Judge finds state tax payments, exemptions "palpably arbitrary"

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

December 7, 2007

Anonymous The Press Republican Fri Dec 07, 2007, 08:01 AM EST

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A judge has found the mix of tax payments and exemptions on state land "palpably arbitrary" and issued a ruling to stop such payments to municipalities following review of his decision by higher courts.

The lawsuit was filed by a town supervisor from western New York against then Gov. George Pataki, the state Legislature and its leaders and the comptroller, claiming some municipalities got state tax money or payments in lieu of taxes while others like his town unfairly did not.

Acting State Supreme Court Justice Timothy J. Walker, in a ruling Nov. 14, agreed. He noted "recognized disparity" resulting in "invidious discrimination" and denying equal protection under law.

"The state constitution does not prohibit dual tax rates or require that all taxpayers be treated the same. It requires only that those similarly situated be treated uniformly," Walker wrote.

The suit was filed by John C. Dillenburg III, who was supervisor in the town of Arkwright in Chautauqua County.

The judge noted the first statute to permit taxation of state-owned land was in 1886 for the Forest Preserve, and many other measures followed. The original justification "bore a rational relationship to legitimate state purpose," like compensating municipalities for the large state-owned parcels that would otherwise be exempt from local taxes in the Adirondack and Catskill forest preserves, or the benefits of state ownership to residents of other parts of the state, like watershed protection.

But some later statutory expansions "divorced the rational relationship from any legitimate state purpose," Walker wrote.

Since he stayed his own ruling, it has no immediate effect. The attorney general's office, which representing the state in the lawsuit, is expected to appeal.

John Sheehan, spokesman for the Adirondack Council, said ending such payments in the 6-million acre Adirondack Park, with 2.7 million acres of state land and another 1 million acres covered by state easements, would have "terrible ramifications" for the region's economy and possibly for the preserve.