|
The amendment which I have proposed
would not constitute a repeal of the farm
land assessment or any way affect the
power of the legislature to deal with the
preferential assessments of farm land or
any other class of property in the State.
The clause simply is not needed because
without the clause the full power is given
to the General Assembly to establish such
classifications as it sees fit and to define
those classifications as it feels it necessary
to define them for the adequate administra-
tion of the tax laws.
Now, the Committee in its report points
out that while the Constitutional Conven-
tion Commission had recommended a spe-
cific mention in a permissive rather than
mandatory clause of both open space uses
and agricultural uses, that the Committee
decided not to include any statement on
open space. The reason it said that it did
not make this conclusion is contained on
page three in lines 31 to 42 of the com-
mittee memorandum accompanying the
recommendation. I quote, "It is the opinion
of the Committee that the General As-
sembly already has the power to create a
separate classification for this purpose if
it wishes to do so and that the inclusion
of the quoted language adds no additional
power. The term 'open space' lacks pre-
cision. We see great benefit to the public
in preserving open space, but any plan to
facilitate this by special assessment classifi-
cation will require careful legislative evalu-
ation and definition so as to attain the de-
sired end without opening the door to
abuse."
I and those of us who support this
amendment contend that the exact situa-
tion pertains to agriculture. It is no easier,
ladies and gentlemen of this Committee, to
define agriculture than to define open space.
In a publication published by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture in September
of this year surveying nationally the pref-
erential farm land assessments and actions
and proposals in all states where they have
arisen and in reviewing specifically the
legislative criteria and the twenty-nine ad-
ministrative criteria for the assessment of
farm land in Maryland points out that even
with these criteria all this does is empha-
size the difficulty of separating bona fide
activity in the field of agriculture from
speculative activity or use of agriculture
as a speculative holding operation. It is
increasingly difficult in the administration
of such acts to distinguish between one use
of agriculture and another as the colloquy
between Delegates Henderson and Case and
the response of Delegate Case to the Chair-
|
man's question this morning I think have
clearly revealed.
In other words, we should not require
that we put into the Constitution a state-
ment which the General Assembly in its
wisdom at some later date may not wish to
be bound by because it becomes just im-
practicable to establish the proper kinds
of criteria.
I was born and reared in a state in the
Southwest. That state for many years, in
fact today, contains in its Constitution an
exemption for homesteaders. This made a
great deal of sense as a legislative matter
when my grandfather came from Illinois
and settled on 160 acres of land and had
no money to pay taxes with. It made a
great deal of sense in 1889; it makes no
sense at all today and the state as a conse-
quence or many western states are losing a
great deal of money as a result of a con-
stitutional classification or constitutional
exemption. I believe this Committee should
leave the General Assembly free in its
wisdom to decide farm land should be
exempted from regular taxation now or if
in future it decides farm lands or any
other use should not then be exempted
from taxation. The only reason the Com-
mittee can adduce in its report for treating
farm land separately is to say it is in a
different category. I might suggest every
kind of land is in a different category. The
question arises then does this section which
I would remove from the section, does it
reverse the Alsop case? Last night it ap-
peared it did reverse the Alsop case. This
morning it appears the result is otherwise
and it appears it could overrule the Alsop
case and we are told the section means
what the court says it means. If we re-
move the section we are left in exactly the
same kind of position.
I believe that there are fear questions
that pertain to this as a limitation upon
the legislature which we should not have.
The draft constitution at least used the
word "may" which made the section per-
missive rather than mandatory upon the
legislature. What we are talking about is
a constitutional mandate for what amounts
under the operation of the present law
which it is admitted by the Committee
could be retained as its classification and
definition of agricultural use. What we are
talking about is a constitutional mandate
for what is under the present law a several
million dollar subsidy. I have no objection
to subsidies of agriculture. I do have ob-
jection to making a subsidy by virtue of a
tax exemption which other persons are not
|
