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