During the last Calaveras Board of Supervisors meeting, there were three items on the agenda for renewing ranchers properties in the Williamson Act.
Since the Williamson Act has not been funded by the state of California for 4 years, it means that
those ranchers who are in the program are getting welfare at the rest of us property owners expense.
Now, one member of the public stated at the meeting that he doesn't mind. However, he does not speak for the rest of us.
These large ranchlands, handed down from generation to generation, and mostly not purchased, should not have free taxes in our opinion.
They get from $1 per acre to $5 per acre off of their taxes, and if a rancher has 5 or 10 thousand acres; well, you can add it up.
This is not right and Supervisor Callaway stated that many other counties have done away with the program of Welfare Williamson Act for ranchers because of no re-imbursement.
Callaway stated that "Calaveras County has decided they want to keep the program" and make the rest of us pay to make up the money lost on property taxes. Who does she speak for?
Something is wrong here. Why should certain already privileged land rich people get welfare the rest of us cannot receive?
There is one other possibility. Those members of mvs.com and other environmental extremist groups should make up the difference for the county instead of us.
We are questioning the auditor to find out how much money this is total for the county; money we cannot afford.
8 comments:
Ya know, I am not in favor of handouts to those who are not needy. At the same time, in this instance I have to ask just what happens to these lands if they are not under the Williamson Act? One suspects that the Couny holds them in default if taxes are unpaid and they go to auction. To whom? What is the tax rate on bare land which, in a good grass year can support one head of beef on 20 acres?
Might not the current holder be the best bet of retaining the land for the best possible future use? Even more so if they are 'old family', have held the land for 4-9 generations, and have not let it turn into waste land.
It's worse than you say. All you have done is repeated what Callaway said. Her expression is a minimum of truth.
Not long ago, it was declared if the Farm Bill was not passed, the price of milk could go to $8.00 per gallon.
The state's subvention payment program is not coming back.
If that one member of the public had not gotten up to question the issues, you would not have anything to say, because it would have been passed without issue.
Geez, don't ranchers get enough welfare already; subsidies, subsidies, subsidies and welfare. Enough is enough. Get rid of the Williamson Welfare Act.
this is totally Callaway's baby. She is responsible. Instead of lobbying to get rid of it, she is lobbying to keep it. She is such bad news!
("TAX & SPEND")Callaway and ("RAISE FEES")Spellman are ready and willing to assess, fee, surcharge and tax. What they are not willing to do is be honest.
The state subvention funding has been gone for a long time.
The County's General Fund is reduced due to the removal of subvention funding. Let's not forget, the county owes the state for over-payment of subvention funds. How did that happen?
The Legislative Analyst's Office recommends the legislature enact legislation to stop the state from renewing or entering into new Williamson Act Contracts.
"The program is not a cost-effective land conservation program."
Why didn't ("TAX & SPEND")Callaway present this information to the public during the Williamson Act hearings last meeting?
Is it dishonesty, incompetence or ("TAX & SPEND")Callaway's long held belief that we the people do not have a right to know?
You're right about Callaway. I hear she has told reporters they should only report the good things. What do you mean the program is not cost effective? It is for the ranchers. Merry Christmas, fellow readers!
Not cost effective, the state has in place all the environmental enforcement tools to long term delay or stop anything. So the state feels it should not pay for it anymore. The state's mission is accomplished. The wealthy will survive and the rest of us will become the slaves of the government run by the elite.
Get rid of Callaway and Spellman. Will the whole board understand the message if such a rejection election took place? We'll see.
Should we protect viable, productive agricultural land?
Is it important to keep farmers farming and agricultural land producing?
The American Farmland Trust, an organization that advocates for policies that protect agricultural land offers the message, "No farms, no food". One way to keep land in production is a sensible property tax system for the agricultural sector.
So, what has happened? The State of California has dropped it's subvention payment program for the Williamson Act. The state has, now, put taxation in the hands of the local policymakers, the Board of Supervisors.
What has happened at the local level, Board of Supervisors?
Chairperson Callaway with a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors failed to ensure and present in a transparent fashion that a consistently applied logical approach is used for taxation of agricultural land. The State of California has abdicated its responsibility for the preferential treatment of the Williamson Act into the hands of the Board of Supervisors. Chairperson Callaway and the Board of Supervisors do not want to tackle the inconsistent assessment practices that provided property tax relief for agricultural land.
Does agricultural land need protection? Yes.
Does the Board of Supervisors need to take the bull by the horns, hold a study session, create a citizen's committee for a transparent, facts based, discussion, decision and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors? Yes.
Will it be done? No.
Post a Comment