Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 19, 1993 TAG: 9304190243
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES O. TROUT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Specifically, I would like to contribute some historical perspective, as I was on City Council and involved with it at the time that this whole thing started.
As a result of the annexation of 1976, the city of Roanoke increased its population by 16,000 citizens and expanded its boundaries by some 16 square miles. The city's population reached the mark of more than 100,000 as a result, demonstrating to the "boardrooms of America" that Roanoke was a growing and dynamic community. The 1976 annexation was undertaken to increase the space for urban living, which, after all, is what a municipal-annexation action is all about.
We gained the land area needed to construct new subdivisions, regional malls, and neighborhood shopping centers, thus gaining a much-needed increase in the tax base.
Indeed, it was in January 1976 the best of times:
Cities were viewed as children of the commonwealth, and their schools received adequate funding for education.
Roanoke received millions in federal revenue-sharing dollars each year.
The city of Roanoke did not have frozen boundaries and could file to annex additional land.
At the time of the 1976 annexation, it was understood that some of the new land was in use for agricultural purposes. It was also understood that the county whence the land came had placed (or was considering applications from) parcels under a land-use program, as provided by Virginia Code, that kept tax levels on that agricultural land artificially low.
We in city government wanted to be fair to those new citizens, landowners and taxpayers coming into the municipality through annexation, and were of a mind to ease any "annexation shock" of suddenly increased tax rates. We went to the General Assembly for enabling legislation to allow municipal corporations to give to cities the same land-use programs available then only to counties.
The language of the legislation was that for the first tax year after annexation, lands that had made application for or were under the county's land-use program would be given similar agricultural-tax consideration when annexed into the city.
We were successful with that legislation, and as a result added an agricultural-district zoning classification to Roanoke city's zoning code in April 1976. This provided that landowners with a minimum of 5 acres be allowed to apply for agricultural classification, if they met the requirements of the code.
The intent of the enabling legislation was to ease into the municipal system those parcels under agricultural use, because the intent of the landowner was to live on the land and farm it. The agricultural classification for tax purposes was temporary at most, designed to help perpetuate a "family farm" way of life existing at the time.
Today, that style of living no longer exists on the parcels in question, and has not for years. This raises the question: Has the law outlived its original intent?
The answer is yes.
Roanoke city's borders are now frozen by state law. We cannot expand as other cities in other states have been able to do. Tax fairness is a reasonable cause for a change in city policy, and the time to change that policy is upon us.
It is time we asked ourselves, "Are the taxpayers subsidizing economically comfortable landowners who have taken advantage of the land-use program?" I think we are.
If indeed it is time to discontinue the land-use program, how many families living on that land and farming that land would be displaced? The answer, from what I can learn, is none.
Today, we're fighting for our city's future. These are no longer the best of times. The times require a change from the present rules - rules held over from 1976, and not meant to be permanent.
All real estate in the city should be allowed to float in a fair market, so that parcels in the available inventory do not receive a tax subsidy, a subsidy paid for by property owners from Peakwood Drive to Round Hill, and on Maiden Lane and Trinkle Avenue.
Paying taxes is a challenge for all property owners. But by our sharing the burden fairly, our municipality is able to provide the things we all require, and thus we all benefit fairly.
The elimination of the agricultural land-use tax-subsidy is a bold move, but it is necessary for the sake of fairness, and to retain public and taxpayer support for municipal government. There is little argument that the land should be used for appropriate urban development, but how it should be used is another argument entirely. First, the myth of a necessary agricultural-use tax-subsidy should be dispensed with.
James O. Trout is a former member of Roanoke City Council.
by CNB