Colorado SB 50- Conservation Easement bill:
Value Of Condemned Conservation All Versions   History   FN1 - 2/2/2911 Download
_________________________________________________________________________
Roni Bell Sylvester's reworked version 3/1/11

I re-worked this more, with Ric and Chuck's help.
Please know the reason I felt compelled to completely re-work this, was to illustrate how ludicrous initial condemnation bill is.
CE's should not enjoy favorite child status.
Brokering CE tax credits is big business wherein the purchasers enjoy anywhere from 15 to 25% return on their investment, the broker gets a nice little percentage, the funders get control over the initial property owner's property, and the property owner gets zip in the long run.
There are attorneys who specialize in busting so-called fail proof trusts.
Surely some will pop up and specialize in busting said "iron clad" CE agreements.
On perpetuity: Anyone who thinks their will will hold after their death is beyond naive.
Which reminds me; South Dakota has 10 year C.E. limit, - why is CO beholden to perpetuity? Is the dictate "perpetuity" state or federal?
I'd rather see our legislators busy themselves with a necessary bill that could rightfully bring such parties as Kenny Gyrman whole; parties who've suffered tremendous losses due to "speculation" of a project (see Super Slab), "ESA"(production put on hold while some "authority" takes a look see) , government bullying on water diversion away from beneficial users and more...
SB-50 - even with its amendment, should be stopped before its gets anyone just a little bit pregnant.
Thank you,
Roni
PS. Use as you like.
______________________________________________________________________________
First Regular Session
Sixty-eighth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
INTRODUCEDLLS NO. 11-0264.01 Gregg Fraser SENATE BILL 11-050
Senate Committees House CommitteesAgriculture and Natural ResourcesA BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING A REQUIREMENT THAT A CONDEMNING AUTHORITY PAY
102 FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR LAND SUBJECTED TO A TAKING, CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR PURCHASED DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
The bill specifies that if land subject to a Takings
is condemned, the condemning authority shall pay no less than the fair
market value of the property as if unencumbered by easement, taking or purchased development right.
1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. 38-30.5-108, Colorado Revised Statutes, is
3 amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read:
4 38-30.5-108. Enforcement - remedies.
5 ALL OR A PORTION OF ANY PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN *ENCUMBERED THROUGH
6 SUBJECTION TO SPECULATION OR ACTUALIZATION BY ANY ENTITY (GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE)
7 OF POSSIBLE CONDEMNATION OR EMINENT DOMAIN SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A TAKING.
8 10 IN EVENT TAKING EXTINGUISHES PRE-DATED ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY CAUSING
9 PROPERTY OWNER TO RELEASE PROPERTY FOR LESS THAN SAID VALUE, *JUST COMPENSATION
10 WILL BE ARRANGED AND PAID BY ENTITY TO PROPERTY OWNER. PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
11 BE BROUGHT WHOLE FOR THE TAKING OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OR PROPERTY INTEREST
12 CONDEMNED AS THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER ENCUMBERED. THE JUST COMPENSATION
13 AWARD SHALL THEREAFTER BE APPORTIONED BY UTILIZING THE MARGIN OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
14 PRE-DATED ASSESSED VALUE AND DATE OF CALL FOR RESTITUTION. .BEFORE ANY ENTITY SUBJECTS
15 A PROPERTY OWNER TO ENCUMBRANCES, ENTITY MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF ESCROW ACCOUNT WITH
16 ABILITY ENOUGH TO FULFILL JUST COMPENSATION TO PROPERTY OWNER. ENTITY MUST ALSO BRING
17 CURRENT ANY TAX OR PENALTY THAT MAY HAVE ACCRUED DURING SAID TAKINGS PERIOD.
*Just Compensation is required to be paid by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and counterpart state constitutions) when private property is taken (or in some states, damaged) for public use. Compensation shall include loss of income due to taking.
*Encumbered - Impedes, burdens, or places charges upon property owners right to use property as is customary.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Mack's overview 3/2/11

I am going to try and explain this as I see it.
I take out a conservation easement and my land appraises at 200.00 per acre, my development right appraises at 100.00 per acre. I now have a piece of property that is worth 100.00 per the appraisel. The land trust has a piece of property that is appraised also at 100.00.
Fast forward 10 years, my neighbors land across the fence is now valued 400.00 per acre with no conservation easement on it, unencumbered. The increase in value to my neighbor is the result of the development rights increasing in value.
The price of widgets that I produce has increased the value of my land 50.00 now. That is all I have to sell, development rights are gone, my land is worth only what I can produce off of it. So therefore land is worth 400.00 per acre, 50.00 of which is increased value of widgets, so my land now appraises at 150.00 and land trust's interest is now 250.00. I am mad I took the c.e., but I got paid up front ten years ago for the value of my development rights. Money in my pocket right then.
Now since a government entity wants to use eminent domain I should be made whole. Was I not made whole 10 years ago? If I were thinking only of myself and not my heirs wouldn't I take a conservation easement if I thought that it might be condemned in 10 years? I get a 100.00 up front wait 10 years and get another 200.00, but my appraised land that is emcumbered is only worth 150.00, so I get 100.00 then and 200.00 now, appraisel says it is worth 400.00 so I get 300.00 for 150.00 land in the end. If that is not double dipping I have an open mind convince me otherwise.
Mack
_______________________________________________________

That's the point! Ric

_______________________________________________________

Perpetual CEs are a fraud from the start, in the common meaning of the term as well as by the legal definition.

Nothing whatsoever to do with preservation or conservation and everything to do with transferring the rights of property from the private to the public estate.

As long as government is involved in the process, at any level, abuses will continue and will get worse.

Short-term CEs might help accomplish some worthy conservation goals.

However, the elimination of inheritance, capital gains and real property taxation would render all CEs about as useful as tits on a boar hog.

Allow property owners the freedom to choose and the incentives to preserve what's worth preserving, and it will be protected and preserved by truly private, voluntary means, without sucking the blood of the taxpayer.

The sooner the neo-feudal CE monstrosity is relegated to the trash heap, the better.

And the same for the whole neo-fascist, public-private partnership clan of elitist land trust thieves.

Intolerant in my old age? You bet!

L. M. Schwartz, Chairman
The Virginia Land Rights Coalition
POB 85
McDowell, Virginia FOC 24458
540-396-6217
"Working to Protect the Rights of Virginia's Property Owners"
Visit our website at http://www.vlrc.org/