Minnesota farmers ripping out trees to avoid tax hit

[question everything]

Source: Star Tribune

Larry and Wanda Thoreson once grew alfalfa on their 135 acres just northeast of Zimmerman. Then Larry decided to plant trees, lots of trees, figuring the land would be more appealing to developers that way. "We're on fixed incomes now and we looked at this land as our retirement, our nest egg," said Larry Thoreson, 67. "We had some trees coming up that we were really happy with."

But now, Thoreson is clearing his four parcels of land as quickly as possible, turning much of it back into farmland, cutting down the trees he adores. He says he can't afford to keep the trees because of new twists to the Green Acres Program -- a program that was supposed to ease the pressure of property taxes for farmers, but which has literally changed the landscape of farms throughout Minnesota. With nonproductive acres susceptible to taxes far higher than taxes placed on tillable soil, and with a Jan. 2 deadline for declaring property that can be used for agriculture production, farmers are scrambling for solutions as they clear land they never thought they'd again farm.

Legislators took action to change the law this spring after a February report by Legislative Auditor James Nobles revealed that developers were reaping huge tax breaks from the Green Acres program. But some officials say the changes have brought unwanted consternation for farmers and officials who are trying to answer to them. "When the Green Acres program was created 40 years ago, this is not what the state of Minnesota intended," said Thom Petersen, director of government relations for the Minnesota Farmers Union. "I'm sick when I hear that farmers -- strong conservationists -- are clearing their land because they don't know what else they can do.

(snip)

In Thoreson's case, it didn't matter how tall the trees were that he cut down; the taxes were going to be higher and would cut too much into the income he and his wife have to live on, he said. "I pay $36 a year for one parcel of land," he said "But in 2009, if that land is not considered tillable, the taxes go up to $700 a year for that parcel."



Read more: http://www.startribune.com/local/north/36709579.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Very sad when one considers all the good that trees do for the environment,

in addition to stopping soil erosion.

[No Elephants]

43. No one forced them to take down the trees, though.

[annabanana]

2. There seems to be no end to careless legislation

and the attendant unintended consequences.

[xchrom]

3. ok -- he was gonna turn it over to developers -- how could he love them? nt

[question everything]

4. When it was time for them to move out

when they could no longer afford to live there.

And... developers would not necessarily rip the trees. Building in a wooded area can attract many buyers.

When I lived in Iowa in the 80s all the trees were cut, they literally cultivated every single square foot. And there would be nothing to stop the strong, cold winds coming all the way from Montana and Wyoming.

Trees expand our minds and souls. They should not be taxed just because they are there.

[xxqqqzme]

29. Thats how ronnie 'you've seen one redwood,

you've seen them all' raygun got redwoods harvested in NoCal...got the state to tax the estimated board feet of lumber of the standing redwoods. Don;t know what happened after that as we lived outside the US around that time.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. I hear you on that one - the land was gonna end up treeless, anyway.

Just a matter of who cut them down.

I don't feel a lot of sympathy, either.

The people I feel sorry for are the legitimate family farmers who love farming, want to farm, and would like to keep their farms in their family, but who can't because of careless legislation (as someone used the term up above) that makes it easier for gigantic faceless corporations to own and "farm" the land, and that gives gigantic government giveaways to wasteful corporate farmers not to farm.

I'm biased, I suppose, because I from farmer families, but even so, I still think I'm right. And I'm damned sad to see so many family farms disappear to the greed of development (or, many times, the necessity of development because the government makes it impossible to make any money off a small farm), or to corporate oligarchies in which the head "farmer" is sitting in some fucking office in NYC or Omaha or Dallas, or perhaps even Hong Kong or Dubai.

[xchrom]

8. you and me both. nt

[Bette Noir]

18. It's the destruction of the middle class.

The essence of being middle class isn't having a good income, it's working for yourself. Family farmers are self-employed, ie, middle class. Independent operators aren't easy to force into submission; those who want to concentrate power in the hands of a very few prefer huge agribusinesses to own the land, and poor migrant workers to work it.

End of rant.

[pitohui]

33. that is a silly rant, middle class people never work for themselves

the rich and the poor work for themselves, the "essence" of being middle class is having a job with benefits

to work for yourself is to be forever outside the system of health care in america unless by a miracle you do become rich, health insurance after age 40 simply isn't affordable for self-employed people

how do i know? i'm actually self employed, rather than reading libertarian crap about being self employed

it is a road you NEVER want to go down unless you have a spouse w. a guaranteed job w. health care benefits because if you don't turn out to be the one in 20 who makes it rich, the first time you get seriously sick, you end up owing more than you earned in your entire lifetime

and that's my rant

farmers are not middle class, the ones i've met are millionaires, sorry, that is middle class only in their frat boy dreams

i could never dream of owning 135 acres of property and for me to cry because they have to pay some property tax on it...well...cry me a river frankly

the rich always have some excuse for why the poor should pay taxes but it's too burdensome for them to do the same

[question everything]

38. If I may jump in

I think that the comment was about small farms, family owned. And, no, they are not millionaires. In most cases they just break even. And then you add the vagaries of nature and often you lose a whole year - look at the farmers in the Midwest in the spring when their whole crops was lost to the flood. And often you have to wait for next year to start over.

