|
mitting these nefarious people to carry on
their land speculation to the detriment of
the taxpayers of my county.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hender-
son.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Presi-
dent and gentlemen. I would like to support
the motion to reconsider. It seems to me
that the term "agricultural property" as
denned by law is the best phrase that we
can use. I recognize the difficulties of
trying to classify something which perhaps
defies classification; that is to exclude one
person who has a profit motive, or the
speculator, if he is actually farming, and
the farmer who may have speculative mo-
tives in continuing what is a losing enter-
prise, because he hopes to gain in the
future. But if it is possible to make that
distinction between those two and make a
classification which will stand up under
the equal protection of the laws, it seems
to me that the phrase "agricultural prop-
erty" as defined comes closer to it than
anything. It gives to the legislature to
define what is agricultural and what is
not within the meaning of that phrase. So
I think that you have the best chance of
success of drawing this line with those
words than you do with the others.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready for
the question? The question arises on the
motion to reconsider the vote by which
Amendment No. 1 as amended by Amend-
ment 1-b was adopted. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of reconsideration. A vote No is a
vote against.
If the motion to reconsider passes, you
will have Amendment No. 1 as amended
by Amendment 1-b before you. This is not
a vote on the adoption or rejection of
Amendment No. 1, but merely a vote for
reconsideration.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of recon-
sideration. A vote No, a vote against. Cast
your vote.
Has every delegate voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 81 votes in the affirmative,
and 26 in the negative, the motion is
carried.
You have now before you Amendment
No. 1, as amended by 1-b. Is there any
further discussion?
|
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I have a ques-
tion of Delegate Sherbow:
What has caused all the difficulty, Dele-
gate Sherbow, is the change of language.
Can we not go back to the original lan-
guage and make everybody happy?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I would be
perfectly content to go back to the original
language. I will take either of the two, be-
cause in my judgment they each mean the
same. If we can get to the point where you
vote on what Style has done, and then you
go on to the other one, that is your priv-
ilege. But leaving it where it is right now
is what is making all the trouble.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Then, if we
can go back to the original language before
Style changed it, which caused all this dif-
ficulty, I would certainly follow the route,
whatever may be the proper route to get
there.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest to you,
Delegate Clagett, that the question now is
on the adoption of the Amendment No. 1.
If Amendment No. 1 is rejected, the section
is open to further amendment.
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. President,
I urge the Convention not to reject this
amendment on reconsideration, but to re-
tain it as you placed it in the draft consti-
tution in the first instance. There are, in-
deed, problems in the agricultural assess-
ment area of distinguishing on the basis
of motives between a person who is farm-
ing, owning and operating a farm, and a
person who owns land which he may devote
to some agricultural use, but owns it for a
purpose which is not agricultural, but
mainly speculative. This is the problem.
This is the sum and substance of the prob-
lem in agricultural assessment, because
what we are doing is asking assessors who
are trained to make judgments on the sale
value of land to make judgments about the
intent of the owners of the land. In order
to really handle this problem and to do
what we have all said what we want to do
to help the bona fide farmer, and not to
help the speculator, we must have a section
that leaves the legislature to define by law,
not just the property and the way it is
|
