<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=0pcOlW_0wOF6ykl00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=0pcOlW_0wOF6ykl00" width="2048" height="1363" ></figure>A recent posting argued the Land Bank isn’t the cause of increasing property taxes as there are multiple nationwide factors. I agree with some of the reasoning, but an important element was missing. Many if not all of those nationwide factors don’t have a real estate excise tax (REET). Nobody is arguing the Land Bank is solely responsible for inflating property taxes. What is being argued is the Land Bank is a big contributing factor in San Juan County. The following link connects to the Land Bank website with an outline of the Land Bank impact of property taxes: https://sjclandbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Calc-of-the-LB-impact-on-taxes-750K-4-1-24.pdf. It illustrates a perspective of how removing Land Bank acquisition properties from tax rolls has little effect on property taxes. In the last paragraph is the sentence: “Being near conservation land boosts property values by up to 20% according to multiple analyses.” Just a couple of dots to connect here …. What corresponds with increased property values? INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES! The impact on property taxes removed from tax rolls pales in comparison to the increase in property taxes caused by the increase in property values. In 2015 the Zylstra Lake acquisition cost $3,000,000. The acquisition process in County code 2.120.050, Par. G prescribes “To obtain real property appraisals.” There was no appraisal. Two years later (2017) an appraisal was done for a grant application. The appraisal came in at $2,700,000 ($300,000 less than cost). Following is a digest of data from County property records for 25 properties adjacent to the Zylstra Lake acquisition. Property ID Increase in Assessed Land Value: 16034 $119,190 = 61.83% in one year 2022 to 2023 15923 $206,480 = 65.91% in one year 2022 to 2023 16173 $128,480 = 59.3% in one year 2022 to 2023 16017 $228,560 = 94.61% in one year 2022 to 2023 16029 $116,450 = 52.54% in one year 2022 to 2023 16012 $160,820 = 81.39% in one year 2022 to 2023 16030 $112,650 = 42.9% in one year 2022 to 2023 16024 $97,740 = 33.29% in one year 2022 to 2023 16025 $226,65053 = 88.27% in one year 2022 to 2023 25657 $407,080 = 130% in one year 2022 to 2023 16224 $89,420 = 36% in one year 2022 to 2023 16219 $81,610 = 31.86% in one year 2022 to 2023 25282 $139,130 = 70.1% in one year 2022 to 2023 16220 $23,080 = 9.6 % in one year 2022 to 2023 16202 $73,820 = 39 % in one year 2022 to 2023 26376 $63,630 = 31.8% in one year 2022 to 2023 26375 $77,700 = 29.8 % in one year 2022 to 2023 26374 $32,700 = 10.7 % in one year 2022 to 2023 16195 $15,960 = 3.4% in one year 2022 to 2023 26396 $26,120 = 13% in one year 2022 to 2023 26397 $19,050 = 9.5 % in one year 2022 to 2023 16172 $106,560 = 44.8% in one year 2022 to 2023 16027 $42,630 = 31.39% in one year 2022 to 2023 16175 $75,680 = 30.4 % in one year 2022 to 2023 25435 $66,290 = 33.35% in one year 2022 to 2023 45.39% average increase in value 2022 to 2023. An average 45.39% increase in assessed land values for one year (2022-2023) for 25 property owners adjacent to Zylstra Lake (Land Bank) properties. The numbers correlate with the Land Bank website statement “Being near conservation land boosts property values by up to 20% according to multiple analyses.” This is only part of the effect of inflated purchase prices for Land Bank acquisitions. The cost of insurance rises accordingly. Questions: 1. What is the purpose of County code 2.120.050, Par. G that prescribes “To obtain real property appraisals …”? Wasn’t it supposed to assure acquisition prices represent market values? Paying higher than market artificially raises property values resulting in higher property taxes.2. How many other Land Bank acquisitions didn’t comply with county code 2.120.050 (requirement for appraisals)? 3. What was the property tax impact of that extra $300,000 paid for the Zylstra Lake acquisition to nearby property owners? 4. Isn’t the Land Bank statement “Being near conservation land boosts property values by up to 20% according to multiple analyses” applicable to all of the 5000 acres of Land Bank properties? 5. Doesn’t this have a general effect on all land values regardless of being near conservation land? You don’t have to be a property owner to feel the effect of increased property taxes. Renters feel it too as landlords have to raise rents to counter the effect of increased property taxes and insurance. The Land Bank has done what it set out to do. It’s accumulated enough property. The REET is authorized through 2026. The Land Bank should use the next two years to change their mission to suit San Juan County’s present-day needs. Enough already! VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 1-EXTENDING CONSERVATION AREA EXCISE TAX Ron Whalen San Juan Island </div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Land Bank impact on property taxes | Letter

A recent posting argued the Land Bank isn’t the cause of increasing property taxes as there are multiple nationwide factors. I agree with some of the reasoning, but an important element was missing. Many if not all of those nationwide factors don’t have a real estate excise tax (REET). Nobody is arguing the Land Bank is solely responsible for inflating property taxes. What is being argued is the Land Bank is a big contributing factor in San Juan County.