|
well be that different types of aid will be
necessary if we are to keep the few remain-
ing farmers in Maryland.
I would submit also that the present con-
stitutional proposal is a limiting- one in
that it limits aid to the farmer in terms of
proposing specifically aid on the property
tax. Other types of taxes we will see in the
future will probably be much greater than
the property tax is today and can be as
severely dangerous to the farmer, yet if
this type of aid remains in the constitution
as farm relief, the General Assembly may
be reluctant to move in other areas in the
future.
I would further point out that much of
the land in Montgomery County is not
held by Montgomery County people but is
held by absentee land owners by people, by
out-of-state syndicates which range from
Texas to North Carolina that Maryland
is now in the process of giving- them, if you
will, a free ride.
I would sug-gest that it is time to plug
this loop hole. We talk about equalization
of taxes and equalization of sharing the
burden and this is a very accepted thing
in our county. We are perfectly willing to
do this. But we need your help in order
to do it.
Do not tie our hands from raising money
from our own sources and allowing money
to go out of the State. Help us to raise the
money from the land speculators instead
of the home owners in Montgomery County.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Convention,
even though the Committee went against
me yesterday, I must be with them all
today.
Mr. President, there have been many
things pointed out by Delegates Case and
Sherbow in favor of the Committee Recom-
mendation 8.02 as written, but in addition
to that, there is this particular circum-
stance. The people of Maryland considered
it when they voted overwhelmingly to give
some special tax treatment to assessment
of farms. The first thing I believe as a
rule the farmers of Maryland, as Delegate
Rosenstock said, are overtaxed already in
proportion to the earnings the farmers will
produce.
There is this, that if these farmers have
their assessment raised to the point where
|
they are forced to sell to speculators, what
happens? As soon as a subdivision goes on
one farm five or ten miles away from that
subdivision the assessors get the idea that
farms down the line are all worth the same
value. If the farmers are forced to sell, it
means an onrush of speculators and some
of these speculators are buying a $100,000
place or $50,000 place with $5,000 down.
Either the farmer is carrying the load on
the mortgage or else some bank or build-
ing association is financing it.
If the speculator cannot make it on the
farm and the farm is not ready for sub-
division, the speculator goes bankrupt or
the place is sold on mortgage sale and
your banks and banking- institutions in
which you all invested your funds stand to
take the loss. Those are the things that
have not been brought out. I thought T
ought to bring them out to you because
it is not only the farmer we are saving
in this process, we are helping to save
ourselves.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
the legislature acted in the 1950's without
a constitutional mandate to try to meet the
problem of the farmers and as Delegate
Weidemeyer has aptly pointed out, fought
the problem of all of us. It acted not only
without a constitutional mandate to act but
apparently according to the Court of Ap-
peals in the face of a constitutional pro-
hibition to act.
Now, what would be the situation with
that background if this amendment were
adopted? We would have a provision in the
Constitution which still has the effect of
overruling, I submit, the original Gayle's
case which caused the people to approve an
amendment in 1960 and would overrule the
Alsop case. It would free the legislature
to act to meet the problem and I am sure
that this legislature will do its very best
to meet the problem within the limitations
that the Constitution imposes upon them.
What is the situation if this amendment
is defeated. Are any limitations imposed
upon the legislature? Can the legislature be
free to meet the problem of the farmers
who have land that ends up being worth
more for speculative purposes to the builder
than it is for farming purposes? I suggest
to you most reluctantly that the answers
that have been provided to us this morning-
have indicated quite clearly that the legis-
lature cannot act both to meet the needs of
the farmers and also to stop the speculators
from getting a windfall from riding in on
|
