Measure 37 Back Taxes

Last year, Wayne Ralph of White City had a Measure 37 claim approved by Jackson County.  Fast forward a year...

The Jackson County Assessor’s Office sent him a bill recently for $6,000 in taxes for the past 10 years because the property now has a higher value.

His Medford attorney, Mark Bartholomew, fired off an e-mail to Jackson County commissioners pointing out that the 5-acre property on Antioch Road is still zoned exclusive farm use and hasn’t been developed.

"It is not exactly fair that they are billing them for that," he said, although he noted that the approved claim does waive the zoning restrictions.

But county Assessor Dan Ross said the state statute seems "fairly black and white" on this issue, which will affect other Measure 37 claimants.

Once a subdivision plat has been filed with the county, as Ralph has done, the property owner is then required to pay the back taxes for up to 10 years because the property had been assessed at a lower rate under its exclusive farmland designation, Ross said.

"Usually any time a subdivision is recorded, it kicks it into disqualification," said Ross.

If counties are short on revenues, might a potential property tax windfall impact their decision-making when considering Measure 37 claims?  I'd imagine the back taxes for turning, say, an orchard into a housing development could be pretty steep.  However, there's still that issue of transferability that needs to be settled.      

Commissioners, who approved eight Measure 37 claims Wednesday, voiced their sympathy for Ralph and other property owners who have received a Measure 37 waiver and may find they are liable for back taxes.

Commissioner Dave Gilmour said property owners might file a Measure 37 claim but still intend to farm their land for many years. By assessing the land at a higher rate it could force these property owners to develop their land faster.

I wonder how long the Jackson County Assessor's Office had been planning to do this, and how long the county leadership had known about it. 

Bartholomew said Ralph’s property is zoned exclusive farm use. Since Measure 37 only waives the zoning restrictions on the property, the actual zoning hasn’t changed, he said.

However, the county is treating the property as if it were zoned RR-5 (rural residential with five buildings allowed).

Until the legal issues are worked out, Bartholomew said Ralph will continue to farm his property as he has done in the past.

He said his client is willing to pay the back assessments, but he thinks it would be fairer to do so once the property is sold or developed.

I'm sure the courts will eventually be involved in deciding what's fair and what's not when it comes to Measure 37 and back taxes.

Comments

[Becky]

I don't really see the issue here. If he already filed his plans, he should have realized the back taxes would apply. It's been that way for a long time. People who farm their land and who have not filed building plans won't have any back taxes to pay that would force them to develop. People who want to file a Measure 37 claim don't have to turn in building plans.

Then you have people like the Cadenaus at Alpenrose Dairy who long ago lost their farm tax deferral because the City of Portland wanted to force them into development. They have been forced to pay residential property tax rates on their place for years. We're all lucky they haven't packed up and moved out of state.

[Thomas Ware]

Bit him on the butt, did it? I am so sorry.

[quiet man]

im sorry. but this person does not seem to worried about his neighbors, seems all he wants is money.people move to the country to get away from noise,he is trying to create more noise. and traffic. would he continue to live on that property,or would he move to a more quieter location?????

[RoguePundit]

The issue certainly isn't whether one owes back taxes when filing development plans. It's whether successful Measure 37 claimants should pay the higher tax rate for the entire period when they didn't enjoy the benefits of such zoning until their claim was approved. Such folks may not have a legal leg to stand upon, but I could understand them being a wee frustrated.

[Alan DeWitt]

There are so many good reasons to find Measure 37 frustrating that I can't imagine how anyone could choose just one.

[Mike]

RR-5 means five acre minimum lot size in most counties, not one lot per acre. That would be RR-1. This make the whole article confusing.

Mr. Ralph submitted a "subdivision plat". This implies he intends to subdivide. It could be to 5 one-acre parcels, but that is not clear in the article.

The county is treating the property as if it had been rezoned, but it hasn't, according to the confusing article.

As to the disruption to his neighbors, did they pay for Mr. Ralph's property when they bought theirs? Is their name on his deed? How much did they contribute to his mortgage? How much are they willing to contribute?

Look, if you move in next door to me, please don't expect to dictate to me what I do with my property. I grant you the same freedom and rights to do with your property what you will. Please be happy about that.

I am guessing, however, that none of the M37 critics live next door to Mr. Ralph but merely want to do him financial harm out of some vague sense of distaste for all humanity. There is nothing admirable about that.

[Alan DeWitt]

"... merely want to do him financial harm out of some vague sense of distaste for all humanity."

Wow. So I find all humanity distasteful now? Gosh, I had no idea. I thought I had some legitimate concerns about the measure.

If you think smear tactics like that are appropriate, Mike, I'm right glad that you don't find me admirable. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Mike]

I read your concerns. You are into penalties and rewards, heavy to the one, light on the other. I am into resident stewardship and property rights.

I am in favor of the idea of people living on the land. I dislike the idea that human beings are banned from living on more than 98 percent of the acreage in Oregon. I prefer a humanized landscape to a de-humanized one. I do not see residents as the problem, but rather as the solution.

Excuse me if you feel I misinterpreted your point of view. I was not responding to you in particular. However, I am prone to making the assumption that the No More Residents, Visit But Don't Stay argument is essentially anti-anthropic.

[MACK]

MEASURE 37 APPLICANTS DID NOT ASK FOR THEIR PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TO EFU, WHICH DISALLOWED ALL OTHER USE'S. THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT CONCERN OR NOTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS.WHO SUBSIQUENTLY LOST UNTOLD FORTUNES, THAT AFFECTED ENTIRE GENERATIONS OF FAMILYS. EVEN THOUGH SENATE BILL 100 REQUIRED INVESTIGATION INTO COMPENSATION FOR LOST VALUE THROUGH REZONING,OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CHOSE TO IGNORE IT, AND USE ONLY THE PARTS OF THE BILL THAT SUITED THEIR AGENDA'S,THUS MEASURE 37. THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO DEVELOPE, WILL PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES, THEY WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. ITS THE TIMING, AND GOING BACK 10 YEARS, EVEN WHEN IT WAS BEING FARMED. YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WILL, BUT IN THE FINAL ANALISIS ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY.THOSE WHO SAY OTHERWISE ARE ONLY FOOLING THEIRSELF'S. THE GOVERNMENTS JOB IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET ALL THEY CAN FROM THOSE WHO WORK HARD TO PRODUCE, AND GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO DON'T.