envy and hatred translated into punitive government policies against the successful and those who could otherwise be successful. This attack campaign by radical leftists trying to stamped people into a lynch mob mentality against Poliquin is an example of it. It’s no wonder that so much business, investment and people have been driven out of Maine.
So because he is using a program clearly set up for producing cut trees, you don’t think it is fraud. His lot will never send a single tree to a pulp mill, although the tax break was designed for this very reason. If all his neighbors availed themselves of this, then the playing field would be level. However, because he pays less than his share would be, he is certainly NOT subsidizing anybody’s taxes. You are upside down on your math.
So, because I don’t favor relief for rich people who already have the levers of power in their hands, I am un-American? I am an “anti-individualist? Whatever that is. Sounds like a sound bite from Rush. You are really the radical here, talking about lynch mobs, radical leftists and all sorts of name calling.
Your answers are typical of the ones who think giving the wealthy just a few more tax breaks so that maybe some crumbs will roll off the table. Trickle down has been discredited. Where were you when that happened?
Poliquin is not a “tax cheat” for not paying higher taxes that you demand. It is his money. You are the “abuser”, not him.
My place is in tree growth. PLEASE survey me–and my neighbors–for compliance. I insist, in fact.
Unless the property owner can show, every year, a forestry plan by a licensed forester than that property should not be covered by the Tree Growth Program. The program has it’s place in Maine but not in every town.
it does the law says one plan written and signed by a forester and filed every 10 years
Then the law should be amended to make it required to annually show that the plan is being adhered to. A provision allowing for amendments to the original plan would be OK as long as the amendments still kept the property within the program parameters.
There is no justification for imposing more bureaucratic harassment with more “requirements”. Ten year plans for slow growing trees do not required different actions every year.
10 years is too old a period, need to change this law to have the audit done more freqently and if a whistle blower speaks up the audit should be done at that point to ensure all is legal. make sense?
No it does not make sense. There is no excuse for harassing people with “audits”, require plans for slow growing trees to specify actions more frequently, or to allow self-proclaimed “whistle blowers” to harass property owners by forcing audits.
The tree growth program requires a new plan every ten years. There is no reason to make a new plan every year. Trees grow slowly.
The tree growth program also does not discriminate against property owners by what town they are in, nor should it.
By your twisted definition, I could plant trees in a parking lot and apply for inclusion in the program. All you are is an apologist for tax fraud.
Even a blind person could see the scam!
Well If the State wasn’t so greedy on how they taxed costal property, we wouldn’t need exemptions… All thanks to JB Admin who thought that if people could afford property on the ocean then they should be taxed at a higher rate.. by the foot. It is not fair whatsoever…
.. and balance the budget, too ?
Yes, balance the budget by slashing spending.
Why not slash the rich man’s tax scams and loopholes ?
Keeping one’s own money is not a “scam” or a “loophole”. You have no business slashing anyone’s property rights.
Yeah, and sometimes it plain old tax evasion and tax fraud, too.
So, is your point that poor should subsidize the wealthy ?
There is no evidence that Poliquin engaged in “tax evasion” or “tax fraud”. You are a smear artist engaging in libel for a leftist political attack campaign. Not paying more taxes than one has to is not a “subsidy” from the “poor” or anyone else.
” that Poliquin engaged in “tax evasion” or “tax fraud”.
Who say that, besides you ?
Municipalities tax property, not the state.
The property tax crisis has been building since a long time before Baldacci, but you are right that he tried to make it worse. He tried to get constitutional amendments for progressive property taxes under non-objective law.
Crooked Tree Oceanfront Tax Shelter!
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1889/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1889R-25980.jpg
Where do I order one of those little trees in the picture, with the $20 bills?
Contact Bruce Poliquin…he’s got about 10 acres of them.
Check Baldacci’s restaraunt in Bangor.
Mama Baldacci’s closed a long time ago!!! nothing to check!
Took the money tree and run I guess.
Why ?
It is refreshing to see the BDN do some real investigative reporting on a state program that may (or may not) need reform.
It is very disappointing that this same paper urges its readers to ignore the problems at Maine Housing, either explicitly in its editorials (paraphrase: “Maine Housing’s mission is too important to undergo scrutiny”; or implicitly by failing to fully and accurately report on Maine Housing’s many problems) while focusing on the tree growth program like a laser in a bold effort to keep the heat on Treasurer Bruce Polloquin, Republican.
How about adopting this popular slogan, “Fair and Balanced” and dropping your mantra “Democrats Good; Republicans Bad”?
If you’re going to focus on finding “fraud” among the poor, you should concentrate just as forcefully on fraud among the rich. that includes Poliquin.
Stop smearing people with libelous accusations of “fraud”. There is no evidence that Poliquin has done anything wrong, let alone fraudulent. The real ‘crime’ he has being attacked for is the ugly class warfare notion that he is ‘guilty’ of being rich.
I guess “libelous accusations of fraud” against people receiving welfare or unemployment is okay when there is no evidence they have done anything wrong which is what this administration is famous for, but the rich are off limits which is also another thing this administration is famous for. If you would reread my comments, I accused him of nothing, I merely said there should be a focus on rich committing fraud and mentioned him as an example of a rich person who should be investigated. If he’s not committing fraud , then nothing to worry about!
You falsely stated that Poliquin is an example of finding fraud amongst the rich. You did not say he should be “investigated” and gave no reason why he should be. Rational people do not whip themselves up into seething resentful hysteria as an alleged justification for government “investigations” harassing individuals. That your targets are “not committing fraud” does not mean that innocent people have “nothing to worry about” from this lynch mob mentality fanning envy and resentment against the successful for not paying more exorbitant taxes than they already are.
