In the 2011 legislative session the Texas Senate passed SB
449, which allowed a continuation of agricultural tax appraisal values to open
land which benefits both water quality and quantity. Essentially, this is a continuation of HB
1358 (1995) which allowed land managed for wildlife to receive the same
agricultural appraisal value as cropland.
I’m sure environmentalists and conservations consider this a
legislative victory. I have to admit, I
do too. But this blog post is interested
in assuming an entirely different perspective: that of social equity.
Increasingly landowners in Texas are wealthy individuals who
no longer rely on the land to earn a living.
Many are absentee landowners who possess weekend “ranches” or hunting
property. Others are land speculators
who are buying rural property as an investment.
I do not have the evidence at this time, but I hypothesize that as a
whole, this is the group largely benefitting from both of these tax code
adjustments. Again, in regards to
biodiversity conservation, this is a boon.
These landholders no longer have the incentive to ranch cattle simply to
receive an ag exemption. Is this not a
good thing? And what does it have to do
with social equity?
The tax breaks that these already wealthy landowners are
receiving are coming directly from county tax revenues. Generally, these revenues are used to pay for
maintenance of the commons ie roads, infrastructure, etc. If less tax revenue is coming in to benefit the
commons and instead is being retained by wealthy landowners, are non-landholding county
citizens and small-holders not left indirectly subsidizing the wealthy? Is this really the most equitable way to
conserve biodiversity?
Taking a broad-view, this argument sounds awfully similar
to those voiced by the Occupy Wall-street protesters: essentially, it can be argued that the public is subsidizing the
wealthy, for the benefit of the wealthy alone, in this case too.
No comments:
Post a Comment