Time to take greenbelt law off autopilot

 5 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

The renewed emphasis that government officials are placing on the state’s greenbelt law is welcome.

The program established in 1974 is designed to protect farmers near cities and towns from huge tax increases as encroaching development pushes up land prices. Supporters also believe that the law helps deter urban sprawl because farmers are not economically pressured to sell out to developers.

Over the years the program has quietly grown. About 42,470 now have greenbelt status across the state. Not all those properties may be entitled to the tax break.

In many cases the designation was granted and then renewed almost automatically year after year without further review.

Cathy Lang, state property tax administrator, said that probably nine out of 10 of greenbelt properties would have no problem meeting criteria for greenbelt designation. The remaining 10 percent, she said, fall into a gray area.

The issue drew attention recently as it became an issue in the senatorial campaign. Sen. Ben Nelson agreed to pay $14,000 in back taxes with interest after the Sarpy County Assessor decided the hunting cabin and land on the Platte River did not qualify under the law.

Nebraska’s Greenbelt Advisory Committee plans to recommend that county assessors develop checklists that can be used to make determinations whether a land deserves the tax break.

In the past, properties have been granted greenbelt status if only part of the property was used for agricultural purposes. This often allowed acreages, vacation homes and hunting cabins to qualify under the law.

But a change in state law that takes effect next year requires the entire property to be used for agricultural purposes.

At a meeting of the greenbelt committee, Lang suggested several approaches that might help weed out unwarranted tax breaks. Assessors could, for example, require the owner of any property smaller than 20 acres now designated as greenbelt to prove that the property was used for agriculture.

The effort to make sure that property owners are not taking advantage of the greenbelt law might add to assessors’ workloads, particularly in counties with major rivers that attract vacation homes. Property inspections might be needed to assure that tax breaks are justified.

The greenbelt committee also may recommend that assessors review greenbelt properties on a regular basis to make sure that land is still being farmed.

As originally conceived, the greenbelt law serves a legitimate public purpose.

But it needs to be properly administered to make sure that property owners are not getting an undeserved tax break. The greenbelt program has been on autopilot for too long.