Maine Housing Authority is currently being audited by OPEGA (the same group that caught Violette at the MTA). It is professional and appropriate for the BDN to refrain from attempting to undermine that audit.
No it isn’t, it’s a double standard for political purposes in a smear campaign while covering up leftist corruption.
And one of the biggest offenders is Quimby
She still has the option to clear cut it all if you keep fighting what she wants to do with her
own land.
Land “in coastal towns where it seems unlikely that a landowner can commercially harvest timber while adhering to shoreland zoning standards” are not the same thing at all.
go ahead and clear cut it for all i care
she cant clear cut anymore than the law allows which is not much, even if she does it doesn’t change anything it is irrelevant to this discussion
When you put up gates and not allow people on land to hunt, fish, camp out but expect them to help shoulder your tax load and their is no wood cutting activity going on or planned in the near future this land should not be in tree growth as its someones personnel playpen.
The ‘law’ you speak of is ‘shoreland protection’ which only applies to alnd within 250 foot of ocean, river or greater pond..
Quimby land is NOT shoreland.
She can clear cut without limit at any time.
The viros have made “clear cutting” illegal. No one is “fighting what she wants to do with her own land”. She is widely repudiated for being a wilderness fanatic opposed to human use of land and people are fighting her bringing in the Federal government to impose wilderness and obliterate property rights.
What’s a viro ?
And why do you sound like you think clearing cutting is a good thing ?
disqusbites: “What’s a viro ?”
An abbreviation of the unwarranted mouthful “environmentalist”. Abbreviations are conservation of letters and preservation of white space. It reduces your footprint on the page. That is a good thing. So is reducing your footprint everywhere else, including on people’s necks.
disqusbites: “And why do you sound like you think clearing cutting is a good thing ?”
You don’t decide that.
I don’t decide how you sound to me ?
Quimby cannot clear cut her land even if she wanted to because the viros have made it illegal. Whether or not clear cutting on private property would be a good idea for some particular purpose is not up to you.
“Whether or not clear cutting on private property would be a good idea for some particular purpose is not up to you.”
It is all about you, then ?
Your questions have been answered for all to see. You don’t own other people’s private property and no one is interfering with Quimby’s property rights.
By witch hunters, I guess, if you can take them seriously.
No, you don’t decide. The Right Wingers have a monopoly on name calling and labeling. (But their real forte is hypocrisy.) They are the only ones with clarity to do so. just ask them, they’ll tell you.
Folks in the Millinockett region have no viable economic plan–nothing but paper mills that are temporary, at best. Quimby offers you land, 30 million dollars, and a permanent source of pride and jobs–and you attack her.
“a permanent source of pride and jobs”
LOL, that of course assumes that the federal government will be here ‘permanently’. Sorry sprucy, nothing is permanent, as patriots would tell you…
That is a very foolish comment.
It assumes a lot more than the permanence of a Federal presence. No one has achieved a legitimate sense of self worth or pride from being under the thumb of the Federal government, let alone forced to submit to wilderness. He confuses “pride” with his nature worship.
“No one has achieved a legitimate sense of self worth or pride from being under the thumb of the Federal government, …”
Tell that to a Marine.
Tell a marine that he is under anyone’s “thumb” and you will find out what happens to your “pride”.
Ever read USCMJ ?
Define under the thumb.
Is it not like your base commander saying that some legally
operating business establish is OFF LIMITS ?
“Under the thumb of Federal control” means the oppressive statism of the viro left in which wilderness is “off limits” to civilized human use in and near it. Civilians are not supposed to be controlled under military command that the left uses government force to impose. Normal people, including marines, obtain self-esteem and pride through what they do and accomplish, not subservience to statism. Subservience is not why people enlist in the marines.
Quimby offers jack-squat
And FYI, there is economic development going on….!
She offers nothing, nothing at all.
I support people’s Constitutional right to be idiots,
but I hate how they embarrass the whole State doing it.
So now its 30 million ?? That amount just gets bigger with every news article !! Next week it will be 50 million ! haha
Subservience to the Federal government is not a source of “pride” or “jobs”. Nor do you want either. The wilderness you demand to impose is the opposite of a civilized economy. The economic development planned in Millinocket region is none of your
business and not yours or Quimby’s to replace with forced Federal
wilderness and control.
She’s a legitimate land owner that has claims that are principled to the Tree Growth tax law…….? She’s trying to preserve what tree growth there is…….but yet you want to divert attention……..that’s sophomoric and ridiculous..
if you think so…..
Oh cmon Forest……we all know, that land owners use that tax break…….and there’s nothing wrong with it……you just can’t be the Treasurer of the State, own a business, and actively use your position and amplify your company’s position…….It’s against the law……Tree growth…..in it’s infancy, is a great idea
I dint care how you spin it, there is abuse on both sides, and both Bruce & Roxanne are guilty
Tree Growth has many benefits to the state and local towns and it will prevail despite protests of some town managers that like to have more tax money to spend. It assures good management of the land instead of neglect and it is a lot of work and creates jobs.
I agree completely.
That may be true for land that is intended to be used for harvest of trees.
Using an otherwise good law to circumvent paying taxes one owes on property never intended for tree harvesting is the big problem.
The tree growth program criterion is for how the land is managed, not what you think is someone’s “intent” to not pay the higher taxes you want to impose. Not paying the exorbitant taxes that one does not have to pay is not “circumventing” anything. It is not your money and you have no claim on it.
Tree growth incentives are very worthwhile, it’s only when the program is abused does it’s usefulness and credibility come under scrutiny. It is ironic, that the Lapudge witch hunt has turned up one of his own, and like any abuser of the system restitution and exclusion from the program should be the outcome for the perpetrator.
Totally agree,it is a very worth while program.It allows landowners the break they need to keep their land in timber.
He has kept his land in timber.
And……WE all know of one abuser, who just happens to be the State Treasureer…… Quimby is without a doubt more eligible for a tree growth tax break than him, so what does the AG say…”don’t do that”….what does he do….the exact opposite, then decides to run for senate.
Just don’t get it………they are always looking for their money, never understanding that it’s not theirs for the picking.
Poliquin is not “picking” money. It is his money that he chooses not to pay in outrageous taxes which he does not have to pay. Stop smearing innocent people as “abusers”. The abuse is coming from the leftist activists with a lynch mob mentality.
All you keep writing is “lynch mob mentality”. 3 times or more. Isn’t it time you show where any kind of lynch mob has materialized? Otherwise you are trivializing the words that were used to attack and lynch hundreds, maybe thousands of black Americans. there is no lynch mob mentality except in your mind. Next you will compare you dear Poliquin to a victim of the Holocaust.
There is no evidence that Poliquin has abused the tree growth program or done anything wrong.
I seem to recall that members of the group Fox Islands Wind Neighbors engineered a property division scheme, where they effectively lowered their taxes through improper use of the tree growth tax break program. Ironic as they also complained that their property value was negatively impacted by our community wind project. Sad, though hardly surprising, that some people care more about manipulating the system to save their own $$$ at the expense of our towns budget WHILE in the process discrediting a tree growth program, when properly used, is good policy for the environmental well-being of our State.
Not paying more taxes than you have to is not “manipulating” the system and is not “at the expense of” anyone else. There is nothing wrong with people trying to “save their own money”; it is not yours to take.
Saw this happen downeast in Washington County. Tree Farm…right. When the “timber” was harvested it was worthless as it was all center rotted 5″ fir and spruce. The land was harvested to the degree it was out of compliance with coastal zoning.
And the owner did it (tree farm) to get lower taxes, well-to-do person from away…..so the concern does have merit.
And the main point is to make up for the lower property taxes, the lowered tax amount was shifted by the town for the rest of us to pay!
This how the rich stay rich, sort of the 1% “tree farm”
The reason it was center rot 5 inch, is it needed to be harvested/thinned long ago so it would stay healthy
Exactly! Sometimes a low grade harvest is the the only option.A forest is just like a garden,if you don’t thin it out all you get is low grade veggies.
No one is getting or “staying” “rich” by not having to pay more in the exorbitant property taxes.
If it wasn’t for the Baldacci Admin, taxing us by the foot on coastal property, we wouldn’t need tree growth tax breaks….
That’s no different that front foot for all the lakes statewide. I feel no pity for anyone who can afford to keep a property that many times is worth hundreds of thousands to millions – pay your share like the rest of us…
There is no “share” owed as exactions for daring to be successful and having more than you do. No one wants your “pity”, only justice. Stop the “soak the rich” fanning of resentment and discrimination against property owners;
If we are going to shift the cost of running the state onto property tax payers as Lepage has been doing ,then this type of tax dodge will have to be stopped.
The tree growth program is not a “tax dodge” and LePage is not shifting the “cost of running the state onto property owners”. Stop making things up for your activist attacks.
It is so a tax dodge when the timber in question can’t be cut anyway, already.
There is no requirement to cut timber, it depends on the management plan. His deed does not prohibit cutting.
Everyone in the tree growth program is in it to keep his taxes down. That is what the program is for.
So why is it called the tree growth program
and not the property tax reduction program ?
Read the law and you will find out. Landowners go out of their way to qualify for the tree-growth program and consequent bureaucracies — and penalties if they later leave it — because they want to qualify for the reduced taxes in that law and its intent. If the law did not provide for reduced property taxes no one would bother and it never would have been written. It is a tax assessment program for land in tree growth.
It was set up for the purpose of encouraging the people who have woodlots to keep them producing wood. Not for tiny ocean front lots where the timber will never be cut. You can pretend it is otherwise, but if YOU bothered to read the first page of the law, you would see what the intent was. Not some new interpretation by some right wing thug who wants to burden others with their tax burden.
You need to pay attention when Lepage talks. He and his administration have a huge man crush on the state of New Hampshire and have publicly stated that they plan to copy New Hampshire’s property tax based system.
De-funding schools and social service that are other wise mandated by law is the way Lepage is making this change.
They are trying to reduce Maine government (state and local) spending and taxes by legal means. What in particular about the NH property tax are you referring to?
New Hampshire has no income tax and they get the revenue to run the state from sales tax and the state takes the local property taxes. In Maine property taxes are paid to the local city or town and are much lower than NH but we pay a state income tax to run the state.
New Hampshire has a state income tax but no personal state income tax. NH does not have a general sales tax. I don’t think it’s true that the state there takes the local property taxes, but what happened to the controversy in NH over how the state takes some of the property taxes for schools from the towns and redistributing them to other schools across the state? Do they still do that?
Emulating NH’s generally lower taxes is a good thing, but why do you think LePage wants to copy their overall system? Some cuts in the ever shifting state payments to towns for schools doesn’t do that.
The total spending and taxes should be reduced, but not by shifting it onto one kind of tax. Property taxes are particularly high and discriminatory towards property owners and especially land owners and I haven’t seen LePage doing anything about that yet.
Seems they just need to enforce the rule’s of the program or is that to simple.
As per the article above Mr Poloquin removed his land from the tree growth status to the states open space program. The town is not going to even try to recoup the thousands of dollars that he should of been paying ! Remember this is the man who is running to take Olympia Snowe’s now vacated position ! BIG BALLS , thats all ive got to say ! Another CROOK we dont need in our government ! But what really strikes me is who as ever heard of the OPEN SPACE PROGRAM, i bet few of us unless we had inside info by being a state employee and hanging around the treasurers office collecting funds for all these SPECIAL PROGRAMS !
