Started by Steve Snowden
Sep 1, 2024
Sep 1, 2024
5
In Support of the Conservation Land Bank Renewal
Sep 1, 2024
There are several arguments against the renewal of the San Juan County Conservation Land Bank (CLB) that are incorrect and need to be addressed. For the most part, they have been discussed elsewhere but it should help to gather them together and repeat.
First, it has been suggested that the CLB is buying up a large fraction of the available undeveloped land in San Juan County, which is very far from the truth. Over the last 34 years, the CLB has purchased a total of 157 parcels for an average of 4.6 acquisitions per year. With the current ~7,600 privately-held vacant parcels, this is an acquisition rate of 0.06% of the available stock per year, or 0.73% over the course of the 12-year land bank renewal period. Clearly, this will not have a significant effect on the availability of parcels for private development.
Second, it has been suggested that the CLB is purchasing land that could be better used for affordable housing. This is obviously incorrect as the CLB purchases parcels for their scenic, environmental, farming, and recreational attributes and so are typically away from developed communities where amenities and jobs are located. Affordable housing works best in walkable areas, and clearly it is inappropriate on places like Mt. Grant, Beaverton Marsh, Turtleback Mountain, and Lopez Hill. When the CLB purchases parcels near existing communities they are typically not appropriate for any development, such as the Weeks Wetland adjacent to Lopez Village. Also, remember that if the CLB Real Estate Excise Tax (REET, the 1.0% tax on purchase price of properties funding the CLB) goes away, so does the affordable housing REET (by Washington State statute, the land conservation REET must be in place in order to have an affordable housing REET).
Third, it has been suggested that the CLB is taking a big bite out of the San Juan County tax base costing property owners increased taxes. However, while the CLB (and therefore all of us) does own about 4.5% of the county (about 5,000 acres), previous to purchase many of the parcels were under current use tax designations and so taxed at lower rates. For instance, Turtleback Mountain was in Designated Forest Land status and so taxed at pennies on the dollar (the pre-purchase Turtleback Mountain property tax bill was about $1,000 per year). The bottom line is that while the CLB ownership does affect our property tax bills, it is only at a marginal level of about $15 per year on a $750,000 property. Another point to consider is that while the CLB and its partners may purchase on the order of $5 million per year of parcels, new construction has added about 25 times that amount to the tax base at the same time (about $130 million in 2022 and $143 million in 2023).
Fourth, it has been suggested that the CLB should be using the REET to maintain and improve its existing preserves rather than purchasing more parcels. This is an easy one as that is already happening, with about 46% of REET funds in 2023 used for those purposes. The CLB has stated that the final property portfolio is likely to be only about 40% larger than their current holdings, and the additional purchases can obviously only happen if the private owners choose to sell to the CLB. Note that if the CLB is not renewed the funds for preserve operation and maintenance will need to come from elsewhere, most likely through an increase in property taxes.
First, it has been suggested that the CLB is buying up a large fraction of the available undeveloped land in San Juan County, which is very far from the truth. Over the last 34 years, the CLB has purchased a total of 157 parcels for an average of 4.6 acquisitions per year. With the current ~7,600 privately-held vacant parcels, this is an acquisition rate of 0.06% of the available stock per year, or 0.73% over the course of the 12-year land bank renewal period. Clearly, this will not have a significant effect on the availability of parcels for private development.
Second, it has been suggested that the CLB is purchasing land that could be better used for affordable housing. This is obviously incorrect as the CLB purchases parcels for their scenic, environmental, farming, and recreational attributes and so are typically away from developed communities where amenities and jobs are located. Affordable housing works best in walkable areas, and clearly it is inappropriate on places like Mt. Grant, Beaverton Marsh, Turtleback Mountain, and Lopez Hill. When the CLB purchases parcels near existing communities they are typically not appropriate for any development, such as the Weeks Wetland adjacent to Lopez Village. Also, remember that if the CLB Real Estate Excise Tax (REET, the 1.0% tax on purchase price of properties funding the CLB) goes away, so does the affordable housing REET (by Washington State statute, the land conservation REET must be in place in order to have an affordable housing REET).
Third, it has been suggested that the CLB is taking a big bite out of the San Juan County tax base costing property owners increased taxes. However, while the CLB (and therefore all of us) does own about 4.5% of the county (about 5,000 acres), previous to purchase many of the parcels were under current use tax designations and so taxed at lower rates. For instance, Turtleback Mountain was in Designated Forest Land status and so taxed at pennies on the dollar (the pre-purchase Turtleback Mountain property tax bill was about $1,000 per year). The bottom line is that while the CLB ownership does affect our property tax bills, it is only at a marginal level of about $15 per year on a $750,000 property. Another point to consider is that while the CLB and its partners may purchase on the order of $5 million per year of parcels, new construction has added about 25 times that amount to the tax base at the same time (about $130 million in 2022 and $143 million in 2023).
Fourth, it has been suggested that the CLB should be using the REET to maintain and improve its existing preserves rather than purchasing more parcels. This is an easy one as that is already happening, with about 46% of REET funds in 2023 used for those purposes. The CLB has stated that the final property portfolio is likely to be only about 40% larger than their current holdings, and the additional purchases can obviously only happen if the private owners choose to sell to the CLB. Note that if the CLB is not renewed the funds for preserve operation and maintenance will need to come from elsewhere, most likely through an increase in property taxes.
Comment by Lyn Sorensen
Sep 4, 2024
Sep 4, 2024
3
Excellent points. Love the Land Bank.