ORS Forestland Classification

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/526

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/526.324

(1) Upon the basis of its investigation and determination under ORS 526.320 (Determination of forestland), a committee shall assign all forestland within the boundaries of its county or counties and within a forest protection district to one of the following classifications:
(a) Class 1, timber class, includes forestland suitable for the production of timber and may include lands on which structures are present.
(b) Class 2, timber and grazing class, includes forestland suitable for joint use for timber production and the grazing of livestock and may include lands on which structures are present.
(c) Class 3, agricultural class, includes forestland suitable for grazing of livestock or other agricultural use and may include lands on which structures are present.
(2) The committee shall adopt preliminary classifications and shall cause notice thereof to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the boundaries of its county or within the boundaries of each of its counties and to be posted in three public places within the boundaries of its county or within the boundaries of each of its counties. The notice shall state the time and place for the public hearing required pursuant to ORS 526.328 (Hearing) and where maps of the preliminary classifications may be inspected. [1965 c.253 §37; 1967 c.429 §32; 2009 c.69 §6]

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/526.320
Upon establishment of a forestland classification committee under ORS 526.310 (Forestland classification committees), the committee shall periodically investigate and study all land within the boundaries of its county or counties and determine which of the land is forestland. Such determination shall take into consideration climate, topography, elevation, rainfall, soil conditions, roads, extent of fire hazards, recreation needs, scenic values, and other physical, economic and social factors and conditions relating to the land involved. [Amended by 1965 c.253 §35; 1967 c.429 §31; 2009 c.69 §5]

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/526.310
1) Pursuant to a request by the State Forester:
(a) The governing body of a county may establish a forestland classification committee of six persons, of whom one shall be appointed by the State Forester, one by the Director of the Oregon State University Extension Service, one by the State Fire Marshal and three by the governing body. Of the members appointed by the governing body, one must be an owner of forestland or the representative of an owner of forestland, and, if the land to be investigated and studied by the committee includes or is expected to include grazing land, one must be an owner of grazing land or the representative of an owner of grazing land; or
(b) The governing bodies of two or more counties may, by written agreement, establish a joint forestland classification committee. One member of a joint committee shall be appointed by the State Forester, one by the Director of the Oregon State University Extension Service and one by the State Fire Marshal. The governing body of each participating county shall appoint two members. Of the members appointed by a governing body to a joint committee, one must be an owner of forestland or the representative of an owner of forestland.
(2) Each appointing authority shall file with the State Forester the name of its appointee or appointees, and the persons so named shall constitute the committee. Unless otherwise provided for by the appointing authority, members of the committee shall serve a term of four years and may be reappointed to any number of terms. Each member of the committee at all times is subject to replacement by the appointing authority, effective upon the filing with the State Forester by that authority of written notice of the name of the new appointee.
(3) The committee shall elect from among its members a chair and a secretary and may elect other officers as it finds advisable. It shall adopt rules governing its organization and proceedings and the performance of its duties, and shall keep written minutes of all its meetings.
(4)(a) The governing body of a county may provide for the committee and its members such accommodations and supplies and such county funds not otherwise appropriated as the governing body finds necessary for the proper performance of the committee’s functions.
(b) The forester may provide for the committee and its members such accommodations and supplies and such forest protection district funds as the forester finds necessary for the proper performance of the committee’s functions.
(5) The members of the committee shall receive no compensation for their services but a governing body or a forest protection district may reimburse them for their actual and necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. [Amended by 1965 c.253 §34; 1967 c.429 §30; 1997 c.274 §42; 2009 c.69 §4; 2013 c.148 §1]

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 526—Forestry Administration, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors526.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).

2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 526, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano526.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.

ORS Chapter 477 Fire Protection of Forests and Vegetation

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/477

Oregon Taxes and Fees

https://taxfoundation.org/how-money-used-federal-and-state-cases-distinguishing-taxes-and-fees/
The public understanding of “tax” aligns with the widely understood definition of a tax as a charge imposed with the primary purpose of raising revenue. This is in contrast to a “fee,” a charge imposed for the primary purpose of recouping costs incurred in providing a service to the payer, and a penalty, a charge imposed for the primary purpose of punishing behavior. Nearly every state has adopted these definitions (all except North Carolina and Oregon). Ohio is the most recent to adopt them, in a recent case where the Tax Foundation filed a brief. All states but one (Oregon) have a rule to resolve any ambiguity in tax statutes in favor of the taxpayer.

Oregon is low on taxes but high on fees.
https://www.ocpp.org/2016/02/02/iss20160202-oregon-taxes-below-average-fees-high/

tax vs fee

Looking for definition in ORS search on 'Fee"
https://www.oregonlaws.org/page?object_filter=29&search=fee
A fundamental definition is not found.

Search on phrase: Oregon ORS definition fee
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=oregon+ors+definition+fee&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

https://taxfoundation.org/how-money-used-federal-and-state-cases-distinguishing-taxes-and-fees/

Bill Mitchell MMT links

I have posted prior links for my reference to Nill Mitchell’s series.  This is a link to the most recent that may include links to what I had missed.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40414

What are Public Lands? Oregon Descutes County Land Ownership

https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/what-are-public-lands.html

An excellent question with a factual inventory.  the inventory iOS fundamental direct ownership of Public Land.  Land nominally free of buildings or development.  Not  land like under City Hall.

