ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, December 22, 1996 TAG: 9612230035
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: TAXES
SOURCE: HREG EDWARDS
It's the time of year - particularly when the weather outside is nasty - that farmers may find themselves with some extra time on their hands.
They can spend those hours sitting by the fire, reading seed catalogs and dreaming about next year's crop.
Or they can spend the time, as a few area farmers did recently, cultivating their state legislators in advance of the coming General Assembly session.
As they have each December for a number of years, members of the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation from the Roanoke area gathered Dec.12 at a steakhouse near Crossroads Mall for a lunch with Roanoke-area legislators.
Each year at its annual convention, the Farm Bureau, the state's largest farmer's organization, develops a list of legislative priorities. The farmers then share those priorities with state lawmakers.
This year's wish list includes opposition to any increase in the state's tax on tobacco products. Tobacco is Virginia's top cash crop, and the state's levy on cigarettes is the lowest in the country at 2.5 cents a pack.
The Farm Bureau's priorities also include:
*Continuing a real estate tax break that county governments are allowed to give farmers.
*Preventing any changes in the state Workers Compensation Act that would raise rates or expand benefits.
*Promoting legislation that would reduce health-care costs.
*Having the state or local governments regulate hybrid canines, such as dog-wolf and dog-coyote crosses.
However, the issues talked about most at the Roanoke meeting centered on private property rights and a perceived need to change Virginia's personal-property and real-estate tax laws.
The Farm Bureau supports a state Senate bill that would prevent local governments from using their police, planning or zoning powers to prohibit or inhibit the logging of trees on private property as long as the logging complies with state forestry laws.
The bill wouldn't diminish current environmental protections, supporters say.
Forestry annually contributes $9.8 billion from wood products and another $1.7 billion from recreational value to the Virginia economy, the Farm Bureau said. The 12 million acres of private forest land in the state represent 77 percent of all the state's commercial forest land, the group said.
Forty-eight Virginia localities have ordinances, permit requirements or other restrictions on forestry activities, according to Farm Bureau lobbyist Wilmer Stoneman, who conducted the meeting. Although aimed at protecting forests, such ordinances actually eliminate the incentive for landowners to keep their land in trees, he said.
"We believe you'll have more green spaces longer" if the bill passes, Stoneman said.
The Farm Bureau told legislators that it was supporting other legislation protecting private-property rights and opposing any laws and regulations that harm the value of property, unless its owner gives written consent and is compensated for the damage.
Bill Freeman, a Giles County farmer, mentioned American Electric Power Co.'s proposed 765,000-volt power line as an example of how rural landowners can lose value in their property without being compensated for it. Land-use restrictions related to the Appalachian Trail are another, he said.
Dels. Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton, and Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, suggested that in the absence of legislative relief, that farmers use the legal recourses already available.
People whose property values are diminished because the power line runs close to it can file inverse condemnation suits against the power company seeking compensation for the damage they have suffered, the delegates say.
Unlike a standard condemnation suit, which is brought by government or a private company exercising the power of eminent domain, inverse condemnation suits are brought by property owners who don't believe they are being fully compensated for their losses.
A property owner, Cranwell said, would have the right to take AEP to court and recover the value of the property the company actually takes for right-of-way as well as the damages to the remaining property. If filing the suit is too expensive for a farmer individually, farmers can get together and bring suit, he said.
On the subject of property taxes, the Farm Bureau said the legislature should continue studying reform of the real estate tax. The organization says it will support an increase in sales and income taxes only if the money is returned to localities and the localities cut their real estate taxes by the same amount.
As local governments continue to increase real-estate taxes to make up for budget shortfalls and unfunded state and federal mandates, farmers and homeowners face the prospect of being taxed off their property, the Farm Bureau contends. Real estate taxes in Virginia have increased 139 percent since 1982-83, the group said.
With the increasing urbanization of the state, real property taxes are an inequitable way to pay for broad local services, the organization said.
"What we are looking at with these taxes is a fairness issue," Stoneman said.
It's not fair to make property owners pay for services the entire community uses, the Farm Bureau said.
Although the Farm's Bureau's position doesn't specifically mention personal property taxes, which are levied on such things as automobiles and boats, the steakhouse discussion turned to a proposal by State Sen. Charles Colgan, D-Manassas, to abolish the personal property tax and increase the sales tax from 4.5 cents to 6 cents on the dollar to make up for the lost revenue.
If legislators replace the personal property tax with a higher sales tax, they're going to be faced with the problem of explaining to constituents how they hadn't really raised taxes, Cranwell said. They'll also have to explain why they're no longer taxing a doctor's luxury car but are asking the doctor's maid to pay more taxes at the grocery store.
"At the end of the day I don't think there's going to be any change in the system in Virginia," Cranwell said.
"There's a bipartisan opinion here that [Colgan's proposal] is not going anywhere," added Griffith, who was sitting across from Cranwell and beside State Sen. Malfourd "Bo" Trumbo, R-Fincastle.
LENGTH: Long : 112 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1997by CNB