From Gannett New Jersey

Nov. 25, 2007

Measure would cut harvest mandate

By GREGORY J. VOLPE
Gannett State Bureau

TRENTON - In this fall's legislative races, when insidious attacks filled the vacuum of issue debates, one topic seemed ripe to move from attack ad to legislative debate: farmland assessment.

In the highest-profile legislative race, one key factor that helped propel Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, to defeat incumbent Sen. Ellen Karcher, D-Monmouth, was revelations that Karcher received a property-tax break for selling Christmas trees from woodland she owns.

The arrangement, which assesses land as farmland so long as $500 worth of crops are harvested annually, is perfectly legal and was later revealed to be one used by several prominent New Jersey names, such as former Commerce Bank head Vernon W. Hill II, rocker Jon Bon Jovi and Great Adventure amusement park.

With the arrangement apparently striking a nerve with the public, there was talk that lawmakers would revisit the idea of raising the minimum income threshold for farmers. But long before the campaign, there was legislation afoot that would do away with the harvest requirement altogether, as long as a conservation plan was submitted to and approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The theory is this: Stop mandating that owners of private forests larger than five acres cut down trees to qualify for a tax break, in hopes they take responsible steps toward conserving, in the name of improving air quality, reducing global warming and other environmental benefits.

It's hailed by environmentalists, although not so much by production-minded farmers and foresters who argue healthy forests require removing trees.

"It starts getting people into the idea of stewardship and environmental enhancement verses extraction and looking at forests as just a place to remove things from," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club. "You can add value to the environment by enhancing your forests, not cutting them down."

Farmers, however, feel the measure could be an opening salvo on farmland assessment.

"There's a lot of debate right now about farmland assessment and maybe the income requirements should be raised that was raised in the last election cycle," said John Melick, a farmer in Tewksbury. "But here's something going in the opposite direction where not requiring that type of production could generate the cash."

Those arguments may have swayed Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, the bill sponsor and chairman of the Senate Environment Committee. The measure was supposed to be considered this fall, but new issues probably have pushed it back to early in the next legislative session, Smith said.

The proposal would require anyone who applies for farmland assessment on wooded land get a forest management plan, but Smith said he's now undecided whether to scrap the $500 income requirement.

"The real question is: How do you balance that?" Smith said. "You don't want to have farmland assessment going out just because somebody owns trees. It should be an incentive for them to manage their forests properly because they're getting a pretty significant tax break."

Scrapping the requirement would shed support of the measure by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, which pushed the measure in the first place.

"We won't support the bill. It becomes useless. If it still forces people to have to do damaging things to come up with $500 instead of utilizing these other options under forest stewardship, then it's not helpful," said Emile DeVito, of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

Incentives, or money given to forest owners for stewardship programs, may be provided through a separate greenhouse gas proposal requiring polluters to pay for environmental enhancements to offset the carbon they release.

Farmers approve of such incentives, saying stewardship is costly -- from hiring certified consultants to planting native species -- but still oppose any mandate.

"Forest stewardship costs money to do, and it costs a lot of money to do it right," said Ed Wengryn, a researcher with the New Jersey Farm Bureau. "And without a cost-sharing program or an incentive program to get people to do it, if you just mandate it, you might have people say it's just cheaper to develop this land and not even bother."

Reach Gregory J. Volpe at gvolpe@gannett.com
Published: November 25. 2007 3:10AM

Return to News Coverage