|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2392 VETOES
As expressly stated in Sections 19(b) and 19(f), the General
Assembly intended the special and lower assessments provided in
those independent provisions to accomplish quite different yet
equally important land use strategies against urban sprawl.
In the instance of the agricultural use assessment, its
purpose was to prevent forced farmland conversion and to preserve
existing farms. On the other hand, in the case of the planned
development special assessment, the General Assembly obviously
intended the special assessment to serve as an incentive to
landowners to forego quick profits and to encourage them to
engage in orderly and staged development.
The differences between these two special assessment
programs can also be seen in the nature of the penalty or
"discouragement" taxes previously added to both programs. For
example, in 1969 the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 139
which not only imposed a recapture type tax on the conversion of
land receiving the agricultural use assessment but also added
provisions that allowed planned development lands a lower
assessment. This same bill provided for a penalty tax when the
planned development lands failed to continue to meet the special
zoning criteria. Through enactment of these provisions in same
bill, the General Assembly clearly indicated its intent that when
the objectives of the two special assessment programs were no
longer met, there should be some sort of penalty tax. Although
the original deferred tax imposed on the conversion of
agricultural land as changed over the years to first the
development tax and now the Agricultural Transfer Tax, the
concept of the tax, as a disincentive to the conversion of
agricultural land and a penalty when that land is converted to
another use, has remained intact.
The application of the Agricultural Transfer Tax to land
receiving the planned development special assessment, as provided
for in Senate Bill 778, will also serve as a disincentive to the
development of the land and additionally as a penalty if the land
is developed. It is this application that gives me serious
concern. Clearly, imposition of this tax would serve to
counteract the very incentive intended by the General Assembly in
enactment of the planned development special assessment.
As a consequence, the benefit to the landowner in the form
of a special assessment would be negated if the Agricultural
Transfer Tax were imposed even though planned, orderly and staged
development was being accomplished in accordance with all
applicable criteria. I find it unfair to impose a form of a
penalty tax upon a landowner who has not violated either the
letter or the spirit of a law that is designed for the mutual
benefit of the landowner and the general public. At the same
time, it is incongruous to, in effect, reject a land use strategy
which has served the State of Maryland so well. The jobs and
taxes generated by these communities, not to mention the social
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
