14
—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, August 4, 1973
Tax
(Continued From Page I)
Association, which is recom
mending a three-year rollback.
The bill’s rollback clause is,
perhaps, the measure’s key
feature But it was only one of the
points discussed during the long
day of testimony. Other
testimony centered around
definitions of agricultural land,
the make-up of the board to
determine which land should be
preferentially taxed, whether or
not this determination should be
made at the state or local level,
and what procedures should be
followed in the event a farmer is
forced to sell his land.
Some few spoke out against the
bill. Some others simply spoke
out One gentleman from Oxford
provided the liveliest moments of
the day when, in a windy and
disjointed speech, he told Ken
nedy and the rest of his com
mittee that they were “the tools
of special interest groups”. His
speech, laced with innuendoes
and thinly disguised threats, was
poorly received by the committee
members and aroused the ire of
some of them. The man left the
podium shouting and calling
Representative William Shuman
names Rep Shuman responded
in kind.
Another speaker, a child
psychologist from Chester
County, spoke at length about the
need for open space and the
merits of special taxes for far
mers, but admitted to the com
mittee that he hadn’t read H.B.
1056 until just a few hours before
the hearing
The bulk of the testimony did,
however, bear more directly on
the real purpose of the meeting,
to gauge public reaction to the
general issue of farmland
taxation with particular
reference to H.B. 1056.
Leonard Strunk, Coatesville,
spoke both as a representative of
the Tax Action Committee of
Chester County and as a pnvate
citizen
In voicing his personal opinion
on tax problems, Strunk said, “It
is time that the state reviews the
entire matter of how the local
forms of governments and school
districts secure their revenues.”
Strunk said income taxes must
be substituted for land taxes “as
a realistic step toward an
equitable placing of the tax
burden on all taxpayers ac
cording to their ability to pay.”
He said young people and the
elderly are finding it difficult to
own land because of rising taxes.
Samuel P Hayes, chairman of
(he Pennsylvania Chapter of the
Sierra Club, urged that the
committee consider means of
saving open space other than
agricultural lands. He felt that
the ten-year rollback was an
absolute minimum, and spoke in
favor of 15- or 20-year rollback.
Two people spoke out firmly in
opposition to the bill. One was
William F. Matson, executive
director of the Pennsylvania
Rural Electric Association. The
other was Albert F Unger,
director of legislation for the
Pennsylvania School Board
Association. Both Matson and
Unger were opposed to removing
farmland from the tax bases of
local governments.
A list of other speakers is ap
pended to the end of this article.
Some of the most cogent and
best-received testimony of the
day was offered by Amos Funk, a
Lancaster County farmer and a
conservationist known
throughout the state. His
remarks, more or less in their
entirety, follow:
For example “In Lancaster
County we are losing 8,000 acres
of agricultural land to non
agricultural uses each year. This
is double the rate of transfer
during the years 1954-1964 when
4,000 acres were removed from
agricultural production each
year.
“This is what will happen if we
continue down the scattered
development road we are now
following. This loss of prime
agricultural land should not take
place and would not occur If a
plan called Sketch Plan 11,
prepared by the Lancaster
County Planning Commission
were followed.
“This plan would put the
proposed 200,000 projected
population for the county by the
year 2,000 in 25,000 acres of land
instead of zOO,OOO acres of land
required under current
development patterns. Over
16,000 acres of industrial park
area are provided for in the plan
and, finally, the plan provides for
the retention of 250,000 acres of
prime agricultural land set aside
GET MORE FOR YOUR DAIRY DOLLARS
The money you spend for feed
mokes more money for you,
when you choose FLORIN forti
fied Dairy Feeds. Count on it for
maximum production from your
dairy herd . . . maximum profits,
too.
as agricultural preserves These
preserves contain all Class 1, II
and 111 land.
“However this is just a plan
and like most plans it is of little
value until implemented. I think
a bill like H.B. 1056 would assist
greatly in implementing this and
other similar plans that exist
throughout the Commonwealth.
“In other areas of Pe
nnsylvania loss of farmland may
be greater and in some areas far
’less. However in nearly all in
stances the best and most
productive land is being
developed.
“Some farmers want to sell. By
one stroke of the pen they can
make more money than by
farming for 10-20 years. However
too many farmers recently have
found it necessary to sell because
of exorbitant property taxes.
“Legislation is needed to
create an agricultural climate in
Pennsylvania that will enable
farmers who want to farm, to
continue to do so. There is also a
need to allow farmers the right to
sell if they so desire.
WOLGEMUTH
BROS., INC.
MOUNT JOY, PA. PH. 653-1451
■‘affc^vyv^y^yflpajSß^SpSSm^S
“I would call your attention to a
map prepared by the Soil Con
servation Service in cooperation
with the Lancaster County
Conservation District. You will
note various agricultural
districts are designated. This
map shows the same agricultural
preserves that appear in the
Lancaster County Planning
Commission’s Sketch Plan that I
referred to earlier. The Lan
caster County Planning Com
mission and the district do try to
work together.
“This map was prepared in
1969 as resource material for
Governor Shafer’s Committee On
The Preservation of Agricultural
Land. I was a member of that
committee and a prime mover
for the agricultural district
concept that appeared in the
report to the Governor. Maps of
5,000 acre blocks were also
prepared for the Counties of
Bucks, Schuykill, Indiana,
Crawford and Columbia. I am
sure 5,000 acre blocks of prime
agricultural land are present in
<Continued On Page 15)
X f *