Well, may-be in November we will be able to say what we think of it, then.
Scariest part about him is the fact that as state treasurer, he’s the man whose hand is in the till.
And who does he answer to? Someone even shadier: LePage.
Bangor has open space requirements for developers !
he doesn’t owe anything because there was nothing wrong legally – you should commend the man for switching programs and voluntarily paying more , but your bias probably won’t let you see that.
He hasn’t done anything wrong, but I would commend him more for sticking to his right to be in the tree growth program rather than “voluntarily” paying more under activist harassment. But they won’t commend him because the whole attack campaign has been a manufactured ‘scandal’ from the beginning, deliberately intended to smear and intimidate to hound him out of office and “progressively” raise property taxes.
Thousands? As per the article above, by engaging in fraud for the past eight years, “Poliquin has paid $30 a year on the 10-acre parcel that has a current valuation of $943,000. That provided him a savings of roughly $30,000 every year for the eight years he enrolled in the program in 2004. That’s not just thousands, that’s $240,000! Does anyone think any community would give any one of us a pass on committing fraud on such a scale? And you’re right again, the GALL of this man is amazing! He should be behind bars not running for a Senate seat. I suppose, he now does have a windfall savings of $240,000 in his election war chest. He should be able to buy a few votes from conservatives with cash like that.
He won’t have my vote – tar and feather used to be a good old time solution and more tar the better for this ilk of a person.
You have a lynch mob mentality.
There has been no “fraud” and no one has shown any evidence that he has done anything wrong during this entire attack spree.
There is no such thing as a “windfall saving” in taxes that are not owed. That you think
he should have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes for land that is unused and mostly undevelopable shows how unethical your leftist “soak the rich” agenda is.
South African Pulp And Paper Plan!
Cut every tree you possibly can –get a tax Break– sell it to Plum Creek and run like hel —
Plum Creek plan– Continue the Tax Break for Tree Growth while getting approval to develop, –Sell and run like hel
That is a sneering leftist distortion of what it takes to run a successful business.
Just great. The town managers can’t wait to get the last Mainer off their shore front so it can be developed for the benefit of people from Mass. Conn. and NY who can’t object to the taxes because they are not residents. Or if they are residents they see taxes that the average Mainer can’t afford as a pittance compared to what they were paying in Greenwich and thus are more inclined to agree to higher taxes.
The one change I see is that like the open space program the public should be allowed access based on the size of the property so that people who have small plots of land in tree growth might have to allow access for reaching the shore for fishermen and clam diggers. Larger plots should be open to other types of recreation use such as hunting, hiking, fishing and snow sledding.
I don’t want to open my land to hunters and snowmobiles? Been there- done that- they destroy what isn’t theirs. And yes- I am in tree growth.
That’s unfortunate that you have had that experience. I have not any problems. I’m not in tree growth but, never the less, I feel some obligation to allow others to use my land although I control it to a degree because it’s not a large plot.
You have no such “obligation”. Many of us out of benevolence allow local people to use our woods when they do no harm, but it is our right to decide that. Depending on where you are, it is just a matter of time before increasing use causes you problems.
punish everyone for the actions of a few ? so lets shut the roads off cause some kid tears em up,me thinks your a drama queen, sleds dont destroy,some atv’s ? yes ,again a few !
Well hmmm let’s see…is it MY land? yea. Do I want you to stay off it? yea. Does it matter to me if you think it’s wrong or if I’m a drama queen? nah Have a great weekend !
nighty night drama queen, im thinking you found a couple of soda cans and you got the broad brush out for sppecial effects
Well, fine, pay the full value of your land in taxes then.
Why? That is a horrible idea! Why should anyone pay more in taxes than the purchase price of land?
Say you have a house that you bought for $100k. Now lets all tax it $300k each year. Right? That is what your wanting?
The trend in Maine’s high property taxes is to drive out everyone, resident or not, except those who can afford the ransom. Giving up property rights should never be a condition for not paying more taxes. That is extortion.
So the people who can afford to pay their taxes beat the system and pay the bare minimum, and the fishermen whose families have lived on the coast for generations have to move because they can’t afford to pay their taxes. So wrong! Birdsall is a major disappointment to the people he serves in Georgetown. How can he defend Poliquin by saying he’s being targeted. The law is the law and Poliquin is breaking it. If I were a resident in Georgetown I get on the bandwagon to get this guy thrown out. Poliquin has deprived that town of $240,000 since 2004. Money I’m sure they have a need for. Disgusting!!!
There is no evidence that Poliquin is breaking the law and he is not “depriving” anyone of his own money by not paying higher taxes than he has to. It is his money, not yours.
He is paying an outrageous over $13,000 a year on his homesite. The problem is Maine’s outrageous taxes not a lack of ‘soaking the rich’.
Holy Cow msscv! There is no evidence because he refuses to show anyone his forestry plan. Are you foolish?! But he has decided to put his property in another program that beats the system. Sorry, if he has the money to buy a property like that, then he should have the money to pay for the taxes. I don’t like the amount of taxes I pay either, but I do. Why? Because it’s the law. Oh but wait, some people think they are above the law…Hard working families who have lived on their coastal properties for 100 years have to move because they can’t afford to pay, and the towns are fine with that, but the wealthy come along and pay $30/yr for 10 acres of waterfront property and it’s ok. How can you say that is fair?!
All of the money we all pay in taxes is ours…not just the rich!!! And after the taxes are paid who has more leftover to live off of? It’s all relative pal. BTW I am a republican, but I do not condone fraud. Poliquin is a fraud.