The inventory starts with the clearly obvious land ownership and works its way down the list to the not so obvious but legally and defensibly true definitive Federal Government "Public Land".

The links a Tree Hugger site.

Beyond the categorical inventory of (Federal) Public Land is more of the "Land" that is described in the lyrics of the song.

State Land

County Land

City Land

Those are all different level of governance that technically "own" Public Land.  Land officially under their ownership on official "Tax Lot" records of the County Assessor.

This is important and I believe it to be an absolutely true statement:

All land in the USA is associated to official documented and geographically indexed beneficial ownership of the land.  That documentation exists in the collective county assessor property tax records.

A test of truth and validity of that statement is to ask:

Is there a square inch of land in the USA that is not associated with an" owner" in the USA?

....Don't know about that but it is an intriguing thought!

Take for example Deschutes County Oregon.

The County Assessor provides a map of the county at this link:
http://dial.deschutes.org/Real/InteractiveMap

All land in the county, every square inch is indexed in this manner:
https://www.deschutes.org/assessor/page/deschutes-county-tax-maps

The Deschutes County DIAL is explained at this training link that I discovered with exceptionally great joy today:
https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/information_technology/page/665/deschutes_county_property_dial_training.pdf

The Public Debt Is a National Asset

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/09/public-debt-treated-asset.html

Excellent!  

Duh!

People do not understand that.  It is Debt based Balance Sheet Accounting with a sly sleight of hand trick played by those that benefit most from the trick.

The trick is in framing the issue.

Frame it in terms of debt when it it beneficial to the Framer of the matter.

Frame it as an asset when it is to the benefit of the Framer of the matter.

The trick in this 3 thing monty scheme is that the Framer is always the same and works both sides of the "Framing" street as it best serves their special interest.

Always be in control of the game and keep the "Mark" confused.  In the Navy a common toast was: "Confusion to our Enemies.  It was certainly the common toast to battle made  at the campfires of Ghengis Khan and every warrior since then.  It is a sinning strategy.  Another way of looking at it is that there is a sucker born every minute.  Taking advantage of what people don't know and are lead to believe by those who are skilled in controlling the framing the issue to sow confusion.

Never let the opposition frame the issue and present it on their terms with the implication of shift the burden of proof to the opposition and making them play on the framer's home turf on a tilted field!

Duh!

How obvious is that?

It is an old game.

If there was no National Debt there would be no Money.

Oregon County Assessor - Elected Position

County Assessor is an elected position in Oregon. (non- partisan)
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/204.005

Term of Office is 4 years
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/204.010

Deschutes County Assessor Scot Langton has filed for re-election in 2018 General Election.
https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/clerk039s_office/page/11220/assessor_langton_redacted.pdf

There are matters of Public Benefit related to the performance of Assessor duties.  Public benefit related to tax on a single tax lot or some number of collective tax lots all having a common benefit.

This is a King County Washington link to the Public Benefit aspect of  property tax.  In this case the benefit of Open Space.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/services/environment/stewardship/sustainable-building/documents/resource-protection-incentives/PBRS_App_March_2013.ashx?la=en

In Oregon there are various ORS, OAR, and local level government rules and regulations aim at promoting the public benefit.  The benefit of the "at large" benefit to everyone in the state.  Some programs for the Public Benefit are supported with incentivized tax reductions.  At the county level property tax reductions for any official reason deemed to be in the interest of Public Benefit reduce property tax on tax lots that offer in some manner a "Public Benefit"

Oregon has property tax law and rules that promote Public Benefit by tax reduction incentives applied to property tax.  The direct benefit of these incentives to any given county and city (officially defined as "local government") is an incentive to the tax lot.

Oregon Forestland Protection Program

https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/forlandprot.aspx

"For more than three decades, Oregon has maintained strong protections for forest land. Statewide Planning Goal 4 – Forest Lands – calls for forest land to be conserved primarily for commercial timber production but also other forest uses." 

What is forest land? 
In broad terms, it is rural land that is being used or can be used for forest uses. Goal 4 defines forest land in part based on soil productivity for commercial forest use, as measured by the U.S. Forest Service in cubic foot site classes, and in part as land that is suitable for other, non-commercial forest uses, such as watershed protection, wildlife and fisheries habitat and recreation. 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Bend Contact:
Scott Edelman
Central Oregon Regional Solutions Center
1011 SW Emkay Drive, Suite 108
Bend, OR 97702

541-318-7920 Jon Jinings

541-318-7921 Scott Edelman

Westside Transect - Wildlife Zone

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/brochure.pdf

Email to Dwschutes County Assessor:

Future properties in this Transect Zone may be eligible since one of the major reasons is wildlife habitat protection.  

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/brochure.pdf

"Is my property eligible?

Each participating county or city has identified specific land use zones (exclusive farm use, mixed farm and forest use, or forest use) and/or significant wildlife habitat areas that are eligible for the program. Interested landowners should call the local planning or assessor's department to determine if their property is in an eligible area.  A county or city official needs to fill out a form provided by ODFW to certify that the property is eligible. The form is available at: www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp."

I am interested but not a landowner.  

My question to you:  Are the proposed Transect Properties in a program eligible area?

---------------------------
Assessor Reply:

Wildlife Habitat Special Assessment under Oregon Law is permissible and has to be adopted by the county board of commissioners in a given county.  At this time the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners has adopted this program for two zones  -  Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Forest Use (F1 & F2).

