[at-l] OT 'View Tax'

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 07:35 AM 11/2/2005 -0800, Sloetoe wrote:
>--- Jim Bullard <jbullar1@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > In a sense I suppose this is 'on-topic' since it increases the
>pressure to relax the "Forever Wild" standard in order to met
>the demand for residential space while keeping land affordable.
>As the old saying goes "they aren't making any more of it" so
>the only other way to keep land cost down when demand escalates
>is to develop wild land. Unless you can convince the rich they
>don't really want a piece of the woods that is. Anyone got a
>plan for how to do that?
>
>### If the state values its rural character (through either open
>farms or growing timber), and finds developmental pressure on
>these resources "too much" (through either a Henry George
>reliance on land taxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
>
>or a highly charged demand market emphasizing short-term return
>on value), then the state must consciously and specifically:
>
>1) sanction "idle land" of the type that keeps the rural
>character intact (timber and farm holdings),

In the Adirondacks the "idle land" is the Forever Wild parkland. It is 
protected for now. Some would say forever but that clause of the NYS 
Constitution has been bent before and the Constitution is subject to 
periodic review/rewriting. Recent opportunities to review it have been 
declined because of the pressure to rewrite sans the "Forever Wild" clause. 
Supporters of preservation feared they might lose a battle to retain that 
clause.

>2) favor redevelopment of "brownfield" (used) sites with minimal
>density or maximum footprint,

Unfortunately there is little available land for development/redevelopment. 
Since 9/11 there has been a rush for refuges from the major cities (mainly 
NYC) by folks willing to pay any price and the deep pockets to outbid 
locals. The population is shifting from year around residents to an 
unsustainably high ratio of summer people. It won't happen overnight but we 
are reaching a point where those who work in the Adirondacks, thus making 
it possible to live there, can't afford to stay there.

>3) insure that there are no government-initiated policies that
>push landholders away from conserving holdings -- whether from
>property taxes (Henry George again), from inheritance taxes,
>from timber/viewshed taxes, or in the other direction, from tax
>relief on low density housing or agricultural --> housing
>rezonings and such.

One step that would help would be to eliminate the income tax deduction for 
mortgage interest paid on a 'second' home. That deduction coupled with the 
rapidly rising land costs promotes vacation home purchase as an investment.

These trends have happened in the past. The Adirondacks were popular with 
the rich in the past (think Great Camps) and remnants of that past still 
remain in things like the Ausable Club. Another example is the 'Parks' on 
Wellesley Island in the St. Lawrence River Thousand Islands, places where 
the well-to-do could have their own estates/communities and there was 
enough open space for the working folk too. Some, like the Thousand Island 
Park fell out of fashion and were middle class for a time but are now 
coming back in fashion as the population grows and the remaining open land 
diminishes relative to the level of demand. There are few places for them 
to go anymore. When I ended a previous post with "Welcome to the test tube" 
I could've/should've added 'And welcome to the 30th day'.