Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Conserving Tinker Mountain

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Anyone driving down Interstate 81 near Roanoke has passed Tinker Mountain, one of the more imposing peaks to line the highway. The mountain also happens to be visible from the campus of Hollins University, and part of the college lore — once a year for more than a century, classes are canceled and students, faculty and staff hike Tinker Mountain attired in zany costumes.

I remember well the view of Tinker Mountain from my days as a part-time student in the graduate creative writing program there. So, I’m delighted to read in the Roanoke Times that a consortium led by Hollins has raised $352,000 to purchase 235 acres of land and preserve the mountain’s wooded vistas.

That’s the ideal kind of conservation — laying out hard cash to acquire land that, because of its vistas or wildlife habitat, are worth protecting. Nobody’s property rights are getting trampled. Nobody’s getting any tax breaks. And they’re targeted. I’m not opposed to conservation easements, but I share Ed Risse’s reservations that, as currently structured, Virginia’s conservation easement program may do as much to promote scattered, hop-scotch development as to conserve lands worth saving.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

5 responses to “Conserving Tinker Mountain”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Put myself in Ed Risse’s and Jim Bacon’s corner with respect to concerns with respect to conservation credits.

    What’s been created to a certain extent in my opinion is taxpayer-subsidized tax shelters and private preserves for land owners. The only benefit is the presumption that ANY greenspace anywhere is a public benefit even if the public cannot use it.

    The land preservation issue … really is part and parcel of the bigger issue of efficient land-use in general.

    If I were King.. I’d require specific criteria – a point system that would be used to determine if land has specific cultural, natural or historic significance OR direct and tangible public benefit AND the process would be compeititive so that only the cream of the crop would qualify for full credits. Those lower down on the totem pole might be offered reduced credits commenserate with their benefits.

    Ditto for acquiring land – willing seller – willing buyer.

  2. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Or, we could just reform our tax code. We could base it on principles not cash cows. Tax the land for how it is being used and tax the sale of land – once.

    The principle is what does it take to make the land like it was in its natural state – because there is finite amount of land in the Commonwealth and citizens have the property right to own it and the stewardship responsibility to hand it over in good shape when we die to whoever will use it next.

    Low low low taxes for land left naturally, low low taxes for farms, low taxes for homes and businesses depending on how much you pave and build. Where cities and counties want to encourage density – then lower taxes for those places.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “That’s the ideal kind of conservation — laying out hard cash to acquire land that, because of its vistas or wildlife habitat, are worth protecting. Nobody’s property rights are getting trampled.”

    Amen. And I might point out that in this case strong property rights work in favor of conservation, otherwise the county could just take over the land and turn it over to someone who will pay higher taxes, like a wind farm or something.

    The Land Bank system I’m familiar with has a dedicated source of funding: a two percent tax on land transfers. The Land bank then uses its (limited, but steady) funds to buy up lands that they consider valuable, and they use a point system similar to described above. These might be conservation lands, or they might be socially important for some other reason, like bike trails or beach access.

    Nearly everyone want to be near or have access to open space, and if you buy the land carefully you can provide both. It will result in some hopscotch development, but that is what people want, with respect to open space. Having open space next to your property is one of the highest value drivers, along with (paradoxically) convenient shopping.

    Nevertheless, when funds are limited, you must target the properties that are most important, and let the chips fall where they may as to development, to some extent. You have to make your prioirities, just like the rest of us.

    As it stands now, we are taxing our farms at three times what they cost in services: hardly equitable or what you would call low, low taxes for farms. I can’t see that this is a policy designed to keep the farms in service.

    At least if you are going to tax the farmland, then the money should be dedicated to farmland support services. This summer my tractor was in the shop for weeks, and it was a disaster for me. If the county supported a kind of flex car plan for tractors with the money I send them, it might have saved me this entire season.

    But what really blows my mind is the case when conservation easements on most of the property are a REQUIRED proffer in order to develop even a portion of the remainder. You might wind up with a private reserve, and a current tax credit, but who is really paying the price? Giving up all possibility of future developmet rights to 85% of your property in exchange for one current building permit doesn’t exactly sound like a sweetheart deal for the landowner. We are not talking about a rate of growth issue, or when, we are talking never, no matter what proffers or services you are willing to provide.

    It is hardly targeting the most valuable conservtion land, because the owner will preferentially give up the least valuable. And it can’t be called protecting property rights either.

    And I’m not even sure you would get the tax credit. If you are REQUIRED to hand over an easement on 85% of your land in exchange for a building permit, is that really a gift? And, having handed over the easement, there is no guarantee the the land use tax assessment will continue indefinitely: that isn’t in the contract.

    If I’m going to sign an eternal contract that says I will never use the land for anything, if only you will pretty-please let me build a house for my aging Mom someplace else, then I’m going to want an eternal contract that says you will never tax me for more than a portion of what the property can earn in profits. For most farmers that is pretty near zero.

    But that is not what happens. Instead the county gives away the easement to a non-government entitiy specifically so that they won’t have control over the land use.

    In such a case the current regime is effectively abdicating their responsibility for land use for themselves and all future democratically elected governments.

    Whereas, if they simply buy and hold the land, well, someday some government might decide they need that wind farm to keep their residents from freezing in the dark.

    So, yes, the owner would wind up with a private reserve, but he’s got that now, and no, the break on tax assessments does not amount to low taxes, at least not when you consider what you get in return. It does amount to lower taxes for everyone else, who, the county never fails to point out, are not paying their share anyway.

    So, being forced into giving up an easement really only guarantees that you will never be able to join the ranks of those who are not paying their own way, and this is perversely construed as a tax break, and a pastoral haven that you already own!

    Nuts. Whacko. Perverse. Unfair and counter-democratic. It makes the Tinker mountain deal look like paradise in comparison. Where can I contribute?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Western Virgina Land Trust
    722 First Street, S.W., Suite L
    Roanoke, VA. 24016-4120

    We anticipate your generaous check.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I am a first year at Hollins University and I’m extremely excited about our purchase of land on Tinker Mountain – I can’t wait for Tinker Day! However, I was prompted to respond based upon the last comment: please spell “generous” correctly.

Leave a Reply

Read More