Ok.  I will figure it out myself by looking at the transact properties zone classifications! The better question to ask is when the properties are developed what will be their zone classifications?  If they will not be EFU or F1 or F2 then the answer is they will not be eligible for the Wildlife Habitat Special Assessment.

The presentation of the Westside Transect as promoting the protection of wildlife in a housing development has the look and feel of the application for the assessment of property that the owner manages for the protection of wildlife.  See prior blog entry for that.

What if all future resident property owners in the Transect applied for and were granted that property assessment category.  That assessment rate is the same as applied to farm and forest?

The forest rate assessment per acre for 2018-19 Eastern Oregon Forestland Program  is at this link signed by Governor Brown: $79.38.
https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/property/Documents/specially-assessed-forestland-values.pdf

What if all 717 acres of the Transect was assessed at this per acre rate for property tax computation of approximately .015% of $79.38 Multiplied by the number of acres owned?  The result?  An extremely low tax on the portion of the property claimed and managed for the benefit of wildlife.

It is the same low tax result as the less than $100 annual combined  tax on 3 same owner properties in the city of Bend with an assessor Market Value of $2.4 Million on Bachelor View Rd.

What will the future owners of the divvied up Transect actually pay per acre for the property upon which they build an expensive wooded estate?  I am sure the developers have a target sales price projection.

$250,000 per acre reasonable market value (?)  if lots be sold independently at a market price to individual owners who build on the property.  However:  There is more money to be had by the developer if they build?  In any event there is ultimately a county assessor assigned assessment value for the purpose of property tax computation.  If it is officially approved Wildlife Protection classified property acreage then any and all other assessment land values do not apply.  Only the official assessment value of $79.38 per acre.

$79.38 assessment value per acre compared to what if it was not classified as Wildlife Protection?  $100,000?  Ball Park?

What if the wooded estate taxlot is 5 acres.  1 acre for the house.  4 acres with a Wildlife designation because the owner does something (nothing if nobody checks on the promises made) to provide something special for the wildlife on their property.

4 acres X 79.38 assessment per acre X .015 est. tax rate = $4.76
4 acres at  $200,000 assessment  X .015 est tax rate = $3,000.00
4 acres at  $100,000 assessment X .015 est tax rate = $1,500.00

Whatever the assessed value if the taxlot is not classified as Wildlife Protection there is a substantial tax reduction value in having the Wildlife Protection Assessment.

Forest Category F1 and F2 are eligible for the the Wildlife Protection Program.

Westside Transect Zone - Wildlife

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/brochure.pdf

"Rewarding Private Landowners for Helping Wildlife"
Yes, but who pays the reward?

This is the reward: Tax Benefit!  A nice reward that ODFW does not have to pay!

How much is this collective reward given to property owners in Deschutes County?

Is it worth it?  Maybe to the property owner.  What if they were not given the reward?  What changes?  The Transect is certainly going to develop high end homes for people rich enough to afford a country estate in acres of private woodland.  If they can't get that reward they would probably qualify for Designated Forestland tax assessment.

 "Property enrolled in the program is eligible for a wildlife habitat special assessment, with property taxes assessed at the same rate as farm or forest special assessment."

"Is my property eligible?

Each participating county or city has identified specific land use zones (exclusive farm use, mixed farm and forest use, or forest use) and/or significant wildlife habitat areas that are eligible for the program. Interested landowners should call the local planning or assessor's department to determine if their property is in an eligible area.  A county or city official needs to fill out a form provided by ODFW to certify that the property is eligible. The form is available at: www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp."

"How do I develop a wildlife habitat conservation and management plan?

An interested landowner with eligible property develops a wildlife habitat plan in conjunction with a cooperating agency. A cooperating agency can be ODFW, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, a city or county, a soil and water conservation district, extension service or other qualified persons."

Assistance to develop a plan is abundantly available.  To make sure that it passes review hire an other qualified person to draw it up.  It is like hiring a lawyer instead of doing it yourself.  No government agency is going to challenge a professional Wildlife lawyer or Phd and face an appeal they have to defend!  The investment in professional preparation has substantial payback because once the Wildlife tax break is granted it will payback....for....forever?  Every year at property tax time until the property is sold?  Then maybe transferred?  

Maybe it is as easy as filling out this free Application Template provided by the state of Oregon
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/sample_plan.pdf

Or this how to avoid property tax by preserving wildlife guide.  Win.Win!
http://www.srnpdx.org/state-tax-incentives-for-conservation.html

Another guide and template:
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/index.asp

What if the application does not qualify?  Then plan B:
If the plan is not being implemented, or if the landowner chooses to withdraw from the program, the county assessor removes the land from wildlife habitat special assessment. If the land still qualifies for a previous farm or forest special assessment, the landowner may not owe back taxes. If the land does not qualify for another special assessment, the landowner may owe back taxes.

Transect property owners may qualify for this wildlife program and receive a substantial property tax break.

This program has been abused in Deschutes County:
https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/03/some_property_owners_abusing_w.html

The more important question is:  If property owners apply and qualify for this program then what is their collective property tax reduction and is it the equal collective tax increase to all other county residents in the reduction of Deschutes County property tax revenue to protect wildlife under this program?

A zero sum game?  A few get a large tax benefit offset by a small tax increase to all other county property tax payers?

Does it work that way?

Looks like it to me.