Poliquin’s not giving away his personal financial and tax information is not evidence of any wrongdoing. No one does that and there is no requirement to
do so. It is not “evidence” of “fraud”.
Rational people do not make accusations and demand that the victim prove his innocence to their satisfaction. No evidence means no evidence. You don’t make “evidence” by speculating what you would like it to be and then concluding that your target’s refusal to confirm your demands is “evidence”.
Poliquin is not “beating the system” and has not said or done anything to declare himself “above the law”. Your assertions are false. Both the tree growth and open space programs are the “system” and are the law. You apparently do not understand the tree growth program.
Thousands of property owners with ten acres or more in tree-growth are in these programs all over the state, including coastal areas. They are current-use tax assessment programs that recognize the unfairness and destructive effects of taxing people whose land is not being used for anything but trees at exorbitant rates as if it were developed to full potential and drawing services from the town, which it does not. To the chagrin of the resentful and envious who want progressive property taxes, these programs do not discriminate against either coastal owners or “the rich”. The restrictions on qualifying for the current-use tax programs should be loosened, not made worse.
Poliquin has a legal right to change from the tree growth program to the open space program, but is being harassed into doing so and paying higher taxes by an activist smear campaign that has been drumming up a lynch mob mentality
against him.
The well-known and widespread injustice of taxing some people off their
land is caused by Maine’s high property taxes and spending, not Bruce Poliquin. That injustice is not undone by imposing higher taxes on more people who”had the money to buy the property” so let’s take it, or because you insist that they “have more left over” and it’s all “relative’. You don’t decide what other people’s money means to them and one does not correct an injustice against those being destroyed by taxes by dragging down, plundering and punishing those who did not cause it. You want to see him suffer by taking more away from him.
Poliquin is paying an outrageous over $13,000 a year in property taxes and all you can think about is that you want him to pay thousands a year more on land in tree growth that costs the town nothing in schools or other ‘services’. Why? Because he has money.
That is like the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton who when asked why he robbed banks replied “because that’s where the money is”. But Sutton didn’t have the gall to posture in an emotional fit of pseudo moral outrage against his victims for having money — or accusing the banks of “fraud” for having it and not giving it to him. And all he wanted was the money, he wasn’t out to destroy bankers with a desire to see them suffer. Sutton didn’t resent the successful.
Deliberately harming and punishing other people will not help you or the rest of us paying high taxes, nor, evidently, do you intend it to: the baseless, emotional accusations you have picked up on are driven by hatred, resentment and envy.
Your baseless accusations that Poliquin is a “fraud” for not paying more taxes than he has to are false and libelous. His “crime”, to you, is that he has money and isn’t being made to give up more of it to higher taxes so that he can be made to suffer like others. If you are serious about the plight of those being driven off their own property by high taxes then go after the source: Maine’s high taxes and spending.
Are you getting paid for damage control against Poliquin?
Are you paid to help with a smear campaign, or are you just committing the Marxist fallacy that one’s ideas are ‘economically determined’ as an excuse to evade facts and reasoning?
Hey if they can not afford to pay taxes its time to sell. I am sorry no one pays my taxes. The well to do complain about people on food stamps. Seems like they get more (food stamp) in the form of tax breaks than the poor do in food.
He is paying over $13,000 a year in property taxes. He is not “getting” anything by not being forced to pay more.
Bull He is not pay the value of his property. Should I sell my house to my mother she already pays enough taxes right then I could live tax free. Tax the place on what it is worth . No breaks for the rich .
Taxing undeveloped forestland in Maine for “what it is worth” for development instead of how it is used would make land ownership impossible. That is what the anti-private property rights left wants. Poliquin is subsidizing the town through the outrageous property taxes he pays now. There is no excuse for this hysterical frenzy demonizing him in a lynch mob “get the rich” mentality demanding that he be looted for even more.
Why on gods green earth should these people get a bigger tax break than the potential of what the trees would be worth harvested? What is 10 ares worth a harvested trees worth in substainable income ? Im am guessing its like only a like $1000 per year . Trees take like 40 years to grow.
Why should landowners be forced to pay more taxes for town services that have nothing to do with their land just because they own land. Are you going to try to apply property taxes to other assets like checking accounts and retirement funds, too?
If i buy ten houses and rent them for profit . Should i pay less in taxes per house than the guy with 3 kids to feed . Just tax what it is worth .
Someone who can’t afford three kids should be more responsible than to have three kids. It’s not an excuse to seize someone else’s assets and redistribute them and not an excuse to discriminate against and loot landowners whose land has nothing to do with the cost of government or anyone’s town ‘services’. If you want less taxes, which you should, then go after the exploding government spending that causes it instead of scapegoating in a fit of envy people who have visible assets.
90% of Maine is forest.
Nobody coudl afford to own forest land, if it was all taxed at residential rates.
I own a woodlot. Change it to full taxes and I would be forced to sell my home. My taxes would be more than my pension.
i don’t think any one has a problem with that if you use it for a woodlot and no as your private playground or vacation home
They are arguing to riase my taxes.
who? they just want the land used the way that tree growth was designed to protect
I just say tax it what it is worth market value . If people do not like it sell it. I get no breaks on my taxes. I am not saying a 20 acre piece of land is worth 20 times what a house lot is. I am saying have an appraisal on the market value of the land no tax breaks to people who want to hoard assets.
But that is not how it works in Maine.
When you buy forest land in Maine, and then tax it at residential rates, the taxes will be 3X to 4X more then the purchase price, each year.
That is stupid.
You have no business telling other people to force people to sell their land by imposing punitive taxes. Land in tree growth costs you and the town nothing.
If the market value on your land is worth more than my house why should I pay more taxes?
I paid $300 per acre for my land, in 2005.
My Real Estate taxes are $850 per acre, before ‘Treegrowth’ is applied.
