Thursday, December 10, 2009
Councilman's Column
by Jesse Alber Following recent discussion on the condition of Cass Street east of highway 281, the city's engineering firm, Olson & Associates, researched whether Webster County or the City of Blue Hill was responsible for the maintenance of this road. It was determined that based upon state legislation and when subdivisions were annexed into the city limits of Blue Hill, Blue Hill is responsible for maintaining Cass Street from Hwy 281 to the bridge, while Webster County would be responsible for maintaining the street the east of the bridge and on east. Citizens interested in seeing improvements made to this road should petition both the city council and the county supervisors prior to their 1 & 6 year road plan hearings. The Mayor and city staff will be seeking to clarify some points in the contract for the use of $20,000 in funds recently awarded from the Nebraska Department of Economic Development, Travel & Tourism Division. Points to be clarified deal with the execution and match requirements of the grant. The council approved the acceptance of the funds. According to the contract, all funds must be expended and construction and improvements completed by June, 2011. Although the grant application included a list of proposed projects for the Community / Senior Center, citizens with suggestions on how the funds should be utilized should share those suggestions with city officials, the Mayor or councilmembers. Considerable discussion was given to the annexation of property on the west side of town. The property in question was previously owned by Jerry Koepke but was recently purchased by Jason & Marisa L'Heureux. The tract was origionally believed to be within city limits, but upon transfer of the property it was discovered that it lies just outside of the city limits. No action was taken at this point on the question of annexation but the discussion evolved into a discussion of available property in or near city limits that would allow for municipal growth and new home construction. There are many lots, parcels or acrages within or adjacent to the City of Blue Hill that would be suitable for residential construction, however, current property owners have no interest in parting with their posession. Many of these landowners have taken advantage of "Green Belt" legislation to have their property zoned and valuated at agricultural rather than residential rates. I fully support the use of green belt valuation for property that is being actively utilized for agricultural purposes to include livestock grazing, crop production, or even managing 4-H or FFA projects. Those owners who have property valuated utilizing green belt legislation but do not participate in agricultural production, are in violation of the law. The question that arises is; What influence would a residential valuation on this property have on the property owner's willingness to make this land available for residential development?What other encouragements can be provided to land owners and/or home builders to increase new home construction?How important is increased home construction to the future of Blue Hill?What are the best opportunities for growth and development for Blue Hill?Do "green belt" parcels improve or deter from the quality of life in Blue Hill?I would sincerely appreciate your input on these questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Although I'm a proponent of advancement, why must a private property owner pay for that advancement? Why should land usage be questioned by a non-owner? I understand if that particular tract of land or property has become a health nuisance but that is not the case here. What right does any municipality have to dictate a course of use of PRIVATELY owned land in the absence of nuisance law violations? I believe that the local Blue Hill government must realize that Blue Hill is what it is, a family based bedroom community that relies on neighborly ties to bind it. It relies on relationships among friends and families to live. People don't reside and move to Blue Hill for business and never will. They move to Blue Hill to return home or to start a family in a town where you used to be able to walk uptown for a candy bar and leave your house unlocked. It's a place where if someone heard the hum of a chainsaw they would load up their own and go help out. This IS what Blue Hill IS! It's family and friends living and relying on each other. If the city desires to build homes, there are many places in town that has delapidated housing that may be purchased and renovated or replaced. The main street business district has shining examples of how difficult it is to even maintain THOSE businesses let alone support any new ones. To the government of Blue Hill, Please!, make better use of the available land and buildings in town! If you choose to annex surrounding lands and homes to increase tax revenue to pay for road services, fire, or police, please understand that you are annexing a farm or pasture. You live in a farming community, not a bustling shopping district, get use to cows and corn!
Brad Hargis
Mr. Hargis, I do not believe anyone is trying to dictate land usage to property owners. The question is about how property is valued. One land owner in Blue Hill owns slightly more than one block which would be suitable for construction of 3 to 4 residences. The property is valuated as "farm" ground at $690 and the owner pay $14.40 in taxes per year. No agricultural production has occured on the property for over 18 months. Is there any chance this property owner would sell this parcel for $700? Does the current use of the property really affect its value or potential for future use? This property would likely be valued at 10 times its current value if zoned residential instead of agricultural. Is this fair to other tax payers (not that anyone is suggesting life is fair).
Few agriculturaly zoned parcels in Blue Hill show this type of discrepency between their actual value and assessed value, however, it raises the question; "Should property values be based upon how the property is utilized or upon fair market value for any potential user?
The author neither condemns nor condones the current practice and seeks only to discuss the topic.
