See Action to Take – Questions to Ask – and Background Info below.
ACTION TO TAKE:
1. Show up on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 10:30, at the Clallam County Commissioner’s Meeting at the Clallam County Courthouse for the public hearing. Sign up and voice your opinion, or be there to support others who do.
2. Telephone the county commissioners and express your objection and/or questions about the Conservation Futures Fund NEW TAX.
3. Email the Board of County Commissioners (see information below) to let them know your thoughts and/or ask questions about the plan to add more tax to your property (if you are a tenant, it will probably raise the rate of your rent to cover the additional expense of the property).
4. Tell your friends and neighbors or forward this Alert to them, to get out the word.
How to contact the County Commissioners:
By PHONE: 360-417-2233
By FAX: 360-417-2493
By Regular Mail:
Clallam County Commissioners
223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
BY EMAIL: http://clallam.net/bocc/board_contact.html
DISTRICT 1 (Sequim/Dungeness area)
Mark Ozias (Democrat)
DISTRICT 2 (West of Sequim and Port Angeles area)
Randy Johnson (Independent)
DISTRICT 3 (West Port Angeles and West End)
Bill Peach (Republican)
BILL PEACH HAS STATED HIS INTENTION
TO VOTE AGAINST THE TAX.
Questions to ask about the new tax:
- How often do commissioners (government bureaucrats) ever reduce funding for a program?
- Isn’t determination of the need for this program subjective or can need be proven?
- Why do we need to preserve farmland in Clallam County? Do we depend on this land for our food?
4. If land is already zoned as agricultural or farmland and would require zone changes difficult to accomplish, why does it need to be placed in a land conservation trust?
5. Does this State not already set aside sufficient land for habitat restoration?
6. How many taxpayers would voluntarily pay other landowners to place farmland and agricultural land in conservation?
7. This draft does not yet state the amount in dollars to be paid owners relinquishing their property to this program, so how much and how will this amount be determined? By amount of acreage and would owners of different types of land be paid the same amount?
8. A Peninsula Daily News article states land owners would still pay taxes on their property placed into the program. The plan itself does not discuss whether land placed in the program will remain on the tax roll and this seems odd if this property owner relinquishes rights to this land. If the former owner will still pay taxes, will taxes remain the same per assessed valuation of agricultural land as currently assessed?
9. When will the public learn the amount to be paid for land placed in conservation and whether or not this land will remain on the tax rolls?
10. If this program removes land for conservation, how does this affect state, county, and other local taxing districts and taxpayers?
11. If commissioners follow DCD Director Wilborn’s suggestion, how broadly would “beautiful” be determined? (See her quote in the Background info below.)
12. Couldn’t farmland and other agricultural land possibly be rezoned for housing? If placed into the Conservation Futures Program, doesn’t it remain there indefinitely?
13. Why do commissioners supporting this plan believe they should take from property owners who may have a better purpose for their money than to lose it to an owner of agricultural/farmland who may have no greater need than the taxpayer forced to pay for this bribe?
14. Why do commissioners believe they can better determine use of another taxpayer’s money than the taxpayer?
15. Doesn’t this program create privilege through a bribe for one group of people at the expense of other taxpayers? What makes the receiver of this bribe entitled to other taxpayers’ money? Is this just?
16. Last October, the commissioners also discussed unaffordable housing situation in our county. If a serious lack of affordable housing exists, what caused this shortage?
17. Will raising taxes and more land restriction assist development of more housing?
18. If unavailability of land for housing exists, would farmland rezoned for housing be a better use for some of this land, possibly one tenth of 17,000 remaining acres if some agricultural landowners were willing?
19. What’s a greater need for people in our county? Land to live on or vacant, “beautiful” land?
20. Do our county commissioners provide any incentives to develop land for housing, such as fewer restrictions and regulations, if they truthfully want to encourage affordable housing?
21. Why not allow the voters who will bear the consequences of this conservation plan vote on it?
On October 10-19 at their County Commissioners Meeting, our commissioners reviewed the CLALLAM COUNTY HOMELESS CRISIS RESPONSE AND HOUSING PLAN 2020 – 2024
22. Did the two commissioners promoting the Conservation Futures Program that would prevent land from being used for housing indefinitely ever consider the relationship of this action to their previous discussion a week earlier on the critical need for more affordable housing?
If interested, read the following excerpts from CLALLAM COUNTY HOMELESS CRISIS RESPONSE AND HOUSING PLAN 2020 – 2024 related to the housing crisis in Washington and in our county.
The above document identifies primary reasons for homelessness in Clallam County as, “lower than average salaries and elevated unemployment rates of 7% that contribute to the county’s high poverty rate of 15% (Clallam County Community Health Status Assessment, 2017) and the low vacancy rate, high rental rates, and available affordable housing stock.”
Authors of the CLALLAM COUNTY HOMELESS CRISIS RESPONSE AND HOUSING PLAN 2020 – 2024 describe the housing shortage in Washington and Clallam County stating:
Affordable Housing shortage in Clallam County, like many other cities and counties, is in the midst of a shortage of affordable housing – both subsidized and market-rate. The 2019 Washington State Affordable Housing Needs Assessment states that 51% of renters statewide (54.6% in Clallam County) have become “cost-burdened,” spending more than 30% of household income on housing. Currently, there are 234,000 households considered “severely cost-burdened” in Washington State. Severely cost-burdened households pay more than half their monthly income on rent. Prospective homeowners are also impacted by the lack of affordable housing. The statewide median sales price for a home is S337,000, 6.6% higher than 2016 and is the highest median home price ever recorded in Washington.
http://websrv7.clallam.net/forms/uploads/2019-10-29_123854_10-28.pdf (Pages 9-28)
BACKGROUND:
(From newspaper reports and documents, compiled by Susan Shotthafer)
Clallam County Commissioner Randy Johnson worries that only 17,000 acres out of the 70,000 acres in the 1930s remain in agricultural today, and states 12,000 acres have been preserved since 1996.
Apparently, Johnson initiated the Clallam County Conservation Futures Program proposing (10-21-19) a .275% (.3) per $1,000 valuation tax to preserve farmlands, agricultural land, and “critical areas” open areas costing $6.88 for a $250,000 valuation. Too much to ask? This document reads: “Enabling language” will be added to outline “tax to be assessed, priorities for the collected revenue, and the distribution of fund process.”
The commissioners plan to use funds accrued through taxation to acquire matching funds from other similar organizations such as the North Olympic Land Trust. When an owner of farmland, agricultural land, or critical area places their land into this Conservation Futures Program, this landowner relinquishes his rights and interest in it and will receive payment from accrued revenue taken from taxpayers.
If approved, this conservation program intends to create a Conservation Futures Advisory Board of 7 members (hopefully unpaid), one from Clallam Conservation District, the North Olympic Land Trust (non-governmental org i.e. NGO), one representative from each commissioner district and two commissioners at-large. Department of Development Director Mary Ellen Winborn asks for two more board members, one from the tribes and one from her department.
Winborn commented, “It could be so much broader than preserving farmland. One of the reasons people come out here is because it’s beautiful.” She suggested Commissioner Johnson add language for open space and habitat restoration.
Commissioners will review this programs in ten years to evaluate its effectiveness and they “shall’ conduct another hearing to decide whether to change the programs tax rate, repeal the tax, and whether funding should continue.
http://websrv7.clallam.net/forms/uploads/2019-10-22_122614_10-21.pdf (Pages 66-69)