Can you legally harvest that tree growth, it if you choose to, or not ?
Why should he pay more in taxes for town services he doesn’t use? If you want lower taxes, as you should, then go after the spending instead of punishing landowners.
Why ?
What is the reason you legally could not cut the timber off the land
that you have registered in the State’s timber growth program ?
Land that is in ‘treegrowth’ can be cut at any time. The problem is that it may take from 40 years to 80 years to produce timber. I could go out and clear cut my land today, but none of the wood will have any market value. Some harvesting is done at a loss, some shows a small profit.
You can use it for anything you like as long as the trees are managed in accordance with the tree growth program (which excludes homes).
you can use a portion of a large lot for a home (which will be taxed at a normal rate) and then put the rest under tree growth (with no real intention of doing any significant harvesting)
There is no requirement to do “significant harvesting”. Thousands of landowners qualify for the tree growth program by managing their land in accordance with the requirements. There is no requirement to run a logging business.
Sell your land not the house. Taxes for most people would go down if people were taxed fairly .
Raise taxes on 90% of the land in Maine, so that taxes will drop on 10% of the land in Maine?
90% of land is owned by 10% of the people .
Aside from the fact that you made that up, so what? It’s no excuse to discriminate against landowners with higher taxes.
It not doing that. The opposite is true.
The questionable tax breaks for timber growth that can’t be harvested, anyway, allows some people to pay less per mil than everyone else in town for no good or logical reason.
You don’t understand the issue very well, do you, MSSCV ?
Current-use lax assessment is supposed to use different ‘mil rates’ for land not used for development. You pretend to not understand current-use tax assessment because you want to soak landowners. You discriminate against landowners in demanding that they gpay for services that have nothing to with their land. As a radical leftist you would also like progressive asset taxes on bank accounts, retirement accounts and other investments. There is no good or logical reason for your redistributionism.
If all that land was taxed at the correct rate then the average rate would go down. Your total bill would go up but most people would have a lower bill, I believe that is called paying your fair share…..
What you are saying we should do is to continue to subsidize you owning that land.
I suppose that depends on the town. Mine had all sorts of gimmicks to make sure houses in town were barely taxed, while the mill and those greedy flatlanders carried them, their roads, and their schools.
If you want to see more Plum Creeks, do away with Tree Growth. If I can’t afford my taxes, I’ll have develop my place, and no one will find a deer or moose out there again.
No one has a problem with real timberland or even small WORKING wood lots being taxed at a rate that reflects their real value, but why shouldn’t shore front property ( estates) be taxed at the same mil rate as all the other residential property in a town ?
Would you support a lawn growth tax break ?
That is just like what are saying.
I would, perhaps, if the state depended on the sod industry. If people protected hundreds of square miles of manicured lawn for the benefit of outdoorsmen. If we wanted people to cut sod at a certain rate to make sure they didn’t build houses on it.
No one is being “subsidized” by not being forced to pay more taxes.
Land in tree growth costs the towns nothing for schools or other ‘services’. Taxing landowners without regard to current use in trees would further discriminate against landowners to pay for government costs, i.e., subsidize government.
Great point.
But the no tax, no compromise idiots still vote against own best interests, anyway.
If you keep bees on good for you, and good enough for me, too, but YOU could legal cut it,
couldn’t you ?
See the difference, yet ?
Yes I can clear cut at any time. The guy I bought my land from had clear cut the land. So when I got it, it was/is a stump-farm. Stumps every where. In 40 years to 80 years from now it may have valuable timber. But today, any cutting would be done at a loss.
I can legally cut my trees whenever I want to. Right now I do nto have any trees, that could be used for timber. Any cutting would cost money and there is no method of paying for it.
What is this ‘difference’ you speak of?
If you filthy liberals weren’t trying to screw the property owner at every chance you got this wouldn’t be an issue.
It isn’t an issue. They are trying to make it one with a smear campaign intended to stampede people into going along with higher property taxes to screw people even worse than what they are doing now.
How much would 10 acres of Maine forest harvesting produce for you annuitizied to an annual amount? Closer to $50/year per 10-acres.
Less than $100/year.
If the tree growth land is on the shoreline, I would think that the municipal officials could question the legitimacy of allowing the tree growth exemption since zoning usually does not allow the cutting of trees within the 250 foot zone. All the municipal officials have to do is review their zoning and planning rules to ensure that these trees are not within the zone that does not allow the cutting of trees. That would be one way of checking the legitimacy of a tree growth exemption.
State law for the tree growth program explicitly does not exclude from the program land that is under government prohibitions on use, nor should it. Why should someone by subjected to enormous property taxes on land the government prohibits him from using?
According to the law
“3. Land shall not be excluded because of …
b. Statutory or governmental restrictions which prevent commercial harvesting of trees or require a primary use of the land other than commercial harvesting;”
“Why should someone by subjected to enormous property taxes on land the government prohibits him from using?” (for lumbering, near the coast or on stream bank, right ? )
The same mil rate as everyone else in any given is charged, I’d say.
There is no justification for what you say, either in law or ethics. As a leftist you discriminate against landowners, opposes private property rights and want to soak landowners with high taxes. Normal people see the unfairness in taxing people on land they can’t use but which is assessed for highest potential development.
msscv : ” … As a leftist you …”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
The truth is a positive defense.
It is all right there, so you should not whine or complain.
If you must, you’ll just be wrong again.
I checked the law, and you are right. It seems very strange to me, but it is the law.
Yes it is, and if you think about it some more you can see that isn’t strange. Why should someone who has lost his rights to use his property be further punished by higher taxes because the state says he can’t use it? The ‘current use’ of the land used for the assessment is still tree growth, even though ‘commercial use’ is much more limited (or entirely prevented), and it still is not costing the town for schools or other ‘services’.
