A “new” case for differential assessment of prime farmlands

Shelley M. Mark

Excerpt

DIFFERENTIAL assessment generally appears to have been written off as a means of preserving prime farmlands in this country. Farm real estate taxes, it is contended, cannot be reduced enough to assure that farmers will reject high urban-based offers for their land (6, 7, 8, 9).

The recent National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS) reiterated this general conclusion in the following way.

“Generally these programs are effective in reducing farm property taxes but are not, in themselves, effective techniques for reducing the rate of conversion of agricultural land to nonfarm uses” (11).

Regulatory approaches, ranging from agricultural districting to the comprehensive land use control system adopted in Hawaii, are looked upon as more effective in farmland retention, particularly in areas under direct urban pressure. However, their extensive use has been limited by operational complexities and concern about constitutional protection of individual property rights—the so-called taking issue (1, 3). The Hawaiian law, enacted in 1961 for a small, isolated island state, still …

Footnotes

Shelley M. Mark, a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 96822, was formerly director of land use coordination for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and director of planning and economic development for the State of Hawaii.
Copyright 1982 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.