The same question applies to Designated Forestland in Deschutes county.  Especially Designated Forestland within the city limits of Bend as well as small acreage (minimum 2 acres to qualify) anywhere in the county granted this tax category of about $75. per acre assessed value?  Three properties on Bachelor View Rd. assessed at $2.4 million pay less than $100.00 annual property tax because they got county assessor approval to grow trees for timber profit in the city?  Collective county and city  taxpayers pay what this one land owner does not?

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/county_manual.pdf

Counties: Current status of participation
Currently, fifteen counties participate in the program – Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Deschutes, Douglas, Hood River, Lake, Lane, Marion, Morrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Washington and Wheeler (see map on page 6).
[OAR 635-430-0025(5)]

Application Form:
https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/forms/FormsPubs/303-083.pdf

Washington Management of Designated Forestland

From the distance of a few days later and mulling over the approval control model that Washington set up by this link a significant important forest and trees perspective of it emerged.  The 10th anniversary of the Big Bank Rip off caused be to see the relationship of this link to the way the state of Washington address Private Gain at Public Expense.  The Big Banks and criminal Banksters got away with it.  There was no time done to fit the crime.  There is the flip side of the Private Gain at Public Expense business model.  That flip side is Private Benefit at Public Expense.  Private Benefit as a function of legislative law.  That is law that is supposed to be for the Common Good and Public Benefit Governance. Specifically, is what all or a substantial portion of tax payers pay to provide the public common good benefit worth the price?

For example:  Is the fixed property tax assessment amount dictated by the Oregon Governor of $   for the public good beneficial intention stated by the legislature as a (defense of Forestland from urban encroachment) and implemented by a tax incentive program benefiting a few property tax payers worth the expense paid by many property  tax payers.

The entire Issue (with a big I meaning the directive by the Governor Brown establishing the fixed property tax assessment incentive per acre for all forestland in Eastern Oregon of $  per acre worth the benefit to all property tax payers.

Ah ha!  It is a Cost/Benefit analysis model!  Is the cost worth the benefit.  Is the benefit worth the cost?

What is the benefit and what is the cost?

This problem is getting simpler all the time if it is framed the right way!

The solution to asking is the property tax incentive granted by the approval of the County Assessor of a Designated Forestland application by a tax lot owner worth the benefit to the common good intended by the legislature?

Is the public benefit derived from a property tax assessment worth it?

Ask the the property tax payers!  This is a local government issue.  The legislature passed a state law intending this property tax incentive to be in the public benefit interest.  It is applied by local county property tax assessment and taxation.

It is proper that local government, meaning county and incorporated city government on behalf of the stakeholders in this Issue to have the authority to make a local decision about the benefit to the county/city of the Designated Forestland Property Tax assessment dictated by the Governor.

In the example of 3 tax lots assessed at  $2.4 million by the county assessor within the City of Bend on Bachelor View Rd. that pays an annual property tax of less than $100.00 as a function of some specific intent to  benefit the common good worth the loss of Deschutes County and City of Bend property tax revenue that benefits all citizens of the County?

A fundamental question applied to legislative law is:  "Is this law in fact beneficial to the public common good in application.  Does it do what it is intended to do?  Is the actual result of Public Benefit worth the cost/price/expense paid by the general public (tax paying citizens).

How is that question top be answered?

The flip side of Private Gain at Public Expense  is Private Benefit at Public Expense.

This is how Washington Department of Revenue manages assessment and taxation of Designated Forestland:

https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/CurrentUseDesignatedForestlandManual.pdf

Page 6:

The county legislative authority approves the application if the land is within an unincorporated area. If the county legislative authority accepts an application for land that is located in an incorporated city, they must notify the city and hold a hearing either in person or by phone. Both the city and the county need to approve the application.

An application can be approved for all the land that is applied for, or in part, if some portions do not meet the qualifications for classification. The granting authority considers public benefits of preserving the current use of the land and the resulting revenue loss or tax shift when considering approval or denial. If any part of the application is denied, the applicant may withdraw their application.

This is an excellent way to  manage applications for Designated Forestland for properties located within incorporated cities.  It gives the city authority to review and approve.

This is how Forestland is taxed in Oregon:
https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/property/Pages/timber-forestland-tax.aspx

Might You Hear Me Now Rep. Buehler?

I knew he would not respond to my email.  

Yes I loaded the gun on 6 Feb. 2018 knowing that of course he would not reply.  The reason is obvious.  It relates to another issue where he did in fact respond to constituents.  Today I pulled the trigger. He would of course deny receiving the email.  I cannot prove that he did.  

The point of my email remains conclusively accurate and the need for legislative action. 

My comment submitted to the Bend Bulletin regarding this link:
https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/6419271-151/gubernatorial-candidate-knute-buehler-and-his-political-battles?referrer=home&referrer=top
“I just want to hear what is bothering you and roll up my sleeves and try to solve the problem without a preconceived notion of what that solution should be,” Buehler said.

I sent an email to Rep. Buehler dated 6 Feb 2018 with a follow up email on 17 March requesting confirmation that he had received it. He never responded to either one.

The following email to him expressed what was bothering me. The attachment to this email listed specific properties totaling 55 acres mostly located on Bachelor View Rd. (a residential zoned area of the City of Bend) that were receiving a property tax assessment of approximately $70 per acre. For example: Three of these specifically identified  tax lots under the same ownership with a Real Market Value of $2.4 million Paid a total of $97.11 in property tax last year.  That bothered me.  It is all legal under state ORS, Dept. of Revenue OAR and based on the approval of an application for Designated Forestland approved by the Deschutes County Assessor.  It is not reasonable nor fair that Designated Forestland rules and regulations and associated assessment value of approx. $70 per acre apply to tax lot property located within city limits. This requires legislative change of law.  This situation is not what the legislature intended for ORS related to Designated Forestland. 

This is my email dated 6 Feb 2018.  Might you hear me now Rep. Buehler?  It is not too late to respond.

Representative Buehler;

The Deschutes County Assessor reports at this link that within the city of Bend (County Code Area 101) there are 87 acres of Designated Forestland. Investigating this fact reveals specific properties totaling 55 acres of Designated Forestland within the city. (location of 32 acres are unknown) It also reveals obvious, substantial, and inappropriate property tax avoidance that deserves examination and correction to assure that all citizens of the city pay equitable property taxes that support both the City of Bend and Deschutes County.  

I ask that you review this matter and introduce appropriate legislation for its correction. Specifically; the exclusion of property within a city from eligibility for Designated Forestland assessment because the intended purpose of thid designation is protecting forestland from the pressures of urban growth. The following analysis applies to the city of Bend and Designated Forestland within city limits. In accordance with applicable ORS and OAR this situation is not exclusive to Bend but may exist in any Oregon city. Examination of other Oregon county assessment reports for city areas would reveal it.

I submit the following analysis for your review of the fairness of a few Bend property owners taking advantage of a tax assessment that was never the intention of legislation to extend into cities. It was intended to protect forestland outside cities. It incentivizes large acreage city tax lots with an extreme reduction in property taxes. A mandatory 2 acre minimum is required for Designated Forestland approval in addition to a residence, if any of 1 acre. A 3 acre homesite property in Bend is an expensive luxury. If an owner's true intent is to grow and harvest timber on their city residential property for commercial sale then they should be free to do that or any other permissible residential zoned property use but without an extremely substantial inappropriate tax reduction incentive. Planting, growing and selling trees for timber from small acreage in a city is not a profitable venture. Cost of harvest is greater than return and leaves stumps and slash for removal. Not worth it. Bend has its own regulations for city trees that are aimed at preserving them.

In your current position you represent all citizens of Bend and in the future perhaps serve all citizens of Oregon. I look forward to your reply stating a position on Designated Foresland assessment for property in the city of Bend or any other city in Oregon. I support the introduction of legislation to prohibit this assessment for residential zoned city properties. What owners of these properties do not pay in county property taxes either the rest of county residents make up as an addition to their taxes or, depending on how the accounting is done, Deschutes County and Bend get that much less in tax revenue and everyone loses. Either way it is private self interest gain at public expense over the long period of time it takes to grow a tree to maturity for commercial harvest.  

As a voter I expect that my representative, senator and governor will always support public interest in the face of any and all blatant narrow self interest attempts to gain personal benefit at public expense.  

respectfully/ Tim Lester

end of email

The Double Whammy - Professor Edward J. Kane Delivers It!

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/09/double-whammy-implicit-subsidies-great-financial-crisis.html
Initially published here but kudos again to Naked Capitalism for aggregating links!
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/double-whammy-implicit-subsidies-and-the-great-financial-crisis

"A financial industry safety net enriches bankers and their shareholders — at our expense"

 "I contend that successful efforts to secure these subsidies owe a large debt to the supervisory and justice systems’ overbearing tolerance for self-serving financial-industry bullsh*t.[1] In the press and in history books, policymakers and industry-captured economists and accountants consistently misframe regulatory and supervisory incentive problems and the strength of potential justice-system remedies."

Oh so elegantly well said!

This is even more elegant than the cat, (I should say rabbit) skinning itself for the benefit of the hunter that want to serve itself some rabbit stew!  Not as straightforward simple because it is all financial.  The financial domain is one where those that benefit most are extremely clever of skinning the cat with other people's money.

Set the cat up with one punch (overwhelming fear) then deliver the other punch (Bo!) in this case Panic Attack and watch the cat jump into the pot shorn of skin (big bucks).

The hunter has its stew and eats it too!

The hunting is illegal but nobody is going to apprehend a hunter that had nothing directly to do with the crime such as holding a bloody knife that did the skinning.

It is like the warning we were given in Vietnam.  When there is an explosion outside do not run out into the street to see what happened.

It was a set up.

Such a simple business model.

The perfect crime has no perp.

Footnote 1 at the link:
"[1] According to Frankfurt (2005), bullshit differs from lying in that the bullshitter ignores the truth instead of acknowledging and then subverting it. Among my childhood friends, that was our definition of horseshit, to which the bullshitter adds an intention for his horseshit to be taken seriously. For example, Rep. Blaine Luetremeyer (Missouri) –who tops the list of House recipients of bank support in the more-recent election cycle—repeatedly asserts that small banks “were not part of the problem” that caused the Great Financial Crisis and that rolling back the Dodd-Frank Act would greatly improve customer access to credit and lower its cost (Kline, 2018)."

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts/ejkane
Professor Kane knows finance!
If he was in the business world instead of academics he would be a multi billionaire but he obviously has one problem: Honesty, maybe two problems:  Integrity.

Professor Kane's concluding statement:
"The essence of a crisis is a scrambly effort by those contractually responsible for bank losses to find ways to shift their loss exposures onto other parties.  In this process, the amount and character of explicit creditor, manager, and stockholder bailouts feature prominently.  Ideally, crisis managers should seek to get back to the manageable state quickly, work hard afterwards to hold individual bankers accountable for acts of reckless behavior, and try to drive p as low as they can.  Taxpayers need to ask themselves what it is about the politics of crisis management that makes this impossible."

Thanks Professor Kane.  Truly elegant analysis and explanation.  Only a hunter that hunts and kills to induce its prey to skin itself would truly appreciate your thesis.  That same hunter, of course has the greatest fear that their hunting model will be revealed to those that are ultimately skinned.

Perhaps those that are ultimately skinned will adopt the same model as a counter measure defense.

Practitioners of the Double Whammy be very afraid!

In the course of all the things I write about here this blog entry was most satisfying recognition of brilliance.

Yves says at the end of the link she posted at Naked Capitalism:
"Due to the fact that WordPress was already choking on this post due to its length, I had to omit the terrific supporting material that Kane provided at then end, such as “DESPITE THE BULLSH*T ADOPTION OF NO-BAILOUT POLICIES BY THE EU, DEUTSCHE BANK AG HAS REMAINED A ZOMBIE, EVIDENCING SAFETY-NET SUBSIDIES MOST OF THE TIME.” I hope you’ll visit the post and scroll to the end to look at the information."

Thank you Yves!

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-14/ten-misconceptions-about-financial-crisis-on-10-year-anniversary

Crises is a money making business model: What is old is new again..or has new application opportunities:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/financial-crisis-in-2020-worse-than-2008-by-nouriel-roubini-and-brunello-rosa-2018-09

I would guess that Michael Hudson probably knows professor Kane.
https://michael-hudson.com/2018/09/wiping-the-debt-slate-clean/

Presidential Emergency Tweet -Firstnet? The Sky Is Falling- Trump Tweets Himself Out Of His Own Skin!

The Truth will set him free....of his King's Clothing.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/presidential-alert-system-will-be-tested-by-fema-next-week_us_5b9ca582e4b046313fbb58d9

I was on Molokai when the alert sounded on my cell phone saying that missiles were incoming!

"The Martians Have Landed" is now a realtime nationwide possibility!

Absolute Panic!

Was this link some kind of Onion spoof?

The truth is not the truth anymore.  It is old school.

The unbelievable is now believable.

The cat jumps out of its skin when it is so extremely fearful.
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1176829519333181968#editor/target=post;postID=5725728696048229541;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=1;src=link

If some hacker gets the key to this and bets that the stock market bombs......

The USA is setting itself up for the ultimate April Fool joke.

The two man, two key security control needs to be applied to the High Tweetness.

One officer carries the "football" with atomic launch codes.

The other has the ID and Password for the Presidential Tweet!

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8888887091317012282#editor/target=post;postID=750032408011339368;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=8;src=link

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8888887091317012282#editor/target=post;postID=5741521148086603618;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=15;src=link

The Presidential Emergency Tweet:
When Trump is skinned by his own tweet then he will be the King With No Clothes On.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

What a beautiful sight to see!  No, I do not mean Trump bare naked.

I mean the Truth that sets him free of his clothing.

This Emergency Tweet is a FEMA thing.  How more elegant can the set up be to have the most inept agency in the government to be the agent that provides the ability to the most inept President to skin himself!

The beauty of it all know no bounds.

The concept of a text message to everyone is wide open to speculation regarding its intent.  What is so vitally important that every cell phone in the USA must receive a text message and beyond the test that will text: "This is a Test" what text message will be delivered to every cell phone?

The most logical and reasonable answer is that that cellular communication by citizens has been suspended due to National Emergency.  That suspension gives all cellular communication to Government Response Agencies.  That program has recently been revealed and I wrote about it in a prior blog entry.
https://2dollarjefferson.blogspot.com/2018/07/firstnet.html

Firstnet
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&ei=oImeW5fOAs-P5wLLj6lQ&q=%22presidential+emergency%22+firstnet&oq=%22presidential+emergency%22+firstnet&gs_l=psy-ab.3...21151.30864..32730...0.0..0.156.427.0j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.9_xLgSzqSrI

Sending fear into the minds and hearts via every citizen's cell phone.  Perhaps with no explanation.  Like the General Quarters 1mc announcement on a ship.  Nobody initially knows the threat.  Everyone is scared of what it might be but knows we are prepared.  The last part of that is that we are trained for anything and everything.  That is the Navy.  What are citizens prepared for?  What will they be told to do if anything?

The shoe drops.  What is the second shoe after the government has seized total control of communications.

It is like a Condition 1 that freezes all communications except Flash category messages in order to clear military comm channels.

The whole Presidential Emergency is ludicrous but looking beneath the cover and asking. few questions like why and what for it begins to look sinister and dangerous.  The more it is claimed to be in the interest of public safety the more suspicious it looks.  Torture was justified because we had to be protected.

