LETTERS: GOVERNMENT LAND LEASING BENEFICIAL

To the editor:

Several advantages would come from changing government land acquisition from purchase mode to lease mode. These advantages could also be applied to private environmental land trusts.

Problems with federal or state land acquired by purchase include:

-- loss of county tax base

-- restriction of access and use, and even outright closure of purchased land

-- reduction of income for individuals and businesses as privately owned land is acquired by an agency or trust

-- reduced supply of natural resources as the government agency shuts down purchased land to mining, agriculture and other productive uses.

If a government agency wants 10,000 acres of land. Under the land purchase approach now in use, the government agency buys land just as any business or private citizen would. But after the purchase, the government agency pays no property tax to support county functions such as schools, road maintenance, hospitals and the like.

Because there is no yearly tax burden or mortgage payment, there is no incentive for the government agency to maintain land productivity. The agency can, and in many cases does, stop all logging, mining, ranching and other productive activities and closes that land to public use. Rebates to the county government, such as payment in lieu of taxes, are seldom fully funded and usually pay a fraction of the agreed-upon amount, in contrast with mortgage payments which must be paid in full and on time or else the property is repossessed by the bank.

Assume the same 10,000 acres of land is acquired by lease. The government agency does not own the land land remains in private ownership. The leased land generates rental payments to the landowner who gives part of that money to the county government in the form of property taxes, which helps support schools, hospitals, road maintenance and other county functions.

Thus, property tax revenue to the county tends to be restored.

After the first flush of conquest, government agencies are going to have second thoughts about the desirability and relative priority of maintaining the lease. The rent comes due on a regular basis and must be paid from the agency's budget. Agency directors will begin to look for ways to ease the lease payments burden, and the obvious first choice is resources production. Even the most left-wing, radical bureaucrat will see the benefits of having land pay its own upkeep and will be tempted to resume mining, grazing, logging, recreation and other profitable operations. The lease can specify that a portion of that income be returned to the landowner as royalty payments.

Thus, resources production, access and public land use tend to be restored. Thus, the local county economy tends to be restored, businesses and jobs are restored and personal income is restored.

The lease agreement would be for a specified and fairly short, five to 20 years, period of time, after which the government agency bids at market rate against other potential land owners for renewal, or moves out.

Thus, we reverse the trend toward more and more government ownership of land in America and more and more oppressive restrictions on businesses and on private land owners. We also stop non-for-profit Green organizations such as The Nature Conservancy from enriching themselves and impoverishing everyone else by buying huge tracts of land fore resale to the government. No government purchase, no sale, no profit.

WILLIAM F. JUD

Fredericktown