Higher taxes, guaranteed: Henry Lamb explains cost of gov land management

When you hear the words "open space," think tax increase. When you hear such terms as "urban boundary," or "smart growth," or "protect the land," think tax increase. Higher taxes are guaranteed.

For the last decade, the federal government, and nearly every state, have been on a "land acquisition" binge. Promoted by environmental organizations, government has focused on buying every square inch of land it can afford. The land it cannot afford to buy, it tries to depreciate by clouding the title through easements and other use restrictions.

The money to buy the land, or clutter the title, comes from taxes. But that's the least of the tax nightmare.

Every square inch of land that government acquires, shrinks the base of taxpayers from which tax revenue can be extracted. This means that the remaining property owners, and users, must pay a higher tax rate.

Urban dwellers who lease apartments in sustainable communities rarely consider that the rent they pay includes the property tax paid by the building's owners. In every community, when government shrinks the taxpayer base by acquiring land, every citizen is forced to pay a higher tax rate to compensate for the tax loss, whether directly through a tax bill, or indirectly through higher rent, or higher prices for goods and services.

Richland County in South Carolina is in the process of implementing its comprehensive land-use plan, which designates land beyond the urban boundary to be "protected" for some imagined environmental benefit.

Totally aside from arbitrarily denying the landowners the right to use their land as they wish, the plan automatically forces everyone else to pay taxes at a higher rate than would be necessary if the land outside the boundary could be used for its highest economic purpose. Because the designated "protected" land is forever condemned to be "open space," it can produce only minimal tax revenue, if any. There is little incentive for a landowner who is denied the opportunity to use his land to continue to pay taxes on it. Sooner or later, it is likely to be added to the government inventory, and produce no taxes at all.

When the federal government buys land from private owners, or clouds the title to land through easements and restrictions, it has even greater impact on local property tax revenues. The federal government pays no property tax. In the West, the federal government makes PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) payments to some governments. These payments come from the taxes paid by urban dwellers in the East, but these payment are never more than a small percentage of what private land owners pay in property taxes.

Florida is a prime target for the transformation of private property to public ownership. The goal of the Wildlands Project is to eventually transfer 90 percent of Florida land into government ownership, and government is rapidly achieving this goal. Through a constitutional amendment a few years ago, Florida has established a perpetual fund expressly for land acquisition. The federal government is buying Florida land at a dizzying pace. Federal grants to The Nature Conservancy, and other environmental organizations, to acquire land, or clutter-up the title to private property through easements and acquisition of development rights, is effectively removing Florida land as a source of tax revenue.

Tax revenues from private property owners provide the major source of revenue for local governments. This river of revenue diminishes with every acre of land that is "protected" by government. As the revenue stream continues to diminish, local governments must depend upon the state, and federal government for revenue. Both the state and the federal government need simply to increase the tax rates on the various forms of taxes they collect. The bottom line, however, is that everyone must pay higher taxes.

Local governments, the government closest, and most accountable to the people, have already lost most of their authority to state and federal mandates. When local governments lose their only independent source of revenue, they will truly be nothing more than administrative units of state and federal government.

Federal, state, and local governments already own more than 40 percent of all the land in the United States. There is no accumulative record of how much more private property has been devalued by fragmented titles resulting from conservation easements and acquisition of development rights. Environmental organizations conspire with policy makers to aggressively acquire more land and fragmented land titles, in every community, in every state.

Every time you hear the phrase "We must protect this land," know that higher taxes are guaranteed.

The klintons did huge damage to this country with all the land grabs. It is obvious from this article, the beast of big government is going to feed itself now, even if it eventually starves everyone else to death.

The demokrats are still winning, even though they lost the last election.

If we had a truely rational electorate, there would be a massive outcry for a reintroduction of the homestead act, and the sale at auction of all BLM land along with at least half of our national forests.
There is nothing like hubandry to insure the future worth of real property.

Whatever money is raised form the auction would be like found money with the added benefit that the more "public" land is transfered to private land, the greater the property tax base, and the more tax revenue that accrues from the subsequent economic growth.

My appologies to the Greenies for the ideas and long sentences that may make their heads hurt.

