|
Now, why has there been a specific pro-
vision with respect to farming and not
open spaces? I call the attention of this
House that in 1960, 334,888 votes were cast
for a provision giving farmers preferential
tax treatment against only 123,600 against.
An overwhelming majority of the Court of
Appeals had ruled that this was unconsti-
tutional and the constitution was amended
to restore the preferential assessment for
farming. This matter has been before our
Committee on a number of occasions.
Every known farming organization re-
quests this for the protection of the legiti-
mate farmer. The Grange, Farm Bureau,
State Board of Agriculture, many numer-
ous farmers have asked this be done. We
think that this section as it is written has
a two-fold effect. First, it protects the
legitimate farmer from overburdensome as-
sessments and secondly, it will prevent the
land speculator from making a killing on a
law which is not intended for his benefit.
Therefore, because of all these reasons,
I urge you to support the Committee's
recommendation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I should like first to ask Delegate Hanson,
the sponsor, a couple of questions if he
will yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: He does not have the
floor right now to yield. Let me see if
somebody wants to speak in favor of the
amendment first.
Does anyone else desire to speak in
favor?
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I reluctantly
rise to speak in favor of the amendment.
While I do not wish to see legitimate agri-
cultural interests of this State penalized,
I cannot stand by in my county and some
other suburban counties and see the abuses
to which the agricultural exemption has
been put. I had hoped in his answers to the
questions put to him, especially this morn-
ing, that the spokesman for the committee
report would have given answers that would
have reassured myself and others in my
county that the purpose of the proposals
was not only to repeal — overrule, I should
say — the poorly decided Alsop case in
which the Court of Appeals took a very
narrow and unjustified view of the legis-
|
lative power and administrative power to
implement classification for assessment
purposes, but also to make it clear that the
General Assembly would have the broadest
possible power in making' classifications
which could segregate the legitimate farm-
ing enterprise from the farming enterprise
used as a mask for speculative profit and
investment. The specific question that dis-
turbed me, or more precisely, the answer
to which disturbed me was Delegate Case's
reply to the inquiry put to him by Dele-
gate Henderson in which he said under the
situation where one man who farms land
was a farmer, but he was hanging on to
the farm in the hope he could sell it at a
profit a few years hence in an era of
rising land values, he would be treated the
same or no differently from the man who
invested in the farm and held it for the
same purpose.
I have no objection to that purely hypo-
thetical situation. But what I wanted to
know was, if a man whose primary source
of income was the purchase and sale of
real estate invested in the farm, farmed it
but for the purpose of selling it at a profit,
could such a person be treated differently
by way of classification either administra-
tively or statute-wise for the purposes of
applying proposed section 8.02?
To my dismay, I gather such a person
could not be treated differently and if he
cannot be treated differently, then I am
supporting the Hanson amendment. If he
can be treated differently and the Chair-
man of the Committee can reassure us on
behalf of the Committee, I think there will
be some votes in the urban area he would
not otherwise have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, I favor the amendment for the reason
that the committee report mandates this
farm assessment. I can see advantages to
the provisions relating to the farm assess-
ment. It will help preserve open space. It
will assist farmers to farm economically.
But I do not believe that we should man-
date this special treatment in the constitu-
tion. There are disadvantages to this farm
assessment law.
It does result in some cases in inequali-
ties. I have some figures here from Mont-
gomery County. Here is a farm that sold in
1965 and at that time it sold for $479,000
and the taxes on it were $462.
|