And I hope that you are holding on this year. Stories about small business people losing their business are really sad.

[pengillian101]

6. Hey, question everything ...

I question this story, don't you?

I have lived in MN for many years and lots of us plant trees. It wouldn't matter if property taxes went up - most of us would NOT cut trees down on our properties. Trees are planted for generations to come.

I smell BS from this story.

[SharonAnn]

9. Read the story. It has to do with tillable land that was farmed and now has trees.

They kept the taxes low on farmers tillable land so that they wouldn't be taxed off their farms. But the quirk in the law appears to be that planting trees makes it "non-tillable" and then it loses its agricultural exemption.

[demigoddess]

16. tree farms! we have lots of those around here

and in suburban areas too.

[pengillian101]

19. Read the story.

I DID read the story. It's difficult to take it seriously when the reporter is such a dumbass. Here's a quote:

"Larry Thorson, retired from farming, is cutting down trees on his land, some of witch he planted."

************
The so-called reporter doesn't know which/witch end is up, lol. What a hoot.

[Infinite Hope]

40. It's good to question, but I can attest to this story's accuracy n/t

[NaturalHigh]

7. This is one of the stupidest rules I've ever heard of.

You get penalized for growing trees?

[dysfunctional press]

10. no- you get "penalized" for trying to claim wooded acreage as farmland.

is another way to look at it-

[dysfunctional press]

11. he planted the trees to make the land more valuable to developers...

when you make property more valuable- the taxes go UP. where's the surprise? :shrug:

just ask anyone who's put an addition on their house what happened to their taxes.

[jwirr]

12. Yes, it sounds like he did not think this thing through. When he turned

farmland into forrest land so he could sell it to a developer he did not think he would have to pay taxes on land that has a new purpose. Living in MN this is the first time I have heard of something like this. I am surprised that the StarTribune is making a big thing of it though.

[Thegonagle]

44. Star Tribune is owned by right wingers now. That's why they're making a big deal out of this.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

13. This is just crazy

"tillable" and "non-tillable"

O.K. So what if some one decides to plant fruit trees on their land, Isn't that still considered farming? and are their fruit trees in Minnesota or is it too cold?

[dysfunctional press]

17. apple trees and cherry trees would probably grow in minnesota..

and i would expect that the law addresses/defines orchards in relation to land use. i'm going to further guess that he didn't plant an orchard.

[cabluedem]

20. One thing to remember about fruit/nut orchards is the time it take to produce a decent harvest....

is usually 5 to 8 years after plantation, depending on the type of tree planted, so that has to be factored in too, along with *all* the expenses *before* the first crop is ever even harvested.

[ogneopasno]

32. Apple trees grow well here, generally. The Honeycrisp was invented here.

Cherry trees, not so much, though.

[peacetalksforall]

14. This entire article is impossible to follow? The Mpls Star made no attempts to clarify positions.

"With nonproductive acres susceptible to taxes far higher than taxes placed on tillable soil, and with a Jan. 2 deadline for declaring property that can be used for agriculture production, farmers are scrambling for solutions as they clear land they never thought they'd again farm.

Legislators took action to change the law this spring after a February report by Legislative Auditor James Nobles revealed that developers were reaping huge tax breaks from the Green Acres program. But some officials say the changes have brought unwanted consternation for farmers and officials who are trying to answer to them."

They slip this tidbit in there about developers reaping tax breaks for the Green Acres program and leave a person hanging?

Are developers reaping because farmers will not be able to pay $700 per and will have to sell to them.

Given the Pawlenty administration, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there is an arrangement between the monied people and his office.

So, I guess I repeat, is the program purposely vague so that farmers will get caught which benefits big money developers? Pawlenty and his Party make me suspect.

What a lousy article? Or is it the best that can be done?

It makes a person wonder if the conservative republican Pawlenty is messing with those farmers who are conservative republicans as well as conservative democrats.

I guess it's time to stop and listen to the farmers.

[peacetalksforall]

15. Whether or not this information is accurate, this Univ interpretation is much easier to understand.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/finances/BF982.html

[NashVegas]

27. "Narrative Story-telling" Is Rapidly Replacing News Writing

It's a lowest-common denominator attempt to follow the dumbed-down masses, who say narrative-style is easier for them to follow, remember, and believe.

