While Vermont property owners who permit recreational use of their land are legally protected, they receive no compensation or tax relief for their generosity.
You say there are 2 options, but from this paragraph:
> Similarly, Vermont’s “Current Use” tax reduction program lowers property taxes for landowners who manage their land for forestry or agriculture—not for providing recreational access. There is no provision in current law that reduces taxes specifically because a landowner allows public trail use.
There is a 3rd option.
Why not make the case to legislators that by amending the Current Use tax system to include tax reductions for property owners that allow legal trespassing, we can compensate landowners without triggering the liability tripwire?
Who would lose if this legislation were to be passed?
That seems like an easier sell than the Green Mountain Model of land easements + purchases.
Your main focus on rising property taxes as something that will push landowners into backing out of permission for the use of their land does not address the issue in the Kingdom Trails situation that you used as an example. That is the behavior of the people using the land. Most of the complaints I have heard from landowners who have trails on their property have not been about their property taxes (although they are upset about that also) but have been about the abuse of the land and trial boundaries by people on the trail.
The Kingdom Trails situation is an example of when landowners have had enough of the abuse of their generosity - never meaning to be a direct parallel. The point of the story is that the ever increasing property taxes may be the next tipping point where landowners may just say "enough." Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughtful comment.
Thank you for your comment. You make a good case. The point of this story is that the consequences of things like ever-increasing property taxes are often ones lawmakers don't consider when making policy. We doubt these hidden risks are discussed in Montpelier, but they remain quite real. We have been working on a piece that examines constructive ways to address property taxes, however, without a legislative body that agrees to address the issue separate from their party allegiance, Vermont remains vulnerable. Thank you again for your note.
You say there are 2 options, but from this paragraph:
> Similarly, Vermont’s “Current Use” tax reduction program lowers property taxes for landowners who manage their land for forestry or agriculture—not for providing recreational access. There is no provision in current law that reduces taxes specifically because a landowner allows public trail use.
There is a 3rd option.
Why not make the case to legislators that by amending the Current Use tax system to include tax reductions for property owners that allow legal trespassing, we can compensate landowners without triggering the liability tripwire?
Who would lose if this legislation were to be passed?
That seems like an easier sell than the Green Mountain Model of land easements + purchases.
Your main focus on rising property taxes as something that will push landowners into backing out of permission for the use of their land does not address the issue in the Kingdom Trails situation that you used as an example. That is the behavior of the people using the land. Most of the complaints I have heard from landowners who have trails on their property have not been about their property taxes (although they are upset about that also) but have been about the abuse of the land and trial boundaries by people on the trail.
The Kingdom Trails situation is an example of when landowners have had enough of the abuse of their generosity - never meaning to be a direct parallel. The point of the story is that the ever increasing property taxes may be the next tipping point where landowners may just say "enough." Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughtful comment.
Enough of your gloom and doom stories! How about some constructive ideas to address property taxes?
Thank you for your comment. You make a good case. The point of this story is that the consequences of things like ever-increasing property taxes are often ones lawmakers don't consider when making policy. We doubt these hidden risks are discussed in Montpelier, but they remain quite real. We have been working on a piece that examines constructive ways to address property taxes, however, without a legislative body that agrees to address the issue separate from their party allegiance, Vermont remains vulnerable. Thank you again for your note.