# Forest Land Protection Act



## crackerdave (Sep 12, 2008)

This will be amendment #1 on the ballot in November. I'm not voicing any opinion on it,just thought some here might be interested. I put it on the "Campfire" forum [very little interest] and the "Political" forum [some interest] and put it here because the land you lease will be affected by this.You can look at this website for more info if you're interested.
www.forourforests.com
Dave


----------



## jimbo4116 (Oct 3, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> This will be amendment #1 on the ballot in November. I'm not voicing any opinion on it,just thought some here might be interested. I put it on the "Campfire" forum [very little interest] and the "Political" forum [some interest] and put it here because the land you lease will be affected by this.You can look at this website for more info if you're interested.
> www.forourforests.com
> Dave



Dave,
        This is not a forest protection act, it is a tax re-direction act.  This act will have the same effect on north Georgia counties with timber tracts as a similar act has had on the farming counties of south Georgia.

Taxes on Residential property and small business have doubled due to the tax burden being re-directed from the landowner to the homeowner and small businessman.

In the end it will not resolve the taking of land for development in Georgia.  Developers that are willing to run up the price of property will not balk at paying the back taxes and penalties.

Just as the Conservation Use Assesment Act was intended to keep small family farms intact and preventing longheld properties from being sold because of property tax increases, this act will only serve the interest of a few.

In fact it will impose the same fate on others that it preposes to end for some. 

The elderly couple living in a nice paid for home will see their property taxes explode causing many to be displace.

The answer to everyones problem is an overhaul to the Property Tax laws.

All property, once a baseline is established, should remain assessed at the last selling price plus and annual inflation indexed increase in "appraisal".  Counties could then base their milliage rates on that amount.

If someone is willing to pay triple or quadruple the tax digest value for a property, they should be willing to pay taxes based on the fairmarket value they established.

Appraisals are subjective and have become just a backhand way of increasing taxes.  A system based on the actual selling price is the on fair way to assess and levy property tax.

In the end this act will only benefit the out of state hunter that might see a reduction in timberland leases. Resident hunters will see tax increases across the board to offset the lost revenues.


----------



## crackerdave (Oct 6, 2008)

As I said,I'm not voicing any opinion on this because I'm a state employee.I'm glad to see some discussion on it,though - I'm getting educated!


----------



## crackerdave (Oct 10, 2008)

Worth a bump!


----------



## Bigbear1 (Oct 12, 2008)

Jimbo4116 needs a bit of education too. Timberland and farmland assessed values have doubled as well in the last three years. A few points on the subject;
1. A property owner must enter a 15 yr. covenant to keep the land in forest. If the covenant is broken, taxes are 3 times the difference of what they are under the covenant at the time it is broken and the full assessed value plus interests and penalties.
2. Timberland under this is assessed at "current use" instead of "Fair Market Value". In other words it is assessed as timberland not at its potential value for development.
3. If this adversely causes a 3% or more reduction in collected taxes in a county, the state must refund that county the difference in taxes lost. 
4. This in no way effects hunting leases. They are still allowed. I have a club on my property and the lease is whatever my property taxes were the previous year, no more no less. It has been that way for 30 yrs.
5. The break received now is paid back upon harvest of any timber. Harvested timber is taxed an additional 23 mils "timber tax" in addition to income and all other taxes.
6. Timberland owners are already facing the same delima mentioned of homeowners, the taxes are more than income due to artifically inflated assessments. So I definitely agree that we need a complete overhaul of the property tax system.
7. A bit of a different perspective on the same thing I know. But I am trying to hold on to 2000 ac. of land that has been in my family since 1820. My son is looking forward to carrying on the tradition. But believe me it is getting harder and harder to do.


----------



## crackerdave (Oct 14, 2008)

To me,this is one really good thing about this amendment: It will help folks hold on to their family land.VERY important!
I know - I said I wasn't gonna get in the discussion.I had to say that,though


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Oct 14, 2008)

I haven't decided how to vote on this amendment yet.

What has happened in the fast growing counties around Athens is that land is put into the "covenant" and then when some developer comes along willing to pay the price, there it goes.  Given the escalation in land prices (10% per year in some counties), the "penalties" have very little deterrent value, and the homeowners have paid the landowners taxes in the meantime.

Also, I question whether lease prices will be affected.  My opinion is that lease prices are like everything else -- they follow the market.  If someone's neighbor is getting $12.00 an acre, I don't see them asking for $8.00 just because they are getting a tax break.


----------



## Dogmusher (Oct 14, 2008)

I decided a few weeks back to vote NO.  The risk out weighs the benefit imho.


----------



## zzweims (Oct 14, 2008)

I just don't understand the reason for a new law.  "Timber" is considered "agriculture" and therefor is eligible under the current CC tax breaks.  We have 130 acres of timber in CC now.  Under the new law, we would not be eligible as the minimum acreage will be raised from 10 acres to 200.

I still feel that this law will squeeze the small family farmer who does not have 200 or more acres.

I'm voting 'no.'