[glinda]

42. The photo was of a guy smiling leaning on trees he was going to cut.

Sorry? I don't think so. I hate the Tribune. I used to really like it.

[Grinchie]

21. I think the main point is the conception of "Non-Productive" land

This argument is used over and over again in Agribusiness, Loan terminology etc as a mean of leaning on a landholder.

Apparently, the state has more say on what you can or cannot do on your land than many people would like to think. If they can't zone it away, they can tax is away.

Of course, I believe the people in the story are ignorant of property rights and tax laws. For example, in many states if you think the taxes are raised too high, you can file and appeal. If you can provide enough information that clearly shows the tazes to be untenable, then you can get them rolled back. In fact, my experience has shown that taking an interest in your real property taxes gets you acquainted with the peole in the County Seat, and they ended up helping us find even more ways to reduce our tax burden.

Then, they can always ask to see Exactly how the tax is calculated, and the reasoning behind the increased tax. Alternatively, the thoresons could show that it is not entirely unproductive if they actually had a use for their woodlot.

I'm of the belief that the only unproductive land there is lies under a roadway, but even then, it sometimes carries services that benefit the community, such as utilities.

Unfortunately, the value of trees is diminished due to our highly mechanized agricultural system. Tree's interfere with tractors, so most farmers just remove them. I do agroforestry, and it's amazing how many things like to grow under trees. I don't irrigate as much, and I have crops year round. I like the shade, and I have a lizard in every tree, and swarms of little birds that sweep for bugs like clockwork. Plus, I have endles supplies of firewood and timber when the time comes to thin. Trees are very productive with a thousand different uses.

All it takes is one enlightened person to talk story with the tax people and they will open up and see your side, especially when armed with facts, documents and numbers.

I also think that people who say they loved their trees, then cut them all down overnight, without really having a valid reason to do so, need to take a nap under a nice tree and sleep on it.

It take 20 years to grow a good sized tree, and only 15 minutes to cut it down.

[Brazenly Liberal]

22. We let some of our land go to forest

Fortunately, here the entire property is considered farm or not farm.

[acmavm]

23. Ah, trees. We demand the indigineous rainforest people not cut down

trees because of the 'environment' while others around the world cut down all the tress because they can. To save on 'taxes' in this case. Farming and development in others.

The human race is just so screwed.

[pengillian101]

41. John Edwards did a little clearcutting on his property.

But us little people need to save the Earth.

[nashville_brook]

24. FL adopted Amendment 4 this year -- Land Conservation Tax Break

Florida rarely does anything that can be held up as an example of good governing, but this actually makes good sense. In Florida, people like Thoreson are getting a big tax break for conserving land, rather than tilling it or selling it off to developers. This was a ballot amendment that passed in November.

This particular case would benefit only if they agreed to use the land for certain things. It can still be sold and used, but it can't be developed into sprawl. So, if this family were dead-set on selling their land to the highest bidding developer, this would not apply -- BUT, such a law might provide incentive for the family not to develop the land at all. Perhaps selling it for recreational use.




Land Conservation Tax Break

PASSED 68.4%-31.6%

Trading some tax revenue for a wilder, more natural Florida

Amendment 4 supporters hope it will encourage landowners to conserve more land and help expand wildlife habitat and protect water resources.

(snip)

The measure would provide a full property tax exemption to landowners who agree to place property in a “conservation easement” forever. Such easements restrict how land can be developed and are aimed at keeping property in its natural state.

The measure would also require that land “used for conservation purposes” be classified and assessed that way, a move that would lower – but not eliminate -- the property taxes that a land owner must pay.

(snip)

Supporters of the amendment include Audubon of Florida, The Nature Conservancy,1000 Friends of Florida, the Florida Wildlife Federation, The Trust for Public Land and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

“As Florida grows, valuable habitat is being converted to other uses. In many cases local property taxes lead people, who would otherwise manage their land for wildlife and water protection, to convert it to other uses,” according to an endorsement statement by Citizens for Conservation Land, a political action committee chaired by Preston Robertson, vice president and general counsel for the Florida Wildlife Federation.

(snip)

Florida’s encouragement of conservation easements and consideration of tax breaks for landowners who conserve their properties are not new ideas.

Conservation easements are assigned to an organization such as The Nature Conservancy, a government or a public agency and that entity ensures that the owner lives up to his or her end of the agreement. The property owner can either donate or sell the easement to the organization or public agency that controls it.

The easement remains tied to the land even if it is sold or passed on to heirs. The public may have access to some land held under conservation easements, but the easements often do not stipulate public access.

The primary argument in favor of tax benefits for land held in a conservation easement is that, because of the limits placed on how it can be developed, it is no longer worth as much as a similar property without such an easement.

