No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Urban Growth and the Taxation of Agricultural Land in the Northeast
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2017
Extract
The rapid population growth of the United States and the well documented concentration of that population into a few major metropolitan areas has caused significant amounts of land to shift from agricultural to urban uses. Since World War II, the shifts in land use have caused considerable concern in the Northeast, particularly in those states containing parts of the BosWash megolopolis. Concern over the loss of open space land and the rapid decline in agricultural firms led several state legislatures to consider methods of halting, or at least controlling, the spread of cities into the rural hinterland. Maryland was the first state to pass legislation to protect open space and agriculture, enacting its law in 1955. Connecticut followed with its law in 1963 and New Jersey in 1964. All of these legislative acts declare that it is in the public interest to preserve open space lands, including farms and forests. The wording may vary from state to state but the intent is clear. These legislatures were trying to hold land in open space uses, or at least to avoid forcing their conversion because of high taxes.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , June 1973 , pp. 48 - 57
- Copyright
- Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
Footnotes
∗
An earlier version of this paper was presented at a Seminar on Property Taxation, Public Finance and Land Use sponsored by the Southern Land Economics Research Committee and the Interregional Resource Economics Committee, Dulles International Airport, Virginia, April, 1972. The author is grateful to the participants at that conference for their helpful comments and to an anonymous reviewer for this journal for suggesting several improvements.
References
1/ The amount available for investment would be less than the total market value of the farm real estate. Selling costs, taxes and other expenses must be deducted from the gross sale price. These expenses will vary depending on applicable state and federal laws and the particular arrangements under which the farm is sold.Google Scholar
2/ I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the high probability of capital gains exceeding the additional cash income to be received from savings certificates.Google Scholar
3/ The experiment stations participating actively in this project were: Connecticut, Cornell, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.Google Scholar
4/ Koch, A. Robert, Harriet H. Morrill and Arthur Hausamann, Implementation and Early Effects of the New Jersey Farmland Assessment Act, Rutgers Experiment Station Bulletin 830, n.d.Google Scholar
5/ Ishee, Sidney, “The Maryland Farmland Use-Value Assessment Law,” in Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of Agricultural and Other Open Land, Michigan State University, April 1–2, 1971, p. 32.Google Scholar
6/ Fellows, Irving F., “The Impact of Public Act 490 on Agriculture and Open Space in Connecticut,” in Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of Agricultural and Other Open Land, Michigan State University, April 1–2, 1971, p. 52.Google Scholar
7/ Epp, Donald J., “Assessment of Farmland According to Use,” Farm Economics, Cooperative Extension Service, Pennsylvania State University, October, 1972, 4 pp.Google Scholar
8/ Koch, A. Robert, Harriet H. Morrill and Arthur Hausamann, op. cit., p. 15.Google Scholar
9/ Annual Report of Cooperative Regional Project NE-67, January 1 to December 31, 1971, and James Beierlein, “Impact of the farmland Assessment Act on Freehold Township, New Jersey.” Unpublished Masters’ thesis, Rutgers University, 1971.Google Scholar
10/ Annual Report of Cooperative Regional Project NE-67, January 1 to December 31, 1971.Google Scholar
11/ For example, see Dick Netzer, “Financing Suburban Development” in Dieter K. Zschock, ed., Economic Aspects of Suburban Growth, Economic Research Bureau, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1969, pp. 89–94.Google Scholar