A man after my heart.

Selling off huge tracts of land to private interests would.

a. Raise untold billions in revenue.

b. Put previously tax-useless land back on the tax roles, raising billions more.

c. Save billions in maintenance costs, fire control and all the other resource sucking line-items that go along with having millions of acres of land on welfare.

d. Increase the supply of land, lumber and other natural resourses reducing the costs of each and causing all associated industries to boom.

One problem is getting around the fact that much of our national debt is collaterized with our federal land. Besides, our politicians are in the pocket of green enviro-barons.

Good points you make. The sale of public lands would definitely help the economy. However, the greenies would have a cow. Mentally and emotionally, they may not hold up.
Too bad, but I'm tired of the inmates (greenies) running the assylum.

If America understood your final point in (colateralization) we'd throw the bums out, or be in the biggest revolution ever! Sadly, they are at home reading this thinking we are radicals that "out there". I keep moving out further into the country, and tour the country trying to wake them up. They'd rather have a beer and some dumb sit-com on while the greenies and the guv rob them blind.

The United States Constitution

Article. I.

Section. 8.

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Last time I checked national forests, national parks and open spaces are not a magazine, arsenal, dock-yard or needful building.

There is little incentive for a landowner who is denied the opportunity to use his land to continue to pay taxes on it.

If it was really his land he wouldn't pay rent/tax to keep the government from taking his land. That's perhaps the best reason for repealing property taxes.

Clinton was the hailed dipwad responsible for the majority of this. There are no taxes resulting from industry, no employment let alone social security..., no intercommerce and all of the resulting taxes, employment, economic growth...

Anyone who can be proud of results such as these truly deserves to meet one of the Clintons in private.

One problem is getting around the fact that much of our national debt is collaterized with our federal land.

That is a fact! When I try to explain this to people, I usually get a blank stare, If I continue, they go into information overload, or denial.

Government owning land? I see the Berkeley City Council writ large.

People are the enemy.

They should be fleeced (taxed) to pen them (buy their land) so as to address the problems of their pollution (exterminate them).

With world population limited to the membership rolls of the Sierra Club, life will be so much better.

< / Brave New World Commercial >

The attack on the Berkeley City Council begins in five minutes.

[The klintons did huge damage to this country with all the land grabs. It is obvious from this article, the beast of big government is going to feed itself now, even if it eventually starves everyone else to death. The demokrats are still winning, even though they lost the last election]

The Clintons get no quarter from me - but they have been out of office for two years and this is still steamrolling along. In fact, I thought I heard President Bush touting putting private property into a conservancy for open spaces. I am probably using the wrong words - but the meaning was the same.

There is obviously a provision whereby people can put their property in a trust and their families can continue to use the property for a couple of generations - then it will go to the government or be sold to an environmental group. I am betting no taxes are paid on this property.

Thank you for your comments.

IMO, klintoon set in motion the mechanisms to confiscate land. (Mugabbe in Zimbabwe is doing the same thing, with no reguard to the economy.) Presidente Bush is not putting a stop to it.

Just this week, immediately following the election, our county property tax bills were mailed out. Surprise! The feds have a stormwater tax on the bill for the first time! Only they call it a County Stormwater tax, but in reality it's a 'mandated' Federal tax.

This is down right tyranny. And my Councilman won't respond to my calls or emails.

This is a land grab in itself and also puts my property under Federal juridiction.

There was an endless barrage of posts and articles prior to the Sawgrass Rebellion, not only on what was happening in Florida, but all over the country. Spotted owls in New Mexico, Scenic Highways in West Virginia, Vernal Shrimp in California, the never ending saga of the Klamath Basin. From sea to shining sea.

The eventual support for the Sawgrass Rebellion was rather pethetic. It could have been the perfect opportunity to have made a statement. Instead it was poorly covered on national media.

Until the day that there is unity in this country against Government, and environmental zealot land grabs this will continue.

AS I have said many times coming soon to your neighborhood, sit back relax. After all it will be our children and their children that will never realize that great American Dream of property ownership, only sustainable environment and smart growth.

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.