1638                                      VETOES

ment of new cities and planned communities within our state. Cities
do not spring up overnight. Communities are not created in a matter
of days. Sewerage, water and educational facilities do not appear the
moment land is rezoned. Roads and utilities equipment are not cre-
ated as soon as land is sold for over seven times its assessed value.

The development of such communities requires vast capital out-
lays, years of planning, inventories of land and the adoption of master
plans for zoning to provide for future land use compatible with the
aims of a more orderly environment.

Government needs an even longer period than private investors
to adequately provide the services and facilities essential to the suc-
cess of orderly development. The financial commitment necessary
cannot be made until the land is zoned and the planned use is im-
minent. The bill at one point included provisions which would have
recognized the above problems and provided for their consideration.
Unfortunately, these were not included in the bill as adopted.

If no preferential assessment is available to those interested in
new cities and communities while the land is being held pending the
completion of all necessary preliminary arrangements, in all likeli-
hood the process of acquiring and holding land in large blocks will
become so expensive that efforts in this direction will come to a
standstill. But the lack of preferential treatment will not inhibit
the speculator, who is interested only in having his improvements
erected and then getting out with his profit. He can still survive,
since he does not hold great acreage of land for years at a time.
The result will be the worst kind of haphazard development devoid
of the planning necessary for a large modern integrated community.

The problem is indeed a difficult one. There is no doubt in my
mind that the Committee on Taxation and Fiscal Matters looked long
and hard for a solution before settling on this bill. I am equally
certain that the members of this Committee, as well as many other
members of the Legislature realize that this bill is not the complete
answer to the problem. And until we have that answer, I feel strongly
that a piecemeal attack will only create additional difficulties which
will require further legislation.

There are alternatives which have been suggested. The Com-
mittee on Taxation and Fiscal Matters in its report of 1963 recom-
mended a roll-back procedure which is more equitable in operation
and deserves further study. That Committee also saw as an alterna-
tive a capital gains tax which was instituted as part of the tax reform
program last year. Likewise, the Commission on Agricultural Land
Preservation has recognized the defects in Senate Bill 1 and has made
several suggestions worth consideration in this area. The Commis-
sion was appointed pursuant to House Joint Resolution 20 of the 1967
session, and it seems only logical that they should have an oppor-
tunity to fully review the problems and solutions before a bill as far
reaching as this one is enacted. I pledge that this administration
will work with the Legislature and any other group interested in
finding a complete solution to the problem. In my opinion, Senate
Bill 1 is not that solution.

Sincerely,
(s) Spiro T. Agnew,

Governor.