Issues from Voters in Mackay

Issues that people explained to me when I visited towns in District 35 include: (1) improper state tax breaks to landowners (a wildlife tax exception was awarded to a local landowner when cattle had never grazed on his land), (2) improper No Trespassing signs along the Big Lost River (this sign was placed by the landowner contrary to Federal Law concerned with navigable rivers), and (3) too limited support from the County Prosecutor  (felonies will be prosecuted but prosecution of misdemeanors requires a separate contract which means extra cost to the town which can ill afford it).

 

While issues like these may be hearsay to an attorney, to me they are serious concerns to voters.  I will work to find solutions to problems like these.  Already I have found a path toward solutions to all of them. Issues like these are tough to solve; issues like the corporate lobbying of legislators and the military-industrial complex that affect foreign policy are even more difficult. But all can be solved if, first, people elect legislators who are committed to solving the tough problems and then hold them accountable.


 

According to the Congressional Budget Office the rich have been getting richer and the middle class poorer since 1979. Most of the towns in District 35 illustrate this. Stores on Main Street are vacant and many houses are vacant. When asked why, some of the reasons people list are: the mine closed, the trees are gone; the government doesn’t let us cut the trees; the water table dropped. I believe if we all work together, we can find solutions to these very difficult problems. Even though I will not be your Representative, I will continue to work to find solutions for problems of that people in District 35 face.

 

 

Research on (1) improper state tax breaks to landowners as of November 5, 2008

 

I have studied the Halverson Tax Exemption Appeal:

 http://bta.idaho.gov/pdf/decisions/2005/Halverson.Cus.htm ; and 63-604,

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=630060004.K; 
have talked with John Powers of Mackay (208-588-3358); 
and asked Senator Clint Stennett about the intent of 63-604.  
Part(iii)It is used by the owner for the grazing of livestock to be 
sold as part of a for-profit enterprise, or is leased by the owner to a bona fide lessee 
for grazing purposes; 
 
Here are two ways to repeal the tax exemption.

 

Way 1: Land was never grazed.

In the Halverson Tax Exemption Appeal: The Board next addresses the historic agricultural

use of subject lands. The record is clear the land did not qualify as land actively devoted to agriculture

 pursuant to the requirements of Idaho Code § 63-604 in 2004. It was not grazed by livestock in 2004,

or grazed under a bona fide grazing lease for a couple years. However prior to the Halverson ownership,

the land held cattle either grazed by the landowner or a lessee for apparently many years. The Board holds

this historic grazing use is consistent with the qualifications in Idaho Code § 63-604 for land sizes over five acres.

 "Formerly" is defined in two senses(4), 1) "in time immediately preceding: just before", and 2) "in time past:

in the time of an earlier or previous period: once, heretofore, previously."

 As such, subject land was "formerly" qualified for classification as "land actively devoted to agriculture.

" It was, in fact, formerly assessed as land actively devoted to agriculture.

John Powers owns land near and has lived near the Halverson property since 1933. 

He says (and will write a statement for you, if you want): “cattle never grazed on

the Halverson property.”  The Board says cattle were there and uses a dictionary

definition of formerly to make their false claim.  The original tax exemption was

granted improperly.  63-604 (iii) was not met because cattle were never grazed

on the Halverson Property.

 

Way 2: Give ample (proper) notice

The tax board says: On appeal we find WRLT is a 501(c)(3) and that the conservation easement

agreement was filed by April 15. These stated grounds for denying the wildlife

exemption -- without more meaningful notice and a reasonable opportunity for the taxpayer to support

its exemption claim, was improper. Idaho Code §§ 63-501A, 63-506.

The solution here is to give Halversons plenty of notice that you are repealing the tax exemption because

it is based on grazing, which never occurred on the property.

 

Note: Need to find how the 13.931 acres was classified by the owner of the land before Halverson.

 

 

 

Clint Stennett answers question of intent of 63-604 on November 5, 2008.  The owner must show income

records or a lease for the grazing, Clint said. 

 

Neither of these occurred, so the tax exemption is not appropriate.

 

This is what Clint says:

 

The bill does not require that public access be provided in order to receive the tax break. They must show income records or a lease for the grazing...Clint.

Calvin Leman wrote:
 
Clint, 

Can you tell me if the intent of 63-604 was followed by the THE IDAHO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (Board)?  The board gives no evidence that the land was grazed, just says it was.  Besides the city of Mackay not being able to collect tax on the 13.931 acres, access to the Big Lost River by people is stopped by No Trespassing signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOQoQif1aU

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=630060004.K 

This from 63-604: 

(iii) It is used by the owner for the grazing of livestock to be sold as part of a for-profit enterprise, or is leased by the owner to a bona fide lessee for grazing purposes; or

http://bta.idaho.gov/pdf/decisions/2005/Halverson.Cus.htm 

This from WILDLIFE EXEMPTION APPEAL 

The Board next addresses the historic agricultural use of subject lands. The record is clear the land did not qualify as land actively devoted to agriculture pursuant to the requirements of Idaho Code § 63-604 in 2004. It was not grazed by livestock in 2004, or grazed under a bona fide grazing lease for a couple years. However prior to the Halverson ownership, the land held cattle either grazed by the landowner or a lessee for apparently many years. The Board holds this historic grazing use is consistent with the qualifications in Idaho Code § 63-604 for land sizes over five acres. 

Thank you for helping,

 

Cal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research on (2) improper No Trespassing signs along the Big Lost River as of November 7.

 

 

Communication with Kurt Huston follows:

 

Dear Mr. Leman: 

Thank you for your well done video.  It helps one put your question in context.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOQoQif1aU

As stated on the Idaho Fish and Game sign in the video, the public does have the right to be within the river channel (below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)).  The public does not have the right to cross private land to get to the river channel without the private landowner’s permission.  An analogy would be someone cutting through your backyard to get to a public park without permission. 

I looked at the Idaho Fish and Game regulations.  It outlines very well how access is defined when a bridge is involved.  The link to that document is: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/fish/rules/full_booklet.pdf

On page 15, there is an illustration of a bridge crossing.  Depending on the granted right-of-way width given by the landowner to the road department that has responsibility for this road, public access beside the bridge would determined by that right-of-way width.

In the specific instance you show in the video, the general public would get access to the river via the signed access and then would have to remain within the river channel below the OHWM to fish above or below the designated public access.

Also attached is an Attorney General’s Opinion that covers the public trust doctrine quite well, although for a different purpose, for your information. 

 

If you have additional general questions, please feel free to contact me again.  If you have questions regarding the specific conditions at this bridge near Mackay, please contact the Idaho Fish and Game and the local road jurisdiction. 

 

Kurt Houston

 

From: Calvin Leman [mailto:calvin_leman2001@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:14 AM
To: Kurt Houston
Subject: Big Lost River in Mackay, Idaho

 


Operations Chief-South: Kurt Houston
Email: khouston@idl.idaho.gov
300 North 6th Street Suite 103 - P O Box 83720
Boise ID 83720-0050
phone (208) 334-0200 - fax (208) 334-2339

Kurt, 

At the Smelter Bridge in Mackay, Idaho, along the Big Lost River, No Trespassing signs and a fence stop the public from going on the river, since 2001.  Before that people accessed the river there.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOQoQif1aU 

Access to Big Lost River Stopped

How can I Iearn the law and practice of Idaho River access by people?

 Thank you for helping,

 Cal
 

Calvin Leman
305 Washington Street
Salmon, ID 83467
208-756-4104 phone or fax