davinski
Well-known member
First, thank you for any landowner who does allow access to public land through their property. I've floated the idea before of taxing landowners who do not allow public access to landlocked parcels that they enjoy exclusive access to. There are many many unintended consequences and a burden of properly enforcing something like that on every county. I just enjoy spitballing ideas with people smarter than me, which is just about everyone. Something to the effect of "Here's your property tax, and here is some additional calculated property tax based on public parcels that your property blocks, unless you demonstrate reasonable access to the public." was what I had in mind. The SD shadiness thread below combined with the WSJ article this week on the WY checkerboard mess got me to thinking. Assuming the consequences were vetted and the idea seemed fair, another leverage tool might be to tweak PILT law to encourage counties to enforce something like this.
I know the whole thing is fraught with land mines. I'm no fan of tax or more government power at any level. I can think of a host of stupid laws I'd love to give up in exchange for something like this. But I'm also a huge fan of letting the public actually access public land. Colorado has a public land access statute that protects landowners from litigation who allow free access. But if they charge for access, then they can be liable for I-broke-my-leg silliness that we all know is out there. I think most western states have similar law.
I own land. I'm not here imagining every landowner twisting their moustache as they plot ways to prevent public access. I know having BLM or USFS land next door is not all roses and rainbows and ranching is no picnic, especially lately. I know "the public" is a very broad term that includes vast quantities of a-holes. I know, depending on what county, landowners in extra-sexy parts of the country may already experience a higher-than-expected property tax rate.
But I'm also a fan of fair. Landowners whose property locks up public usually get exclusive access to additional land for free. Most western counties get PILT money, granted every BOCC you talk to will say it's not enough, for public land within their county because it is not taxable property. Those two factors combined just don't strike me as fair.
What do you all think? Flame away!
I know the whole thing is fraught with land mines. I'm no fan of tax or more government power at any level. I can think of a host of stupid laws I'd love to give up in exchange for something like this. But I'm also a huge fan of letting the public actually access public land. Colorado has a public land access statute that protects landowners from litigation who allow free access. But if they charge for access, then they can be liable for I-broke-my-leg silliness that we all know is out there. I think most western states have similar law.
I own land. I'm not here imagining every landowner twisting their moustache as they plot ways to prevent public access. I know having BLM or USFS land next door is not all roses and rainbows and ranching is no picnic, especially lately. I know "the public" is a very broad term that includes vast quantities of a-holes. I know, depending on what county, landowners in extra-sexy parts of the country may already experience a higher-than-expected property tax rate.
But I'm also a fan of fair. Landowners whose property locks up public usually get exclusive access to additional land for free. Most western counties get PILT money, granted every BOCC you talk to will say it's not enough, for public land within their county because it is not taxable property. Those two factors combined just don't strike me as fair.
What do you all think? Flame away!
