Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Farm Bureau Federation SELLS OUT to Green Land Trusts!
American Policy Center ^ | August 6, 2003 | American Policy Center

Posted on 08/07/2003 9:38:02 AM PDT by jonefab

APC is in possession of a very controversial letter.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and their high-priced lobbyists have SOLD OUT their members, farmers and property rights advocates. Rather than fight they have decided to CAVE to The Nature Conservancy, the Land Trust Alliance and the rest of the land grab lobby.

Recall that the Senate passed President Bush’s "faith-based initiative," otherwise known as the CARE Act (S. 476) AND included a nasty little provision in the bill that would UNDOUBTEDLY put a limitless amount of property and farmland into the hands of land trusts and government agencies. The provision in S. 476 gives the seller of any property a 25% capital gains tax cut—ONLY if he sells his land to an environmental land trust or government agency! This only benefits organizations like the multibillion-dollar Nature Conservancy as they will get to swoop in, offer the seller a LOWER price for his land citing the 25% tax break on the profits, and UNFAIRLY ELIMINATE all other competitive bidders.

Property values would plummet.

Schools, churches and other "faith-based" organizations looking to purchase land would be NO MATCH for The Nature Conservancy and their greedy little land grabbers armed with an UNFAIR TAX ADVANTAGE.

Farmland would be snatched up in gigantic swaths and shut off from agricultural use as the government and greens add to the pieces of the Wildlands Project.

Most importantly, more and more land will be taken out of private use and locked away and controlled by government.

And we all know that FARMLAND LOST IS FARMLAND LOST FOREVER.

NOW, the House of Representatives’ version of the CARE Act (H.R. 7) does NOT include this unfair tax advantage for green land grabbers and big government agencies. HOWEVER, big-money green lobbyists are pushing hard to get this unfair tax advantage included in H.R. 7.

You would think the Farm Bureau would fight the radical greens—the same land grabbers who are destroying the property rights of farmers nationwide—RIGHT???

WRONG!

The Farm Bureau’s lobbyists and their national headquarters are RUNNING SCARED and selling out commonsense property rights in the process! According to a letter from AFBF President, Bob Stallman:

"Farm Bureau supports excluding a percentage of the gain from the sale of permanent conservation easements and from land sales to an entity that intends to keep the land in a conservation use."

In other words: The Farm Bureau supports making it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone but the government and the billion-dollar environmental movement to purchase land.

Were Farm Bureau members consulted before this terrible, anti-property rights decision was made???

Were local state Farm Bureau agencies informed???

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

WE MUST ACT NOW!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: environment; farming; landgrab

1 posted on 08/07/2003 9:38:02 AM PDT by jonefab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
.
2 posted on 08/07/2003 9:41:13 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonefab
I am not sure the writer really understood this issue. The property seller gets to deduct some capital gains due to covenant restrictions of his choosing - but the buyer is rarely the nature conservatory or a like group.

We have some farm land and investigated this when we considered selling it. For example, I can add a covenant restriction of "no clear cutting" and receive a tax advantage of some amount. But the buyer is someone else - like a developer, another farmer, a forester (who can still select cut), etc.

The land trust people do not have the money to buy the land, they just enforce whatever covenants are made. Any covenant is between buyer and seller - just like exists today on other restrictions.

For example of how this works now - The local power company has an easement across our land. Any buyer has to decide if they want to buy property with that easement - or restriction if you will. It is up to the power company to enforce that easement. With a covenant restriction of "no clear cutting", or "no development within 25 feet of river",the land trust people would enforce the covenant.

3 posted on 08/07/2003 9:53:05 AM PDT by NorthGA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonefab
Never overlook the fact that Farm Bureau is just another insurance company that happens to have "FARM" in its name. It doesn't speak for anyone but insurance executives and its hand-picked dupe board of directors.
4 posted on 08/07/2003 10:06:48 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthGA
I've seen this legislation and what you are talking about is not what is in the legislation. And the Nature Conservancy is a multi billion dollar organization. They do have the money to buy land.
5 posted on 08/07/2003 11:05:43 PM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.

6 posted on 08/07/2003 11:06:14 PM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jonefab; NorthGA
S.476

SEC. 121A. 25-PERCENT EXCLUSION OF GAIN ON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF LAND OR WATER INTERESTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.

a) EXCLUSION- Gross income shall not include 25 percent of the qualifying gain from a conservation sale of a long-held qualifying land or water interest.

CONSERVATION SALE- For purposes of this section, the term `conservation sale' means a sale or exchange which meets the following requirements:
`(1) TRANSFEREE IS AN ELIGIBLE ENTITY- The transferee of the long-held qualifying land or water interest is an eligible entity.

`(1) ELIGIBLE ENTITY- The term `eligible entity' means--

`(A) a governmental unit referred to in section 170(c)(1), or an agency or department thereof operated primarily for 1 or more of the conservation purposes specified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A), or

`(B) an entity which is--

`(i) described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) or section 170(h)(3)(B), and

`(ii) organized and at all times operated primarily for 1 or more of the conservation purposes specified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A).

Amendments:

S.AMDT.526 to S.476 To provide a manager's amendment. Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Charles E. [IA] (introduced 4/8/2003) Cosponsors: 1 Latest Major Action: 4/8/2003 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 526 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.527 to S.476 To exclude 25 percent of gain on sales or exchanges of land or water interests to any nonprofit entity for any charitable purpose. Sponsor: Sen Nickles, Don [OK] (introduced 4/9/2003) Cosponsors: (none) Latest Major Action: 4/9/2003 Motion to table amendment SA 527 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 - 38. Record Vote Number: 127.

Latest Major Action: 4/9/2003 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 95 - 5. Record Vote Number: 128. b

7 posted on 08/07/2003 11:36:09 PM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonefab; NorthGA
HR 7

Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] (introduced 5/7/2003) Cosponsors: 84
Latest Major Action: 6/20/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Select Education.

8 posted on 08/07/2003 11:39:38 PM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
The California Farm Bureau is decoupled from insurance (formerly CalFarm.) The business was purchased by Allied and Nationwide. Farm Bureau is only a group customer like any other group. (There may still be some association with insurance in other states.)

I believe AFBF is close with the American Farmland Trust: http://www.farmland.org/

The California Cattlemen have their own trust- the California Rangeland Trust: http://www.rangelandtrust.org/

I believe they felt that it was better to form their own with provisions that would protect farmers and ranchers, rather than the so called "conservation" trusts that the extreme environmentalists use.

I do not care for them myself. I prefer the federal CRP program, which is a long term lease of lands to be managed for certain values. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/default.htm It does not burden the title like an easement.
9 posted on 08/08/2003 12:54:11 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
10 posted on 08/08/2003 3:06:37 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob
It was already posted so I pinged the group. Check out marsh2's reply.
11 posted on 08/25/2003 8:47:46 AM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Thank you
12 posted on 08/25/2003 8:57:35 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson