Site Discussions

I always enjoy your blog, and I particularly liked this one about the old school winter. Yes, indeed, and thankfully for us snowmobilers, we are having a good old fashioned winter with plenty of snow, at least since the start of February. January was so-so, and we were despairing that we were going to have (yet another) winter without much snow and the ability to snowmobile in the Oxford Hills. In the wake of the several recent snow storms, we now have a significant amount of snow on the ground around here (knee deep as you point out!), and the riding has been exceptional in this area. I wanted to mention that I felt the tone of your blog seems to suggest that you are downplaying or trivializing climate change, as evidenced by this current record cold weather. I hope that is not the case. Climate change is something we all need to be aware of and do our best to try to mitigate. Otherwise there may be no northern woods for our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren to enjoy as much as we do. Conservation is the at the heart of our efforts to preserve our wonderful forests, and climate change puts that in jeopardy. So I hope that you would remind your readers that climate change should be taken seriously and that we should do everything possible to mitigate it and help prevent a potentially devastating effect in the future on the forests we love so much.

Thanks for your comment, Jason. I’d urge you not to see it as a “tax break,” though, because that phrase is misleading. Through Current Use your land is being taxed for what it is—working forestland—and not for what it could theoretically become (a building lot). You’re not getting a break on anything; it’s simple fairness. A 1,000-square-foot home in a residential neighborhood is taxed as a 1,000-square-foot home, not on its value as a theoretical 10,000-square-foot hotel. A poor, smart, college student who moonlights as a waitress is taxed on her income as a waitress, not on what she’ll theoretically make when she’s a lawyer someday.

Nice article - I agree, it helps to have a broader understanding of the program beyond the tax break. This program is helping me to keep our family woodlot in the family and undeveloped - and its forcing me to take an active, responsible role in managing the forest. I do worry about how the program is funded and I do feel some guilt about taking advantage of a tax break that truth-be-told I actually don’t need at the moment. For me, though, the main thing is to slow down development in Vermont and this is a great means to that end.

Thanks!

What a nice piece to read on a cold Winter morning…blended nicely with emotion and biological information.

Thanks for spelling this out. I’ve heard all the cons without hearing about the pros; and seen the effects without understanding the causes.

Thanks Andrew,
We made the correction!

Beth I am certain what you saw was a Coywolf. I have been working at the airport for 27 years and have spotted them frequently. Just saw 2 of them two nights ago.

Good article!
I’m not sure Vermont farmers were moving 100-ton stones, but readers might be interested to know that we are working on transporting and erecting a 54-ton stone, named Sophia, in New Paltz, NY. Sophia is 32’5” long. We are limiting ourselves to equipment which could have been used by neolithic people 5000 years ago: wood, rope and stone. In September, we lifted one side of Sophia with 39 people, 3 each on 13 wooden levers. In September of 2014, we plan on moving her along the ground. Please email me at robandjaki [at] yahoo.com if you would like to receive email updates on the Sophia Project.
Rob Roy

Thank you for this good info.  We have lived on these 4 acres for 2 years now, and have a nice old orchard with approx. 8 different varieties.  I have no idea if they are wild or cultivated.  Any ideas how I can tell?  Most are very tasty and abundant producers.  Most of the trees are a good 30 feet tall, some taller.  Definitely in need of serious pruning.  If they are cultivated, will the pruning process be a lot different?

I agree that penalties for withdrawing land should not be so low that developers park the land in current use to avoid a few years taxes. It would be good for the purposes of the discussion to have some data on this. Feb 26 is VT Housing and Conservation day at the Capitol. Show up at 8 and have breakfast with your representatives. There are hearings all day and in the afternoon an ice cream social. There’s no potluck but got to love Vermont!

Dave,

As a consulting forester, landowner and a member of the Northern Woodlands board I commend you on this editorial. Use Value and open land regulation, tax implications and Vermont’s economy are basically misunderstood by our citizens and many in the legislature. You have hit the nail on the head Vermont would not be Vermont without UVA. Sadly other economic factors may drive us off the cliff if we are not careful and all of us support UVA as it is currently structured. Fine tuning is OK but means testing or caps are contrary to the long-term desired outcome our citizens have consistently demonstrated is their desire and what they actually support. Thanks Carbo

We have a similar program here in Maine, and my husband and I have 90 acres enrolled in it. The problem with the way that our program is administered is that it is too easy to withdraw land from the program. You can withdraw land from it every five years with very little penalty. We have a neighbor who therefore every five years withdraws a houselot to sell, and his land is being slowly whittled away until now it’s all little trailer lots with a long strip of woodland on the back.

The other problem with the way Maine’s program is administered is that if the land is particularly valuable (ie: lake or ocean front) the penalty is miniscule compared to the value and owners (and timber corporations) will keep the land in tree growth until they are ready to develop then withdraw the whole parcel, or sometimes just the waterfront lots, from tree growth and turn it into a subdivision.

I don’t know how it works in Vermont but withdrawals need to be much more severely penalized here in Maine!

Nicely written and well-reasoned.

I am enrolled in the current use program, I am not rich but I wish to point out that we must keep out 2 acres for each house which is taxed at full value. Most people I talk to believe we are getting this huge tax break on our total tax bill. Not so, only on the acreage that is being used for the required use, the house taxes [property and school] are the same as anyone.

By the way, one small error in your excellent piece on frost heaves:  that’s tie rods, not tire rods.  Thanks for the always excellent magazine, newsletter and website.

The frost heaves also happen on gravel roads where gravel from different pits are used in dressing a highway. That’s why a town crew is told to replace around a culvert changeout the same gravel that was removed.

I would love to hear Leah’s reasoning for buried waterlines beginning to freeze when the weather begins to warm up and not during the cold snap itself.

Another factor that affects, nay, exacerbates frost heaving is the clearing and salting of our roads.  Picture a zero degree night.  The roads are bare and completely exposed to the frigid air, as compared with the snow-covered, and thus somewhat insulated, ground on either side of the road.  This allows the frost to go deeper into the soil under the pavement.  In addition, salt lowers the melting point of frozen water (snow and slush) but to convert this frozen material to liquid water requires some energy input which, in the absence of solar energy or warmer air, comes from the earth, cooling the soil and freezing moisture even deeper beneath roadways.

Thankyou for such a great article. Having recently purchased 57 acres,increasing the amount of the acreage enrolled in current use,I have come under scrutiny by a local friend as being a “tax dodger”. I really didn’t know how to defend myself,but you have spelled it out perfectly.

The local logger[from the same town] had a few months of work from this “tax dodging” C.D.L. has received thousands of dollars in sugaring equipment. A local mill supplied the lumber for the sugar house,concrete work,electrician,etc.,etc. I guess being a flatlander may have set me up for this, but now I know I am in the right for being enrolled in the current use program for many reasons besides the most important-saving our forests and fields for future generations.

Some excellent points but don’t stop there. There’s clean air, clean water, and the opportunity to manipulate the forest and farm land to improve wildlife habitat; whether it be for song birds or whitetail deer.

Agree completely. For the vast majority of land, development is much much greater than it’s use value.  However, I would guess that there are a few cases where use value for sugaring approaches development value. That would not be true for almost all parcels, but I would imagine there might be a few parcels that would fit the bill. Of course, maple trees don’t last forever and the price of syrup fluctuates, so use value would probably peak and drop over time.

Unfortunately, it’s hard convincing people that the program provides them with more than it costs them. But people are generally bad with money, so no real surprises there. 

It’s also hard to convince people that the program isn’t welfare for the rich. One analogy I’ve heard is imagine if you could get a renters prebate or income sensitivity rebate for your property taxes but only if you rented out one room of your apartment or house.  The bottom line is the program forces the land to be worked. Wealth of the landowner doesn’t matter, the point of the program is to provide jobs. Without the program, landowners will high grade their property to the extent that nobody would be able to harvest anything for 100 years. They will know it has no more working value in their lifetime and after they log it, they will build houses. I’ve witnessed this over and over throughout the years.

There is talk of increasing penalties and like the blog points out, there is no reason to do this. There isn’t enough land being removed to warrant the increased penalties. An increase in penalties will hurt the farmer who wants to give his kid a couple acres to build his/her house on so that they can stay in proximity to the farm on which they will work.  Vermont farmers have done this for years and I don’t see any reason to make this more difficult.

As far as land access, the current use program has nothing to do with land access. Landowners are free to post their land regardless of whether the land is in the program. Now if the public wants to pay ALL of the taxes, ALL of the mortgage on these lands, and without any penalty for withdrawing the land, then by all means let them have access. People who want unfettered access to current use lands are of the “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine” mentality.