Слике страница
PDF
ePub

THE PRESIDENT: Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this resolution?

(No response.)

THE FRESIDENT: I see Mr. Sterling here, representing the James D. Lacey Company. Would you like to say something to us on this subject, Mr. Sterling?

TAXATION A LOCAL PROBLEM

MR. E. A. STERLING: Why, Mr. President and Gentlemen, there is nothing I think of to add to what has already been said regarding this very important subject. It has been my privilege to hear it discussed in various parts of the country, and I am very glad to note that you are now going into it in a definite way here in this state. As Professor Hosmer has said, his remarks apply probably more to regions like this, which is getting towards the end of its forest resources, where you must have a replacement and some use of the lands, than they do in the far West or possibly in the South. It is unfortunate that these principles and rules cannot be economically applied where raw materials are still abundant and where prices are relatively low. I think probably it is for that reason that all of the big talk in Washington and Oregon, where the subject has been very much alive, has never gotten them very far. It has drifted back into the single tax laws, out there, of course against the desires of the timberland owners, with many complications, which have prevented anything tangible being done. If you men in New York, where the markets are probably better and your supply is less, can apply some of these principles which are generally understood and felt to be desirable, you will certainly be doing a great work. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That is very interesting and practical. Now is there anyone else to be heard? Mr. Meigs, do you want to say something on this subject?

ENCOURAGE GROWTH OF TIMBER

MR. FERRIS J. MEIGS: Mr. President and Gentlemen: There is just one point that Mr. Sterling has brought out that I think should be emphasized, and that is the absolute necessity for this country to grow timber. Those who have made a study of the matter recognize the fact that within a very short time, in comparison with the life of a tree, this country will face a famine in its forest products. I think there is no question about that, for with the large increase in population the utilization of forest products is increasing and the supply is diminishing rapidly; and we are facing, a few gen

erations hence, an absolute famine of timber and forest products in this country. Now anything which will tend to encourage the growth of timber, either by the State or by private individuals of the State, should be adopted; and for that reason alone, not to mention other reasons, I believe that this question of forest taxation is of the utmost importance. The growth of timber must be encouraged in this country, and if this obsolete method of taxation. which we are now suffering under and which is preventing a proper utilization of the soil of that part of the State which is adapted more to the growth of forests than anything else-if that system is preventing the growth of timber, then it is our duty to insist that these methods shall be set aside and some new method, such as has been suggested, shall become a law of the State, simply for the one purpose of encouraging the growth of timber in New York State. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I am sure we would all enjoy hearing from Mr. Pettis, who is one of the "obstacles" we will have to meet in our progress of reform in forest taxation. (Laughter and applause.) Will Mr. Pettis favor us with an expression of his views?

VIEW OF A STATE OFFICER

MR. C. R. PETTIS: Perhaps, gentlemen, my views have been somewhat expressed by your President. In regard to this taxation matter Mr. Ostrander knows we have on several occasions tried to formulate some law which would overcome at least a part of these difficulties; but whenever you go far enough to overcome some of them you run up against other obstacles. One of the great obstacles encountered in this deferred taxation plan is how to go ahead and finance the expenses of your community in the mean time. In other words you are going to have a block of land cut over and you have a revenue from it in your town; and then perhaps next year you have no timber which it is desired to cut and there will be no lumbering done, and perhaps for a period of years there will be no lumbering, no timber cut in the forest area within your town. The cutting is likely to come at irregular intervals. The town, on the other hand, must go ahead and keep up its roads and schools and those expenses met every year.

In 1912 three tax laws were passed, two of which referred exclusively to reforested lands. One applied to wood-lots not exceeding fifty acres. These laws have so many conditions and restrictions that they are not practical. I think if a Commission had been required to go ahead and inspect the tracts in question, every parcel, and then certify to the County Treasurer of the county that

these people had complied with the provisions of the law and were entitled to the exemption, it would have been better. The result, as it stands now, is that the State is spending as much money to get the thing in shape as a fellow would spend in taxes, and there are so many restrictions and so much "red tape" about it-as has been said that it does not tend to encourage reforestation. As a rule, these reforested parcels are in small pieces and it is impossible to determine the assessed valuation of your reforested or re-planted parcel at present.

