Friday, August 08, 2008

Greedy Village Demands Destruction of Crops

This is ridiculous.

Threats of daily fines and a lawsuit, all over a 7-acre stand of corn, have people talking in the small village of Wales, just west of Waukesha.

Property owner Kent Hanson says the corn crop is better for the community than a plot of unchecked, unsightly weeds.

Village President Jeffrey Flaws wants the corn taken out because more property taxes can be collected if the land remains under business use and is not converted to the much cheaper agricultural use. The Village Board has approved fining Hanson or pursuing legal action in court. As of Thursday, it hadn’t done either.

As municipal budgets get tighter, officials are more closely watching how landowners are using vacant properties, specifically that they aren’t turning plots zoned for industrial and commercial uses into cropland to reduce property taxes, Flaws said.

[...]

Hanson’s disputed property north of Highway 18 is zoned for business use, not agriculture. He pays about $6,800 in annual property taxes under that particular zoning designation.

[...]

Hanson said he never planned to seek the discount and would seed over the land with grass after this crop is harvested. But with the village demanding that he pull the corn out before it’s harvested, he began researching his legal options.

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0712 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. How did the property come to be zoned Industrial?  Municipalities do not generally initiate the zoning changes.

    Did the property owner request the change so his land had a higher value?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 0859 hrs


  2. I thought municipalities do initiate zoning changes via their comprehensive land use/zoning processes.  They usually have a master plan that designates areas that are residential, multifamily, commercial, industrial, etc,  And sometimes owners request that the land be “upgraded” to a higher use.

    I don’t understand what the issue is here - it sounds like the person is using the land for a lower-value use (agriculture) but is paying his taxes at the higher-value use (commercial) - it would be different scenario if he was doing this to pay the lower rate & that does not seem to be the case.  This reminds me too much of Milwaukee DNS foreclosing on the disabled guy because of an unlicensed vehicle sitting in the driveway - there are “procedures/policies” to follow that trump any exercise of common sense or discretion.  Heck, muncipalities could cut loose their highly paid staff & replace them with WalMart greeters - they too are trained to follow standard operating procedures, and their pay & benefits are a lot less.

    Basing taxes on “presumed” value “stinks” to me - what impact does 7 acres of weeds vs 7 acres of crops have to do with the provision of municipal services or the cost of educating children (face it - the majority goes for school taxes).  Again, whatever school district it is, I would like to hear how this difference (and note that there is no fiscal impact), has a present impact on their ability to educate children.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 0924 hrs


  3. This seems odd. Why are they all in a snit about 7 acres of corn?

    Frankly by the time this even gets to court - he’d be on his second crop anyway.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 1146 hrs


  4. I don’t understand what the issue is here - it sounds like the person is using the land for a lower-value use (agriculture) but is paying his taxes at the higher-value use (commercial) - it would be different scenario if he was doing this to pay the lower rate & that does not seem to be the case.

    The land is zoned for business and he didn’t ask “permission” from the city to farm it.

    What we have here is a guy trying to mitigate his costs of holding the land by planting corn on it (given the price of corn)

    The village of course will be damned if someone doesn’t get their permission before doing something with their “private” property.

    Zoning is mostly a joke anyway.  Municipalities use it to toss around the heavy hand of government. 

    This guy probably didn’t kiss the village governments ass enough and they’re throwing their government weight around feigning piety all the while.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 1147 hrs


  5. The village argues that because the land is zoned for business, it can’t be farmed without prior approval of village officials.

    And if he would have asked prior permission to plant a corn crop on a parcel of land zoned for business they would have told him no? 

    It is not like this parcel is in an urban area.  I don’t see why the village is bothering this guy.  I bet the Journal doesn’t have the full story.  This farmer must have pissed someone off.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 1215 hrs


  6. Don’t know about the farmer, but the article mentions this about the owner:

    Hanson said the village is going after him because of disputes he’s had concerning his previous developments, including his office on Highway 18.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 1335 hrs


  7. They better watch out for backyard gardens then.  Some of the homes in Wales are pretty good and they probably have gardens that have veggies.  Will the village go after them as well?  After all, these homes are in an area zone residential, not farming.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 1351 hrs


  8. They better watch out for backyard garden

    For sure - anyday now, I expect Obama to suggest that suburbanites plant gardens to deal with the high cost of food caused by the diversion of farmland to ethanol production - could save as much biofuel as what they want to “get off drilling”.  In my parent’s time (WWII), they were called “Victory Gardens”, but Obama will not use that term or connotation, because it would alienate the antiwar base - look what happened to Joe Lieberman.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2008 at 1358 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.