NVR Logo
Conserving our heritage
Rep. Thompson’s proposal would help stop the loss of farmland
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Save and Share Share
The loss of farmland near United States urban areas is a slow-motion tragedy that has been taking place for decades.

Rep. Mike Thompson, D- St. Helena, is taking productive steps to slow it. Thompson has successfully pushed, and is pushing again, for legislation providing strong financial incentives for property owners to keep their land free of urban development.
A week ago today, Thompson and a co-sponsor introduced H.R. 1831, which would make permanent a tax break for farm and ranch owners who set aside their land under conservation easements. Such easements are essentially binding promises to keep land in open space for as long as the owner has it, and for the owners to make the protections a condition of sale should the land change hands.

An existing law, sponsored by Thompson four years ago, gives owners tax breaks on the value of the land they place into such easements. That law expires at the end of this year. The new measure would make the tax breaks permanent.
This existing measure has helped many of the country’s 1,700 or so land trusts — including the Land Trust of Napa County and the Sonoma Land Trust — to work with sympathetic landowners who want to keep their land free of development.

David Duff is one example. Last year the owner of the 1,000-acre Duff Ranch near Calistoga sold his property to the Land Trust of Napa County.
“I am intimate with the land, so I know it more than anybody,” Duff told the Register in December. “There is no way I was going to sell to a developer.”

Critically, the easements also ease the tax burdens that might otherwise force people to sell farms that have long been in the family.

The co-sponsor of Thompson’s bill, the Conservation Easement Incentive Act, is Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia. Cantor’s large district includes vineyard properties, rolling farmlands and historic Civil War sites near towns that are under pressure to grow into suburbs of Washington, D.C.

The problems Thompson is seeking to address cross party and state lines. We applaud this effort to keep our land and our heritage alive and thriving.
7 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Apr 7, 2009 4:55 AM:

" If only the NVR would highlight other legislation that Mike has recently supported; such as increasing our deficit to levels never seen in 50 years! Deficits that will double our national debt from $10 Trillion to $20 Trillion. "

manxkat wrote on Apr 7, 2009 7:14 AM:

" If Mike Thompson is behind something it is not good for us and it is for power politics.
Placing conservation easements on land makes it useless forever and gives the land owner huge tax benefits which the tax payers must pay for.
We already have the Williamson Act which is for limited term, voluntary and very adequate. "

charliesheen wrote on Apr 7, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Supporting Thompson is quite the quandry. This legislation makes a great deal of sense, and I applaud Mike for sponsoring the bill.

Sadly, his party-line votes to destroy the individualistic foundation of this nation cast-aside the admiration he gets from me for this sensible approach to land use issues. "

Raven wrote on Apr 7, 2009 8:40 AM:

" returning to the the topic kevin....just how do ya feel about the bill the editorial is talking about? "

Sickothis wrote on Apr 7, 2009 11:35 AM:

" Following that logic manxkat you have no problem with the proposed development at Napa Pipe nor Angwin, I would suppose? "

TAXPAYER wrote on Apr 7, 2009 12:22 PM:

" A better plan would be to lower property taxes based on what income we make on the land. Not based on market value. In turn, this would allow farmers to make a living and not be forced into selling their property.
Mike Thompson goals should be to reduce Government, lower taxes and remove restrictions on our property. It's our property not his.

Have a nice day "

glenroy wrote on Apr 7, 2009 12:26 PM:

" What about the tax payer?

Talk about dwindling heritage….. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy