moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 19, 2013 17:11:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Dec 19, 2013 18:33:07 GMT -5
Find attached the new Clean & Green Policy. Comments by this author will be withheld until further review and interpretation. moose, I'm afraid that someone will have to translate this from legalese to plain English for me to understand. A question though, if you own less than 10 acres, but have at least a $2000 income from agricultural related activity, can you still enroll in Clean and Green? Am I also reading it correctly that someone who has been in Clean and Green and wasn't qualified/abused the system etc. that they can take the land out without penalty? In a totally unrelated note, I would love to have a handwriting analyzer take a look at Marty Qually's signature  |
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 20, 2013 0:26:02 GMT -5
Find attached the new Clean & Green Policy. Comments by this author will be withheld until further review and interpretation. moose, I'm afraid that someone will have to translate this from legalese to plain English for me to understand. A question though, if you own less than 10 acres, but have at least a $2000 income from agricultural related activity, can you still enroll in Clean and Green? Am I also reading it correctly that someone who has been in Clean and Green and wasn't qualified/abused the system etc. that they can take the land out without penalty? Yes, if you own less than 10 acres but have at least a $2000 income from producing an agricultural commodity, the land devoted to the ag commodity would be eligible for ag-use. IF the majority of the land was devoted to said commodity, the "farmstead land" could then receive the preferential discount. That's the OFFICIAL version. Any similarity between the OFFICIAL version and the County's version is most likely an accident (LMAO)  Once you're in, you're in... and CANNOT take it out without penalty, EXCEPT for a few (abbreviated here) exceptions... The land is granted or donated to/for: - a school district
- a municipality
- a county
- a volunteer fire company
- a volunteer ambulance service
- tax exempt corporations or religious places of worship
It looks like the county wrote in their own exemptions to forgive rollbacks due to errors they made (either purposely or by accident), errors enrollees made (either purposely or by accident), and they also gave themselves 30 days to make corrections if mistakes are found (insert your own conclusions here). Basically, it looks like they are making their own rules, covering their own asses, and forgiving a whole bunch of tax monies that should go back into the taxing districts they rightfully belong. That last sentence sums up my thoughts on the whole Policy and I'm not going to critique it here further unless someone has specific questions as Lifesaver did. |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Dec 20, 2013 8:08:05 GMT -5
Basically, it looks like they are making their own rules, covering their own asses, and forgiving a whole bunch of tax monies that should go back into the taxing districts they rightfully belong. Not cool. I wonder if they'd be so forgiving if the cash came from their pockets in an amount they could quantify. |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Dec 20, 2013 11:03:36 GMT -5
moose, check your messages!
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 20, 2013 14:23:17 GMT -5
Motion_for_Temporary_Injuction_12-20-13_wit....pdf (619.16 KB) Hot off the press! Attached is my OFFICIAL view of the New Adams County Clean & Green Policy. This document was filed this morning and is now a matter of public record, so I offer it to the folks of BoroVent for free. It could be purchased at the Courthouse if desired. Basically it is a Motion for Temporary Injunction to halt the implementation of the Policy until the Honorable Court can review and decide on the policy's interpretation of the law. Please note that the file was too large to upload here, so I had to cut out the exhibits and certificate of service to reduce the filesize. Those are available at the courthouse. My unofficial, let my hair down view of the policy is that the county recognized that they were not right (in most cases) and altered wording, added definitions, or twisted the intent of the Program to meet their needs/desires. The Program is designed to be an exchange. In order to get enough votes to pass this bill they needed to make concessions to get it to pass. These concessions included verbiage that essentially made the following exchanges. It was intended that 90% of the people agreed (via the Legislature) to subsidize 10% of the peoples' land. In exchange, those folks receiving the subsidies are to bring their goods to market, so the 90% may benefit from those goods. The county has apparently/allegedly taken the stance that there needs to be no exchange of goods to make this deal good. The law, as I see it is that they are mandated to apply a strict construction of the law. In other words, they are supposed to MAKE SURE those receiving the subsidies damn well deserve them, and they uphold their part of the bargain. That is why, we are we are, at this stage. Cue up "Another Somebody's Done Somebody Wrong" song. Reviewing my statements above, I forgot to let my hair down and curse and demean our elected and nominated officials. I'll have to do that another time
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Dec 20, 2013 15:33:13 GMT -5
Well done. It seems like quite a bit of it should be open and shut (i'm not an attorney, so if open and shut means something specific, maybe that's not it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 20, 2013 16:08:00 GMT -5
· What Moose wrote:
"11 Pages of interesting facts and sound opinions."
· What the Commissioners read:
"Blah, blah, blah..."
· What the Court will most likely do:
"..."
My interpretation of the conversations that will go on within the next couple of weeks:
"So, why does this guy believe he has standing in the Court of Law?"
"It doesn't matter whether he is absolutely right, if he does not have standing - so can we get a ruling on that first?"
"Just pass the law as proposed, and we'll revisit it in the future."
"Ignore him, he'll go away."
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 20, 2013 16:09:19 GMT -5
goddamrabblerousers
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 21, 2013 17:08:04 GMT -5
I like the Gettysburg Times today: "Hollinger Files Another Motion Against County"
... ANOTHER...!?
... as in "this guy just won't quit harassing these poor wittle Commissioners with yet ANOTHER Motion". 
It didn't even make a headline on the online blurb at gettysburgtimes.com , but it did make A3 below the fold!
I've already read the Motion, as I'm sure a few of you have.
But County Solicitor John Hartzell said late Friday, that he had not yet read the injunction motion.
"I will read it, and we'll take appropriate legal action if it is necessary".
I guess Hartzell is not too concerned.
Boy, I sure hope it's not necessary to take Legal Action - unless that "Action" is to make the County's Interpretation of the Law "LEGAL".
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Dec 21, 2013 20:52:38 GMT -5
I like the Gettysburg Times today: "Hollinger Files Another Motion Against County"
... ANOTHER...!?
... as in "this guy just won't quit harassing these poor wittle Commissioners with yet ANOTHER Motion".
It didn't even make a headline on the online blurb at gettysburgtimes.com , but it did make A3 below the fold!
I've already read the Motion, as I'm sure a few of you have.
But County Solicitor John Hartzell said late Friday, that he had not yet read the injunction motion.
"I will read it, and we'll take appropriate legal action if it is necessary".
I guess Hartzell is not too concerned.
Boy, I sure hope it's not necessary to take Legal Action - unless that "Action" is to make the County's Interpretation of the Law "LEGAL".
goddamrabblerousers |
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Dec 22, 2013 10:15:56 GMT -5
Well, it looks to me that PA State Representative Dan Moul may be working this thing from another angle - knowingly or unknowingly.
I suppose one of the stumbling blocks that Allows/Requires Public Access to C&G Properties may soon be removed?
I can't say whether this has anything to actually do with C&G, but it can only make a landowner's concerns or arguments about Liability a bit harder to make.
|
|