First the Democrats say, you can’t cut trees on your coastal property, yet they don’t want you to take a tree growth exemption… You figure it out…
the exemption is for wood to be harvested eventually, what can’t you figure out. If you can’t harvest it, you certainly can’t follow a plan to harvest it. I think Mainers made the laws, I may be wrong though.
The tree growth law does not require harvesting trees within the ten year plan or at all. It depends on the management plan for each ten year period. The tree growth law also explicitly does not exclude land on which the government prohibits cutting trees, not should it. Why should someone pay exorbitant taxes on land he can’t use?
In the many Southern Maine towns that value “open space” and “rural values” town planners and community conservation groups often affirmatively seek out large landowners holding significant open space or forested areas to come up with ways to encourage the landowners to conserve their land and not engage in subdivision development. Part of the attraction of conservation efforts was to put the land in the open space tax program or the tree growth plan as an incentive to the landowner not to develop the property and in return the landowner would get a tax break for voluntarily restricting development. So I am bothered that now the very same community leaders who affirmatively recruited the landowners to participate in the open space and tree growth are now playing duck and cover and trying to cast blame on the landowners who bought into their program.
Playing ignorant to the rules shouldn’t fly with the government. Town officials are not tax experts and never should be treated as such and Mr. Poloquin is holding a constitutional office in our government, his knowledge of the rules should be well above the layman’s knowledge of the rules; though neither should be able to play dumb.
If I don’t receive a W-2 from my employer I don’t get to use that as an excuse with the IRS, so listening to bad advice from a town official shouldn’t fly either. Cheating the tax code is cheating the tax code.
There is no evidence that Poliquin is “cheating” and he has not said he didn’t know what the rules are. His land is in the tree growth program under the rules as they have been interpreted and applied for thousands of landowners for decades.
Please remember the instant case….Treasurer Poliquin’s property was in a conservation easement well before he finagled a tax break/scam. Other than that, you have a good point!
Not paying more taxes than he has to is not a “scam” and he did not “finagle” anything.
Wow..it just get’s better. Poliquin now blames the town of Georgetown for telling him to put his property in the Tree Growth tax program when they denied his 2004 tax abatement request. I didn’t know they were in the tax advice business, but they must be since they have no intention of asking him for any of the $200,000, they walked away from as a result of their bad advice. Imagine, they have a chance of getting a windfall of $200, 000, practically for just asking, and don’t plan on doing it! I guess the people of Georgetown are so well off, it’s just pocket change to them! Maybe the money will find it’s way into re-election campaigns or new park benches! On the plus side, if the propertyu goes into “Open Space”, my reading is that it will be open to the public! I for one will plan a “Campers RV and Trailer Caravan” to spend some time with the rich folks who are kind enough to open up their considerable pocketbooks for we, the great un-washed!! Poliquin is such a bug!
Poliquin is not “blaming” the town and this is not the first time that it has been reported that the town advised him on the availability of the tree growth program, nor is there any reason whey they should not have, nor was it “bad advice”. They do not now only have to “ask” to get a $200,000 “windfall” to which the are not entitled. You do not understand the tree growth and open space tax programs.
I admit I’m not an expert on tree growth, but i do undeerstand common sense. If you knew where poliquin lives, explain a a tree growth plan to me on previously conserved land that was to remain “as is” under the easement. How could he have any other motive than tax evasion? He’s gaming the system for his personal benefit, as has done in the past, and taking advantage of the good people of Maine.
His deed does not prohibit cutting trees and the tree growth program does not require an intense logging operation.
Everyone in the tree growth program is motivated to pay the lower taxes, otherwise no one would bother. That is not “tax evasion”. There is nothing wrong with “personal benefit”. Not paying more taxes than you have to is not “gaming the system”. Not paying higher taxes is not taking anything from anyone and is not “taking advantage of the good people of Maine”. Poliquin is paying over $13,000 a year in property taxes and you want more. The ugly class warfare fanning envy and resentment against the successful is not “common sense”. “Soak the rich” with punitive taxes is not “common sense”.
After your latest rant, your creditability gauge just flat lined! Thanks for the debate and have a nice day.
First I know of no one having land in Tree Growth with shorefront property. If they are using the program merely to evade property taxes the practice is wrong. However, posters have to realize that Tree Growth is not a “free ride” if you are following your plan. Initially you have to submit an application showing you have “x” amount of trees on each acre to be covered. You have to have your land surveyed and lines marked. You have to have a registered forester to draw up a plan to be followed by you. (your cost is at the low end $500.) You have to have roads or paths to get from one end of the tree growth property the other. You have to keep these paths clear and prevent the roads from washouts. You have to spend endless hours bush hogging, trimming, cutting out the bad- planting the good. You have to be diligent in finding a woodharvester who will not descimate your forestland when he cuts for you. For most small landowners it is not as described a way to prevent paying taxes. There is a cost in time and money.
And I am sure Poliquin did all that! lol. I am not against the legitimate use of the program, but just like mainecare and unemployment, we should eliminate the fraud and abuse.
There is no evidence that Poliquin has engaged in “fraud” or “abuse”. This is a smear campaign intended to rile people up for political purposes.
No one uses the tree growth program to “evade” taxes. Everyone uses it avoid paying more taxes than he has to. It is a current-use valuation program that assesses the land at its value in the trees, not the highest potential development value. Land in tree growth does not burden the town with costs for schools or other ‘services’. No one in tree growth — on the coast or not — is “getting away” with anything.
