BI, trying to get beyond the semantics here to my original intent.
In the case of Timber Island and in many similar cases, a large portion of desirable, developable land was placed in a conservation trust preventing development. For tax purposes, the land is now less valuable and the tax bill goes down. The land owner still has the same private use of the land. So in effect, everyone else in town pays a higher tax to subsidize this land.
The benefit to the town is that the land is never developed. But is that enough? Shouldn't the public have some access to the land they are paying for?
I'm not trying to say that Timber should change their deed. As far as I know its legalling binding and can't easily be changed. I'm just standing by my statement that Timber Island is a private park and other taxpayers are paying some of its fair share of the town tax base.
|