|
|
Post by JBJ on Nov 19, 2014 17:56:03 GMT -7
After 2 trials over the last three years with Jackson County and the Oregon Department of Revenue we just recently obtained a favorable ruling that will force Jackson County and the Oregon department of Revenue to follow what is already current law. Honeybees are considered livestock under the law and are recognized as acceptable farm use... duh right? This is the second time since 2000 the county and department of revenue have sought to disqualify EFU properties from farm tax status where honeybees were the primary farming activity; asserting that honeybees were not sufficient use of the land. This makes two cases about 10 years apart that we have won on properties where we have located commercial apiaries. Our last case we were represented pro bono with an attorney from Oregonians in Action who is a land rights activist group. I had assumed that the matter was settled in 2000 when we won a similar case, but I guess our tax dollars never stop working.
Keep Farming Beekeepers!
|
|
|
|
Post by toddbalsiger on Dec 1, 2014 0:29:33 GMT -7
Well, this IS really good news. Way to go John! Thanks for fighting this fight and creating another case law precedent in our favor. Hopefully this will be the nail in the coffin.
Was there any guidelines established for what constitutes a commercial operation on a property? Minimum densities, etc?
Funny, I mostly despise Oregonians In Action, but grudgingly will admit they did me a favor in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by drew on Dec 2, 2014 7:39:51 GMT -7
So there are rulings in favor and against, correct?
What where the differences in those cases, does this still not set up for problems down the line. Everyone will point at the ruling(s) in "there" favor ?? 
|
|
|
|
Post by NormCounterman on Dec 2, 2014 9:46:01 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by HarryVanderpool on Dec 2, 2014 20:16:54 GMT -7
Nice Job, John!
|
|
|
|
Post by toddbalsiger on Dec 4, 2014 1:17:31 GMT -7
Liked the vid of john.
|
|
|
|
Post by JBJ on Dec 6, 2014 14:02:08 GMT -7
So there are rulings in favor and against, correct?
What where the differences in those cases, does this still not set up for problems down the line. Everyone will point at the ruling(s) in "there" favor ?? We won an open and shut case in 2000, lost a case in 2012, and then won the appeal to that case in a higher court in Salem just recently. In the case we lost (it was done over the telephone) the judge cited out of state precedent in his ruling. I think the matter is settled for now as long as we stick to Oregon laws and precedents. The County argued that because of soil type bees were not"sufficient use of the land" to qualify the property for EFU tax status. The letter of the law states clearly that honey bees are considered livestock and acceptable farm use. The irony here is that if the landowner planted hay on the 20 acres the county would have been fine with that despite the fact that I can generate way more revenue and positive downstream economics with commercial beekeeping. As long as the farm income requirement is met one should be able to farm whatever one chooses to farm. Bees are big news and very popular in this day and age. Municipalities just look bad and waste tax payers dollars when they come out on the wrong side of this issue. There should not be a double standard just because our livestock has 6 legs. |
|
|
|
Post by JBJ on Dec 6, 2014 14:08:42 GMT -7
Well, this IS really good news. Way to go John! Thanks for fighting this fight and creating another case law precedent in our favor. Hopefully this will be the nail in the coffin. Was there any guidelines established for what constitutes a commercial operation on a property? Minimum densities, etc? Funny, I mostly despise Oregonians In Action, but grudgingly will admit they did me a favor in this case. I assume we can only go off of what the court has accepted which is about 11.3 hive per acre in the 2000 case. Realistically we are only required to meet the minimum farm income requirement under the letter of the law. If this requirement is met and the intention of the EFU laws is met, then one would have a strong argument. EFU laws were set up to preserve farm land from development. Beekeeping in no way infringes upon this stated intention. |
|
Normy 