In addition to the enormous penalty if you need to take land out of tree growth, there are some costs for management, but what they are depends on your management plan. You have to pay for an inventory and plan and to keep the boundaries clearly marked, find a responsible forester and woodcutter etc., but typically the cost of ‘roads’ is assumed by the woodharvester who clears only what he needs to access the trees. You don’t necessarily have to maintain trails or real roads unless the parcel is so big that it’s impractical to walk it.
You are so right. It is difficult and expensive to keep a forest in “tree growth”.
As was said in the article, “Maine would be a very different place if we didn’t have the tree growth tax law.” For example, many owners of 10+ acres (minimum number of acres required to qualify for tree growth status) would be motivated to subdivide and sell.
The solution is to check for compliance, not destroy the program. PS Many states with have similar laws, with the intent TO PROTECT GREEN AREAS!
“Motivated” is an understatement. They would be forced to sell by the imposition of punitive taxes discriminating against landowners forced to bear the brunt of town government costs, especially the failing schools which account for about 70% of it.
The tree growth tax is not a scam. The tree growth tax is GETTING scammed.
The property owners in the tree growth program are being scammed by an activist political campaign to raise property taxes by smearing and misrepresenting those the left wants to soak.
beware – tree growth lets many land rich cash poor Mainers keep their land and it prevents or slows development. I see in the writing and discussion here the perception that full taxes are due .
What needs to be added is some conditions for large lots to allow access
Giving up property rights should never be a condition for not paying more taxes. That is extortion.
I am an assessor for 3 coastal towns. 99.9% of tree growth property in the shoreland zone could not pass the straight face test. Another example of big money getting a break. Any one who tries to pretend it is not being abused is someone who is looking the other way. The legislature should buck up and make it fair.
Ms.Robbins
I too believe the legislature should buck up and make it fair when taxpayers can legally avoid paying their fair share. In that same light, when a town has prime coastal property bought by “conservancy trusts” or bought by the “state” who do not pay taxes on such, do you think those properties should be part of the states’ valuation of that town. In other words, if your town had a high valuation but recieved no tax revenue for prime real estate which is part of the state’s valuation would that be fair? I think there is plenty the legislature could do to help us out. My apology if this post appears convoluted but I was told that land in trusts and government owned is part of our state town valuation but cannot be taxed by the community.
Thank you again for a great post.
There is no “fair share” that property owners have some kind of progressivist duty to provide in subsidies and the legislature should stop imposing that notion. It is the opposite of fair.
That may be. I am not coastal. But when I take 1 acre out of treegrowth, that one acre gets taxed at more than the purchase price.
I bought land at $300 per acre, and yet one acre is taxed $850.
I do not want to buy land every year. Nor do I want my taxes to be more than the purchase price of land.
so if you bought a house years ago for say 40 or 50 thousand the valuation should never go up no matter how much real estate appreciates ?
Land was selling at $300 per acre in 2005. There is land adjacent to mine righ tnow, today, up for sale, they are asking $300 per acre. No land value is going up, as far as I am aware of. Land has held steady in value.
$300 land is taxed $850 if it is ‘residential’ and not treegrowth.
When you take an acre of of tree growth you pay a “penalty” in addition to the punitive higher property taxes from that time on. The tree growth program values your land as its current worth for growing trees. Otherwise it is assessed as the current highest value for potential development (whether you do that or not). No land is assessed at its purchase price except when you first buy it if the purchase price happens to coincide with the average market value being assessed in your town. From there on the taxes go up because spending goes up and because the market value of the land typically goes up due to inflation or real increase in value or both. That is why you are paying higher taxes than you expected.
Isn’t this revealing — a tax assessor demanding more money from people he smears as “big money”. It is their money, not yours. It is not “fair” to soak people for more than you are already taking, and no the legislature should not give you more power to take more.
so you have no problem with people scamming the system to lower their taxes at the expense of the other tax payers. or maybe you’re doing it yourself and just don’t want it to change.
Poliquin is not “scamming the system”. His not paying more taxes than he has to is not at “the expense of other taxpayers”. Taxes are imposed by government spending, not property owners who do not pay more than the already exorbitant taxes they already pay. Land in tree growth costs the town nothing for schools and other ‘services’. Poliquin is paying an outrageous over $13,000 a year in property taxes. He is forced to subsidize town costs and you are filled with seething resentment because he isn’t forced to pay even more.
msscv you are scamming the system. Why are you responding to everything? Over the top!
Rejecting smears and explaining what is wrong with baseless falsehoods is not “scamming the system”. You don’t control what other people are allowed to write.
It’s not the program, it’s the abusers and abettors…starting with our own Bruce Bunyan !
Why is it a scam for people from away trying to shield themselves from the local tax burden. Yes, they may get fire protection and the services, seasonally of some overpaid folks, but they are not using the big sucker of taxes, the schools. So what is the big deal? The local folks are getting a heck of a free ride, all in the name of “fairness”. Kind of sounds like the twisted logic of Obummer…..
the lawmakers will never make it fair because too many of them take advantage of the tree growth law so as soon as they move their property out of the program will change and then the penalties will start
Thousands of property owners and over 10 million acres are in the tree growth program. There is nothing wrong with “taking advantage” of the current-use assessment program and it would not be “fair” to raise taxes the way the leftist activists want to.
so scamming the system by not following the rules is fine by you . you must be a republican.
I wonder what you would say if you found out that the majority of tree growth program participants are Democrats
He is not “scamming the system”. Your gratuitous accusations are baseless. You are filled with seething hatred and resentment against him for being “rich” and not paying even more exorbitant taxes than he already is. You want him to pay more taxes than he has to out of a perverted notion of “fairness” based on resentment of those who are successful.
…
..
It’s no wonder Quimby stepped down as the Quimby National Park representative; it’s ok for her to chop down trees, but a crime for anyone else to do so… or own land