The assessors will assess John Smith's farm $6,000, we will say; and that includes buildings and cleared land and waste land and everything; and it is the same as to the woodland-they put an assessed valuation on the whole, without separating the timberland, that has been cut over, or the land on which there is now a stand of timber, or the waste land, or that on which a man is entitled to an exemption-the reforested or re-planted land; and then a fellow gets ten or fifteen acres exempted, under this law, and the assessors come along the next year and say, "Well, your assessment wasn't high enough last year, anyway, and so we'll leave the assessment just as it was; it won't make any difference anyway";—and so the man doesn't really receive any benefit from the exemption. (Laughter.) I know in one town a fellow planted about five acres a year and got that land exempted, and the assessors became sore and thought this fellow was trying to escape taxes by that means! (Laughter.) There has been a feeling of that sort on the part of assessors generally, throughout the State.

MUST EDUCATE PUBLIC

I think you have got to get a better public opinion-a different public opinion-get the public educated and make the people see, as Professor Hosmer has pointed out, that in the case of the forests you are paying a tax every year on a growing crop which will not be harvested for many years; whereas, where you are growing wheat or corn or something like that, you are paying a tax on the crop only once-if at all. The assessors look at it differently. They look at a piece of farm land and say, "This piece of land is worth $100 an acre," and they are capitalizing the value of that land and assessing it in that way. On the other hand, they don't go ahead and assess forest land in a similar way but just look at the timber there is on it and say, "Here is a piece of timberland that is worth $30 or $40 or $50 an acre and we will assess it on that basis”-without stopping to reflect that that timber on the land is really a growing crop, which is not harvested every year, as a crop of

wheat or corn or anything like that would be, but can only be harvested once, and that only after a long period of years of growth; and then, if reforested, the next crop cannot be harvested or cut for many more years. If they would look at it the way they do in the case of agricultural lands, that would be another thing;-but they don't, and, as I say, you have got to get public opinion educated up to the point where the real fact of the matter is realized.

TAXATION OF STATE LAND

Another thing: The State Tax Commission have been at the assessors all through the Adirondacks and are going to require them to assess all property at full value-State land included. Now State land, as a general principle, is exempt from taxation. A special statute has been put through permitting the taxation of the State Forest Preserve, provided they file two copies of the assessment roll and the assessment is approved by the Comptroller. The Comptroller knows nothing about the value of the land whatever and never goes in the woods.

When the assessment roll comes in they make three classifications: forest, lumbered, and denuded. The Comptroller approves the assessment, and the tax is assessed on that approved valuation. On the other hand, he doesn't know whether the assessors are telling the truth or not in the classification; and there is a wide dis crepancy in different towns on the valuation of exactly the same kind of land. I know a year or so ago a county line was changed and the State land was taken out of one town and put in another, and a comparison of those assessments showed one town assessing at $1.50 an acre and another at $2.00 an acre—on the same kind of land exactly, only in two different towns.

ASSESSMENT AT FULL VALUE

The question of higher assessment will also come up. That will raise the valuation in your counties and there will be a higher proportion of State taxes to pay. Probably it will not make any difference to amount to anything in the matter of town taxes, but it will as to the State taxes. We are running up against an enormous proposition, and that is the decision of the State Tax Boardthe position they have assumed of requiring all these lands to be assessed at full value. Just think what it means to go ahead and examine all the land that has been assessed and put a value on it for assessment purposes-an assessment at full value. You must compare the assessment of privately owned lands, to

certain ex

tent, to get a relative valuation, to see that the assessment is equitable.

Now there have been certain ideas advanced that that could be eliminated by placing a flat rate by statute upon different types of State-owned forest land. Of course some of you owners will say that the State, having forest lands as good as yours are, should pay on as high a valuation. But the State land is assessed by consent, as an exception, whereas as a matter of practice, it has heretofore been exempt from taxation. The privately-owned forest lands today are not assessed at anything like what they are worth. Now the answer to that proposition is that we can control a high assessment on State land, and therefore the State will put a somewhat similar valuation on private land.

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

Gentlemen, you are making a step in the right direction. It is something that should have been done a long time ago. But don't think you are going to accomplish it in a minute. It's the hardest proposition you can find to work out. Don't be discouraged if you don't get results in it right off, but get a committee that will work and work hard and earnestly, and keep at it, and you have a President that I think will make them work. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Would anybody else like to be heard on the subject of the resolution?

(No response.)

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to say something on the subject, Mr. Beede?

MR. BEEDE: No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the adoption of the resolution?

(No response.)

THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of any objection to its adoption, I declare it adopted unanimously.

« ПретходнаНастави »