[mbperrin]

25. Is $700 a year a lot in Minnesota? I'm asking a serious

question, because the taxes on our 1954 frame home here in west Texas are $5600 per year. Every tree in this part of the country has been planted, because there are none naturally.

Couple of dollars a day for lots of trees? What a bargain!

[Recursion]

31. $700 per acre. Average MN farm size is 350 acres

http://www.ers.usda.gov/stateFacts/MN.htm

$245K per year in taxes is a lot.

[mbperrin]

34. Thank you! In the Texas Panhandle, the average farm size is

725 acres, and when the farmer in the story was talking about "parcels", that's what I had in mind. Thanks for the clarification.

[customerserviceguy]

26. There's a simple solution to this

back when I lived in Washington State, we had preferred taxation on agricultural land, forest land, and open space land. All three provide benefits to people on fully-taxed residential, commercial, or industrial land.

[riverdeep]

28. Once you turn farmland over to 'development'

it's very hard to go back. Putting in concrete and ripping everything out, the soil is not the same. And this pattern went on all throughout the nineties, turning rich farmland over to developers who then build the McMansions and walk away with reams of profit. The good times were never going to end.

I suspect that as times get tougher, some people will start planting something edible on their lawns. Every little bit can help.

[truedelphi]

30. Well meaning legislation often carries a particularly noxious bite to it

Similar tales of woe here in California. A law passed in November requires that farmers keep their cows outdoors.

That sounds great, doesn't it?

But farmers are now scared that during viciously cold weather, with hail and ice storms, snow and freezing rain being the norm this winter(And in the summer, scorching heat) the cows are best served by being allowed to be indoors. Especially when the choice is up to them! (The cows, that is.)

Apparently those writing the legislation had not thought of that. And voters who voted for it only had a small acquaintanceship with the billbefore voting for it as a Proposition.

And I'm betting that the harsh fines and penalties will be delivered first to the small farmer who is mostly doing a good job, rather than to Big AgriBusiness who has the money for payoffs.

[doodadem]

35. Remembering our pet Brahma steer

And have to laugh--he HATED rain/snow/sleet, and especially, HAIL. You couldn't budge him out of his little cow shed if it was precipitating. Sure miss old Cowster....

Here in our part of Calif., they have the Williamson Act, which greatly reduces taxes on agricultural land. We tried to apply for it, and found out: 1) Had to have 40 acres (check) 2) Had to either raise something which you sell, OR, open your land to the public. Everything that we raise stays with us--animals, eggs/chickens, veges, fruit. And no way in the world would I open our land to anyone else--we've had enough of a legal battle already with the neighbors trying to take bites out of it. Our land is heavily wooded, and quite the little wildlife preserve.

So our taxes keep going up and up. The latest outrage, is the County demanding that we be able to prove that our huge old wood garage was built before they started requiring building permits up here in the mountains in 1958. We said, you're talking 3 owners ago, how are we supposed to do that? They said, we don't care, it's your responsibility now, and either come up with proof or we will start fining you as of mid-January. Alternatively, you have to file plans with the Planning Commission, or tear the building down.

Now, we know it was built in the 40's, it's just coming up with substantive proof of it. The old dude who owned the place back then was a major authority on local Native American history, and had a Wild West museum housed in it. When he died, most of his collection went to the nearest town's museum. Since we've checked about everywhere else, our next stop is to see if they have any dated photo's of the old "museum" back then.

[truedelphi]

36. Thanks for sharing your pet steer tale. And good luck

In finding something, anything to prove the historical existence of your building.

Here's one thought - back in the old days in Marin County, they used to have the tax assessor go up in a plane and photograph everything. I mean everything. I worked for the widower of the former County tax assessor, and he had some funny tales of his wife's adventures bobbing along in the little two engine plane that would take her up for her assessing.

So find out if that was the case. If the barn was built in the forties, it is possible there is an aerial photograph of it somewhere in the tax assessor's keeping.

And too bad for them if they have to go out to some storage shed or warehouse of records and look.

[ileus]

37. Obama should ban the cutting of CSD's first day in office.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

39. Sad To Hear This News...

This was done here in Calif. where I live and the ranchers cut the trees to make for more grazing land. Finally things were changed so that there was just a tax when the trees were cut and sold to preserve standing timber. That needs to be done there, tax real income, not "potential" income. The trees have value for all of us and should be encouraged to be planted and grown everywhere. They are also an "Agricultural Crop", just not one with a yearly harvest.

[Vinca]

45. He ought to call himself a timber farm or maybe a wild mushroom farm.

Throw some spores under the shade of the trees and you're in business.

[goforit]

46. CRAZY!!!!!!!