Oregon Forestland Protection Fund

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/526.324

(1) Upon the basis of its investigation and determination under ORS 526.320 (Determination of forestland), a committee shall assign all forestland within the boundaries of its county or counties and within a forest protection district to one of the following classifications:
(a) Class 1, timber class, includes forestland suitable for the production of timber and may include lands on which structures are present.
(b) Class 2, timber and grazing class, includes forestland suitable for joint use for timber production and the grazing of livestock and may include lands on which structures are present.
(c) Class 3, agricultural class, includes forestland suitable for grazing of livestock or other agricultural use and may include lands on which structures are present.
(2) The committee shall adopt preliminary classifications and shall cause notice thereof to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the boundaries of its county or within the boundaries of each of its counties and to be posted in three public places within the boundaries of its county or within the boundaries of each of its counties. The notice shall state the time and place for the public hearing required pursuant to ORS 526.328 (Hearing) and where maps of the preliminary classifications may be inspected. [1965 c.253 §37; 1967 c.429 §32; 2009 c.69 §6]

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/526.320
Upon establishment of a forestland classification committee under ORS 526.310 (Forestland classification committees), the committee shall periodically investigate and study all land within the boundaries of its county or counties and determine which of the land is forestland. Such determination shall take into consideration climate, topography, elevation, rainfall, soil conditions, roads, extent of fire hazards, recreation needs, scenic values, and other physical, economic and social factors and conditions relating to the land involved. [Amended by 1965 c.253 §35; 1967 c.429 §31; 2009 c.69 §5]

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/526.310
1) Pursuant to a request by the State Forester:
(a) The governing body of a county may establish a forestland classification committee of six persons, of whom one shall be appointed by the State Forester, one by the Director of the Oregon State University Extension Service, one by the State Fire Marshal and three by the governing body. Of the members appointed by the governing body, one must be an owner of forestland or the representative of an owner of forestland, and, if the land to be investigated and studied by the committee includes or is expected to include grazing land, one must be an owner of grazing land or the representative of an owner of grazing land; or
(b) The governing bodies of two or more counties may, by written agreement, establish a joint forestland classification committee. One member of a joint committee shall be appointed by the State Forester, one by the Director of the Oregon State University Extension Service and one by the State Fire Marshal. The governing body of each participating county shall appoint two members. Of the members appointed by a governing body to a joint committee, one must be an owner of forestland or the representative of an owner of forestland.
(2) Each appointing authority shall file with the State Forester the name of its appointee or appointees, and the persons so named shall constitute the committee. Unless otherwise provided for by the appointing authority, members of the committee shall serve a term of four years and may be reappointed to any number of terms. Each member of the committee at all times is subject to replacement by the appointing authority, effective upon the filing with the State Forester by that authority of written notice of the name of the new appointee.
(3) The committee shall elect from among its members a chair and a secretary and may elect other officers as it finds advisable. It shall adopt rules governing its organization and proceedings and the performance of its duties, and shall keep written minutes of all its meetings.
(4)(a) The governing body of a county may provide for the committee and its members such accommodations and supplies and such county funds not otherwise appropriated as the governing body finds necessary for the proper performance of the committee’s functions.
(b) The forester may provide for the committee and its members such accommodations and supplies and such forest protection district funds as the forester finds necessary for the proper performance of the committee’s functions.
(5) The members of the committee shall receive no compensation for their services but a governing body or a forest protection district may reimburse them for their actual and necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. [Amended by 1965 c.253 §34; 1967 c.429 §30; 1997 c.274 §42; 2009 c.69 §4; 2013 c.148 §1]






1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 526—Forestry Administration, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors526.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).

2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 526, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano526.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.




https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Board/Pages/EFCC.aspx

https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Fire/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Fire/Pages/ForestlandClassification.aspx

Dept of Forestry Division 45 Forestland Classification Rules
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?=162087
“Periodically means at least once every 5 years”

(h) “Potential” means the ability of a site to grow vegetation, notwithstanding current or past uses of the site nor the current or past presence of structures on the site, and regardless of how the site is zoned or taxed.

Department of Forestry

Chapter 629

Division 45
FORESTLAND CLASSIFICATION RULES

629-045-0025
Identification of Forestland by a Committee

(1) A committee shall periodically identify all lands which meet the following criteria:

(a) Is within the county or counties of its jurisdiction; and

(b) Is a woodland, brushland, timberland, grazing land or clearing that, during any time of the year, contains enough forest growth, slashing or vegetation to constitute, in the judgment of the forester, a fire hazard, regardless of how the land is zoned or taxed. As used in this subsection, “clearing” means any grassland, improved area, lake, meadow, mechanically or manually cleared area, road, rocky area, stream or other similar opening that is surrounded by or contiguous to land described in the first sentence of this subsection

(c) And that has been included in areas classified as forestland under ORS 526.305 to 526.370.

(2) All lands which meet the criteria set forth in section (1) of this rule shall be considered to be forestland.

Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 526.041, Sec. 11 & Ch. 69 OL 2009
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 477.205, 477.230 & 526.305 - 526.370

2017 ORS 526.324¹ 

Classification of forestland by committee

• • publication

• Text
• News
• Annotations
• Related Statutes

(1)Upon the basis of its investigation and determination under ORS 526.320 (Determination of forestland), a committee shall assign all forestland within the boundaries of its county or counties and within a forest protection district to one of the following classifications:

(a)Class 1, timber class, includes forestland suitable for the production of timber and may include lands on which structures are present.

(b)Class 2, timber and grazing class, includes forestland suitable for joint use for timber production and the grazing of livestock and may include lands on which structures are present.

(c)Class 3, agricultural class, includes forestland suitable for grazing of livestock or other agricultural use and may include lands on which structures are present.

(2)The committee shall adopt preliminary classifications and shall cause notice thereof to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the boundaries of its county or within the boundaries of each of its counties and to be posted in three public places within the boundaries of its county or within the boundaries of each of its counties. The notice shall state the time and place for the public hearing required pursuant to ORS 526.328 (Hearing) and where maps of the preliminary classifications may be inspected. [1965 c.253 §37; 1967 c.429 §32; 2009 c.69 §6]

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 526—Forestry Administration, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors526.­html(2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).

2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 526, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano526.­html(2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).

Note:  Any land not classified as being within these categories is not by virtue of omission subject to 

Deschutes County Farmland Conversion - Motivation? Speculation? Who Benefits?

The classification and land use of Deschutes County Farmland is coming under scrutiny its the intent of conversion to development.

Who benefits?

Developers!  and....
Those that want to sell farmland that was never farmed and never worth farming for big bucks?  Those that  bought farmland for speculation and profit?  Those that worked the benefits of farmland assessment and low taxes to protect Farmland from conversion to the pressures of development?

Sounds like the Designated Forestland scam!  Farmland is on a much bigger land scale.

Bend Bulletin:
www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/.../deschutes-county-wants-to-re-evaluate-farmland

Here is a listing of County farmland for sale:
https://www.landandfarm.com/search/OR/Deschutes-County/Farm-for-sale/

This deserves some investigatory analysis!

I have no doubt that the model of developer ownership of land under Designated Forestland rules to the advantage of tax avoidance and speculation profit will be found to apply to Farmland in Deschutes County.

I almost hate to look for what I know I will find because it will keep me awake at night  thinking about how unfair the system is and how it has been gamed.

The above listing of county land farm for sale is a good place to start looking at exactly  who the owners of this farmland are?  From the link:

"Farm Land Information

The total value of 3,852 acres of farms recently listed for sale in Deschutes County, Oregon, was $62 million. The average size of farms for sale in Deschutes County was 70 acres. Farms for sale in Deschutes County feature livestock including cattle, horses and sheep. Current land applications for farms for sale in Deschutes County include for livestock, irrigation, vineyard or aquaculture uses. The Census Bureau records 131,036 acres of farmland on 1,283 farms in the county. Deschutes County's farm economy is worth an estimated $4.0 million each year. Of the 36 counties in Oregon, 2 million-acre Deschutes County ranks 11th by size. Deschutes County is located in the Southeast region of the Beaver State."

Look at the farmhouses on these properties!  Not your grandpas farmhouse with a privy out back! I don't see many tractors in these pictures.

I think I am on the trail of something  here!  It complies with the Designated Forestland model.  Rich owners of land that not only gets some assessment break intended for purposes that is not theirs but they benefit greatly financially from that situation.  Not only from avoidance of tax but reduction in land investment carrying cost derived from reduction of tax the someway that carrying costs are reduced by low interest rates.

The way for the rich to get richer?

This is a random sample of the 67 properties for sale at the link for examination.  Not that there is any implication that speculative special interest at the expense of county tax payers is involved.  That would require analysis of the the tax records.  What kind of farm business is the owner of the property deriving their income from?  These are marketed as "farmland" properties.  Land only I would think or it is a super deal if the house goes with the land! Actually, it looks like the house goes with the land!

https://www.landandfarm.com/property/Tumalo_Home_on_Acreage-7953416/

"Stunning, unobstructed Cascade Mountain Views from NW Style Home in Tumalo. Park like setting on 7.6 acres with 5.8 acres of Swalley irrigation water rights and pond. Custom Home is 4595 sf, 4 bedrooms,4 bathrooms, living room with woodburning fireplace, family room, master suite with office, 4th bedroom is attached accessed through 3 car garage with a gear room/guest suite, hot tub. Private setting, wonderful outdoor living, landscaped, flagline lot, paved driveway and minutes from Bend."

This property is listed with no irrigation yet it has Swalley water rights?  Arn't they lost if not used?   Don't know about that.....

Tax Record from Deschutes County Assessor Dial"
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Index/133319
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Index/164741
The first link is for the land:
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Improvements/133319
The second link is for the house. 1.5 acres
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Index/164741

Aha! The first link has the "tell" that the ORS requires the county assessor to put on the  tax record indicating that there is some special category information related to the assessment of the property.  What that may be is presented by the land and structure link on the property record:
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Improvements/133319
Land Characteristics for this Property
Land Description Acres Land Classification
Exclusive Farm Use Zoned 0.50 D6: DRY GROUND - SOIL CLASS 6
Exclusive Farm Use Zoned 2.70 D7: DRY GROUND - SOIL CLASS 7
Exclusive Farm Use Zoned 2.90 W3: IRRIGATED GROUND - SOIL CLASS 3

But: The listing says it is not irrigated, for what that is worth.  Maybe some law relating to truth in listing property?

What exactly is "Dry Ground Soil Class" other than ground that not much rain falls on?

D7: DRY GROUND - SOIL CLASS 7
Some education here:
https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/soilsassessment.aspx

Maybe an overhead view of the land will give a picture of what the "Dry Land" and "Irrigated Ground" looks like?
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/InteractiveMap/133319
Can't hardly tell which is which but maybe this is a case of what lying eyes tell me.

Tax for this 6.1 acre Property Class 550 - Farm property: $14.28
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Index/133319

It has been that low in the range of paltry since 1996.

The listed current owners bought the land for $1,200,000 date of sale 6 July 2018 with multiple accounts involved in the sale.

https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Sales/133319 (land)
https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Sales/164741 (land with residence)