Hi Jessephred,
Hey Jess, Why should it be up to anybody to judge what should or should not be done with this individuals property other than that individual? Just because this individual has either chosen not to till the land or he/she is unable to till the land, what right does that give the city to rezone or re-valuate it for residential use? And you say 'potential user'. I'm sorry but that is a bureaucratic tactic designed to envelope that land for tax purposes and serves only the municipality. The city would then force the landowner to part with the land to a contractor or to the city themselves simply out of the need to be able to pay the taxes on the property. In essence, isn't the municipality dictating what the owner does with the property? Has this landowner increased the value of the home that is on the land? Is there a home on the land? Is the landowner utilizing the land for things other than farming or pasture? (ie a business)If that is the case then I would agree that an updated valuation situation exists but would you not argue your own property assessment increase if your neighbor were to build a pool and tennis court on his land while you do nothing with yours? Why is it then fair for the city to increase your valuation merely because your neighbor has improved his property and his property alone? That is no more fair than my local valuation decreasing because my neighbors have completely let their property go. Why should my valuation change just because my neighbors choose to live as pigs? Neither scenario is fair. What I'm saying Jess, is as the land sits now, at $700, the city is collecting taxes on it. If, by increasing its valuation to $7000, the landowner is forced to sell the property to pay the taxes, isn't the city 'dictating' what the landowner does with the land, and I guess that is my whole point. At some point, the land will change hands. At that juncture I believe it would be appropriate to reassess the valuation of the land and tax accordingly, but until then, in my opinion, what actual harm is it doing growing flowers, weeds, and baby bunnies?
Eminent domain is a process in which the municipality dictates the sale of property for the "better good" of the community. I am a strong opponent of eminent domain in ALMOST every scenario. (I propose the use of eminent domain, if necessary, against Railroad Management, Inc. to preserve municipal water interests.)
The taxable value of all residential property is based upon not what I paid for it but what the county asessor believes I should be able to get for it if I were to sell it, wether I use it as my home, as a rental or as a storage unit. Many of these property owners paid significantly more for their "agricultural" land than at its current valued rate, some paid less.
I would like to suggest a hypothetical situation, to try to explain how I feel about this special taxing of these "farms" in town.
Suppose Neighbor "A"owns a nice, very comfortable relatively new house located on two lots in blue hill, he is taxed a couple hundred dollars a month because he has chosen to invest his money in a nice home, if he chooses to continue to live there and not loose the property to taxes he must pay, therefore the local government dictates whether or not he can afford to keep his house. He keeps up his house and yard and they look nice. So he is taxed more than the person who lets their house and yard appear shabby.
Next door to him is neighbor "b" he has a special exemption so he doesn't pay taxes on his property out of which he runs a small business even though he is located in a area zoned residential not commercial. He has invested his money in a RV and travels.
Neighbor "C" owns a nice little modest home, also has an exemption on the home so he pays very little tax on his home. He also owns some connecting land that is "farm land." this land could be developed and if it were and not "farm land" the city/county would derive much more revenue from it, but neighbor C likes owning his little farm so he doesn't want to sell it. As developed land it is worth much more than it is as "farm" land. If the evaluation on it reflected its "real" value, which I would define as the amount he could get for it if he decided to sell it the taxes on it would be much higher.
The government need not tell him how he can use his land but must they forefit tax revenue they would have if it were used differently? If he paid more tax on it neighbor A could pay less on his property.
these little patches of green are not now and will never again be "farms". And if people want to keep them and put a horse there or grow a crop there, more power to them, but I don't want to pay their share of taxes while they do it. If these pieces of land were taxed at the same rate as every other lot in town, that has a home on it they would not be taxed so far out of line that a reasonable person could not afford the tax, and if the owner could not afford the tax they need to sell the property and the new owner could pay the tax, just like any other piece of property in this town.
Ownership has a price. Taxes need to be as fair as possible for as many as possible and doing away with these "green belt" exemtions in blue Hill would not be unfair.
Now how fair is it that neighbor A must pay taxes on all his real estate property, therefore supporting the streets in town, the schools, the fire department, all the many things that our taxes pay for while neighbor "c" and neighbor B can avail themselves of all the same services and yet escape paying taxes on the true value of their property?
Green Belt areas were created, in my opinion, for larger metropoliton areas, to allow for a little plant/animal life in cities, They don't really supply a "community need" in neighborhoods that are located just a few blocks from the rural area that surrounds the community.
Allowing these property owners this tax advantage gives them an unfair edge over their neighbors who choose to invest their money in property, either land, or RV's or whatever that is taxed at an amount based on its real value, that amount for which it could be converted to cash.
And this is my opinion.
Post a Comment