From Marc: Obviously one of those details that was worked out was the conservation easement and lower rate.

With due respect Marc, it doesn't seem obvious that was a detail worked out.

Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476
In this 1979 case, Mohonk Trust (hereafter "Mohonk") commenced proceedings against the Town of Gardiner (hereafter "Gardiner"), New York to seek tax-exempt status pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law art. 7

So I'll ask the logical question: what happened in the years between 65 and 79? IOW, what precipitated this action?

Well, for one thing, state law was changed in 1971:

"... the statute was amended in 1971 to provide that property may be exempt if its owner is organized or conducted exclusively for exempt purposes (L.1971, c.414, §2). In the case of Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476, 392 N.E.2d 876, 418 N.Y.S.2d 763, the Court held this amendment to mean that "The determination of an organization's primary purpose may turn upon the extent to which it pursues the various purposes for which it was created, and is not necessarily dependent solely upon the language of the document pursuant to which the organization operates." Thus, a corporation may qualify for exemption although it is authorized to conduct nonexempt activities by its certificate of incorporation and by-laws if the corporation does not actually perform such activities."

http://www.orps.state.ny.us/legal/opinions/v6/87.htm

My beef regarding the Preserve not paying property taxes in Gardiner is not one of legality but rather commitment. To make the establishment of the Preserve politically palatable in the beginning, they made a public commitment to the contiunance of property tax revenue for the town. At a later date, when that commitment was no longer politcally necessary, they reneged.

"Read our lips. We will continue to pay local property taxes. Not."

I think the point was that in 1965, the Trust probably did not qualify as tax exempt, so their story was that they were not going to avoid paying taxes (and they weren't). When the state law was`changed in 1971, the situation obviously changed; now the Trust was qualified for an exemption. Presumably, the legislators saw value in this type of arrangement, and the Trust (later Preserve) took advantage of it. I'm not trying to say that's the whole story, but it is a part of the story at least.

The only consistency in this world is that things change.

It would be much more straight forward to say they broke their promise to the community. Because the law allows it doesn't make it any more honorable.

It would be useful rhetoric to some to say that, certainly, but disingenuous at best.

The Trustees of The Trust do not plan to ask for exemption from land taxes.

Its true - in 1965 they did not plan to ask for exemption. The fact that they eventualy did so later on does not a priori refute the truth of that statement.

Its true - in 1965 they did not plan to ask for exemption. The fact that they eventualy did so later on does not a priori refute the truth of that statement.

Of course not. It just means their mores shift like sand.

zzzzZZZZZzzzzzzz..........

C'mon Kent, we know ya aren't a member of the Preserve's Fan Club, but to expect any person or organization that can legally take advantage of reduced (or eliminated) property taxes, to not avail themselves of that option, is ridiculous and naive.


IF Gardiner passed some sort of legislation next year that stipulated that "all whiners named Kent could stop paying property taxes" , would you keep mailing in your check?
Of course not.

I disagree with you Murph. History is full of corporations and Momand Pop endeavors that did the right thing, even though it cost them money. Let's take your average volunteer firefighter. They will give up on avergae 2 nights a week for training, spend money on equipment that town fire taxes can not afford to buy, and spend countless hours going to calls. Why do they do this? It is obviously a huge burden ont hem and their families, yet they still do it. The answer, at least in my eyes, is community commitment. Some people feel a sense of community when they do things like that. Organizations and business CAN adopt the same attitude. If I got a letter in the mail and it said: Dear Town landowner, we are happy to tell you that because of some obsure oversight, you no longer have to pay town or school taxes. Heck yeah it would save me a ton of money. But knowing that everyone else in my town now had to take up the slack for me not paying would make me feel like shit. I think that is Kents point.

RR