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