Amendment #4
Official Title:
Property Tax Exemption of Perpetually Conserved Land; Classification and Assessment of Land Used for Conservation
Official Ballot Summary: (Click here for a PDF of the full text.)Requires Legislature to provide a property tax exemption for real property encumbered by perpetual conservation easements or other perpetual conservation protections, defined by general law. Requires Legislature to provide for classification and assessment of land used for conservation purposes, and not perpetually encumbered, solely on the basis of character or use. Subjects assessment benefit to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions established by general law. Applies to property taxes beginning in 2010.
I chatted online with Doug Matthews. He is the marketing director of Vote Yes On Amendment 4. He informed me that the coalition is made up of environmentalists and conservatives against property taxes.
"Right now, land that's under a conservation easement (permanent or temporary) is taxed according to it's highest possible use," explained Matthews. "So there's no financial incentive to set it aside."
The amendment would give a property tax break to land counties set aside for conservation purposes. Developers and wifelife supporters, such as Jim Fowler, support the amendment for different reasons. Environmentalists view Amendment 4 has a deterent to unchecked growth management. Developers can get a tax break for setting aside 75 percent of lands for conservation. The other 25 percent sees increased property values from being near green space.
Amendment 4 seems like a no-brainer. Florida's undecider, Charlie Crist, still has not stated his position. It takes true political courage not to state an opinion on an amendment with no major opposition. Crist might frame himself as a green governor and tax-cutter, if he supported the amendment. We know how Crist has been shying away from that image.
Vote yes on amendment 4.
http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/09/florida-amendment-4.html
more
Environmentalists back state Amendment 4 -- with caveat
There is wide support to provide owners tax relief to help preserve wild Florida, but even supporters caution that the devil is in the details.
BY CURTIS MORGAN
cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com
This is the first in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Environmentalists are backing a big tax break for Florida's largest land owners.
You read that right. In an election year notable for nastiness, two typically partisan factions have reached accord over at least one thing: Amendment Four, a measure that would reduce or eliminate property taxes for owners who protect their land from bulldozers.
Environmental groups embrace the proposal as a promising, painless option for expanding preservation in a state with a dwindling budget to buy prime parcels. The amendment is one of six on the Nov. 4 ballot.
''Given the economy and amount of money available for land acquisition, this provides a way of promoting conservation management without using tax dollars,'' said Janet Bowman, legislative policy director for The Nature Conservancy.
Proponents believe it could prove especially helpful in places like South Miami-Dade, where suburban sprawl drives up land values -- and pressure to subdivide -- on remaining rural lands. The pitch is that owners now spending money to run small farms or nurseries mainly to claim agriculture tax breaks could profit by letting land revert to wetland.
''The value of land in South Dade is very high,'' said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. 'One of the reasons that land is even being farmed right now is to qualify for `green-belt' exemptions.''
Amendment 4 boasts bipartisan political support and no organized opposition. It is endorsed by virtually every major environmental group in the state and dozens of obscure ones, like the Sebastian Fishin' Chics. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, guardian of business and development interests, backs it. So does the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the nonpartisan watchdog, Florida TaxWatch.
THREE SCARY WORDS
So what could there be to worry about? Three scary words: The Florida Legislature.
''It's a long way between the amendment on the ballot and actually implementing the law, because it's left up to the Legislature to write it,'' said Kurt Wenner, director of tax research for TaxWatch.
The amendment would create two tiers of incentives to take effect in 2010. Setting aside land forever -- a covenant intended to carry over in a sale -- would earn total exemption from property taxes. Setting it aside temporarily would earn a lower tax rate, similar to farm land.
It's that ''temporary'' category that adds an asterisk to TaxWatch's endorsement. Details remain to be filled in by lawmakers, who are known from time to time to cater to powerful development interests.
''We're going to be watching closely,'' said Wenner.
State Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat running for a Senate seat, has similar concerns. ``On its face, it's not a bad idea. It's how it's implemented. I just think that second part could potentially leave room for mischief.''
Gelber posted a qualified endorsement on his blog, cautioning that if the Legislature made it too easy to claim conservation status, ``the measure could become a giveaway for mega-developers and have a great fiscal impact that shifts the tax burden to homeowners and active businesses.''
A lenient definition, for instance, could allow developers to tag vacant lots for short periods simply to ride out the cold housing market -- meaning they would pay little or no taxes. There have been past abuses with similar ''green-belt'' tax breaks, most visible in the form of a few ''cash cows'' grazing on cleared suburban tracts.
Supporters share those concerns. They've drawn up proposed standards for the ''temporary'' land-protection classification: a 10-year commitment, a minimum of 40-acre tracts, management plans and back-tax penalties at higher rates if the land is developed.
The amendment was spearheaded by environmental groups. But it was proposed to the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in April by Brian Yablonski, vice president for public affairs for the St. Joe Co., the state's largest landowner with some 700,000 acres, mostly in the Panhandle.
REASON FOR SUPPORT
Yablonski, who also serves as a state wildlife commissioner, said he supported it to enhance wildlife and habitat protections. When asked if the amendment would profit St. Joe, he answered in a word: ``No.''
''Amendment 4 was an organic idea advanced by respected conservation organizations across the state, and they are enthusiastic about its benefits to the environment,'' he said in a written statement.
Preston Robertson, vice president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, dismissed any St. Joe role as ''a red herring'' and said the amendment could be a critical tool when the current development downturn invariably ends.
RESULTS ELSEWHERE
Florida, with 34 million acres, now has only about 165,000 acres of private land under conservation easements. Similar programs in Georgia and Texas have dramatically expanded conservation set-asides.
Because the amendment was approved by the Taxation Commission, no estimates were required for what the revenue impacts might be or how much land might qualify. With undeveloped land usually taxed at a lower rate, Audubon's Draper doesn't anticipate a big difference in the ad valorem bottom line.
The Association of Counties, whose 67 members would have to tweak millage rates to cover revenue shortfalls, agrees that potential benefits outweigh expected minor costs, said association spokeswoman Cragin Mosteller.
''Being able to conserve land is very important to many of our local governments,'' she said.
Because conservation lands remain private, unlike state-owned land, there is the potential for creating large tracts that would be off-limits to public access. But Draper believes most land would be open to hunting and fishing.
While some developers sitting on suddenly unsellable subdivision blueprints might well take advantage, Robertson argues that smaller land owners are the ones most likely to pursue the option. He intends to seek permanent conservation status for his own small farm in North Florida.
LOVE OF THE LAND
''If we protect 10,000 acres or 100,000 acres in this state, then this is well worth it,'' Robertson said. ``I think there are a number of people in this state who love their lands and they want to leave them to their kids.''
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/734509.html