----------



## jglenn (Oct 14, 2008)

exactly , I voted no also


----------



## georgia_home (Oct 14, 2008)

i think i am voting for this, even though it doesnt benefit me... and could hurt. i own well under 200 acres... but still the kind of land they are trying to protect... so, i wont get the benefit.

what bothers me is this.. about current the taxation... think back to the revolution... taxation without representation! that is unamerican! it was one of the reasons for the revolution!

i live/primary residence in one county, and own land in another. i have to pay county and school taxes in both. but i can not vote in the county i dont live in. now, i wouldnt expect to vote 2 times in the presidential election, but i WOULD LIKE a vote on the issues at the county level that effect me. specifically, the county and any other taxing authorities. i mean... if i pay taxes to a jurisdiction, i should be able to vote... right? actually... under current law... wrong! no vote for me or any land owner that lives outside the county! (if i am incorrect here... and can vote on county issues in both jurisdiction, someone please tell me!)

anyway, the easiest thing to do is raise taxes on people that can't vote. specifically that is the purpose of the homestead exemption... or at least my opinion of it.

if a property is your primay residence you qualify for a property tax break. if not.. no break. now, the thing is... as a non resident tax payer, i use less county services then a resident... and i pay more. AND I AM NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE!

EXAMPLE - fictional and simplistic:
so the taxes for all properties in county XXX are now jacked up to $1million per unit... unless you have a homestead exemption... with HS exemption, you pay $.01 unit.

i made this example a little absurd to make a point. you buy the votes of the local.. the voters.. at the expense of those people who can not vote. imho, this is vote buying at its best!

so lets at least be honest to the point that this is exactly why the countys are doing under current law... and the state is taking a hand.

and as i said, i own less the 200 acres... so even if it passes, i wont qualify. but i guess i dislike the principle of seeing people getting taxed out of the area!!!

currently the tax values on some of the timberland and other undeveloped area excedes the purchase cost... depending when you purchased and where it is located. and if you own two farms in one county, you can only claim the HS exemption on 1 parcel.


----------



## georgia_home (Oct 14, 2008)

ps... will be checking into the CC / 15year thing noted in one of the above posts! as far out as my land is, there isnt much danger of development!


----------



## one_shot (Oct 15, 2008)

jimbo4116 said:


> Dave,
> This is not a forest protection act, it is a tax re-direction act.  This act will have the same effect on north Georgia counties with timber tracts as a similar act has had on the farming counties of south Georgia.
> 
> Taxes on Residential property and small business have doubled due to the tax burden being re-directed from the landowner to the homeowner and small businessman.
> ...



I agree!
Primarily the timber corporations benefit who are not even required to be  U.S. citizens. A person or party from another country can buy forest land, then qualify.The counties like Echols, Ware & alot of others are mostly dependant on corporate timber companies for their tax digest. The other counties with none or very little timber land will have to make up for their tax loss. We have conv. stores, liquor stores, motels, banks owned by non citizens. Are we going to add our timberland to that list? This is my 2 cents!


----------



## Bigbear1 (Oct 15, 2008)

Ga. has 37M acres of land. 25M acres are in forestland. The majority, 58% is privately (Family Forests)owned. Timber is the highest valued crop in Ga. with an economic impact of over 26 billion dollars and supports over 155,000 jobs. 
Doesn't look to me like the BIG TIMBER COS. are the ones who benefit from all of this. Also there is another bill before the Govenor now to reduce the requirement to 10 acs. total land owned. Just a little food for thought.


----------



## jimbo4116 (Oct 17, 2008)

zzweims said:


> I just don't understand the reason for a new law.  "Timber" is considered "agriculture" and therefor is eligible under the current CC tax breaks.  We have 130 acres of timber in CC now.  Under the new law, we would not be eligible as the minimum acreage will be raised from 10 acres to 200.
> 
> I still feel that this law will squeeze the small family farmer who does not have 200 or more acres.
> 
> I'm voting 'no.'



You less than 200 acres of timberland or farmland on a family farm is covered under Conservation Use Assessment Act.  A different law.  This bill is only for owners of 200 acres of timberland.  You can not qualify for both.  But the loss of revenue on the Timber land just like the loss of revenue on your acreage will be made up by you on your home and other non exempted property such as your car, boat, etc.



georgia_home said:


> i think i am voting for this, even though it doesnt benefit me... and could hurt. i own well under 200 acres... but still the kind of land they are trying to protect... so, i wont get the benefit.
> 
> what bothers me is this.. about current the taxation... think back to the revolution... taxation without representation! that is unamerican! it was one of the reasons for the revolution!
> 
> ...



Homestead exemption on you home amouts to $8000 reduction in the assessment, the actual tax reduction will vary county to county because of milliage rates.

The Forest Protection Act and the Conservation Use Assessment act are two different law.  Under the CUAA
you can own as little as 10 acres of ag land and up to 2000 acres and qualify, the FPA is for timberland owners with 200 acres or more. 

The Benefits of each law are different, which in itself show the piecemeal approach to our state property tax policies.

I urge you to vote no and to research the tax laws of Georgia and to contact your State Representives about the inequities of the laws.



Bigbear1 said:


> Ga. has 37M acres of land. 25M acres are in forestland. The majority, 58% is privately (Family Forests)owned. Timber is the highest valued crop in Ga. with an economic impact of over 26 billion dollars and supports over 155,000 jobs.
> Doesn't look to me like the BIG TIMBER COS. are the ones who benefit from all of this. Also there is another bill before the Govenor now to reduce the requirement to 10 acs. total land owned. Just a little food for thought.



The Conservation Use Assessment Act allows for as little as 10 acres and as much as 2000 acres of ag/timberland to qualify for a reduction in the assessment on the property.  The FPA is for owner of 200 acres or more of timberland only.

I hope you will reconsider as the Big timber Companies will benefit and whether or not this ammendment passes they will remain in business.  As long as timber provides profit they will continue to cut and plant trees.

This is not a battle about the presevation of forest lands. It is a time to decide if we are going to revamp Advalorem tax law to be consistent and fair to all concerned.  Not peicemeal out special treatment to some at the expense of others


----------

