Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto power Tuesday to kill a legislative compromise that would have cut the state's Williamson Act subvention to counties by 20 percent. The Hun axed it all, leaving a token $1,000 in the fund.
Reports are coming in from rural counties across the state:
"Fresno County will lose about $4.8 million in Williamson Act money ...Tulare County will lose about $3.4 million in Williamson Act money, officials said. Madera County Supervisor Frank Bigelow said his county will be out $1.3 million. 'We're either going to have to borrow the money ... or we're going to have to make cuts to police or libraries,' he said." -- Fresno Bee, July 29, 2009 (via CVSEN clipping service)
Tehama County to lose $800,000 -- Corning Observer, July 28, 2009
Eighth District Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada ... said the governor's "reduction in annual Williamson Act subventions to local governments for forgone property tax revenues, in effect, eliminates the Act and continues the assault on agriculture in California. Without this land protection program, California will likely lose more farmland to development -- something we will never be able to regain." -- Woodland Daily Democrat, July 29, 2009.
Glenn County to lose $950,000 in state subventions for land enrolled in the Williamson Act -- Orland Press-Register, July 28, 2009
Shasta, Sisciyou, Tehama and Trinity counties combined will lose $2 million in subventions -- Redding Record-Searchlight, July 29, 2009
Butte County will lose $600,000 in subventions -- Chico Enterprise-Record, July 29, 2009
Fresno County will lose about $4.8 million in Williamson Act money ...Tulare County will lose about $3.4 million in Williamson Act money, officials said. Madera County Supervisor Frank Bigelow said his county will be out $1.3 million. "We're either going to have to borrow the money ... or we're going to have to make cuts to police or libraries," he said. -- Fresno Bee, July 29, 2009
It's unclear from the early reports quite how the counties and their farmers under Williamson Act contract are going to work this out. Just because the state cancels the subvention it pays the counties to backfill county property-tax losses from enrolled farm and ranch land, does this automatically mean that counties will raise property taxes on enrolled agricultural land? The history of state subventions has been that the state has increased them to make preserving farm land more attractive to counties. Yet, the Agricultural Preserve and Williamson Act are county-option programs.
Here in Merced County, which passed its Agricultural Preserve-Williamson Act in 2000, some leaders saying it would provide agricultural mitigation for UC Merced -- a purpose for which the program was never designed nor could effect -- we haven't heard a peep about the Hun's blue-line veto. We are certain, however, that we have somehow erred in our survey of the press on the matter so far and that tomorrow, spokespersons for agriculture and the County will illuminate our ignorance on this subject and tell us it really ain't so, when they get around to dealing with the hottest agricultural news in the state.
We're curious to hear what our leaders think will happen to the price of agricultural land in the Valley, already falling, if counties begin taxing land under Williamson Act contract at its real estate rather than agricultural production value.
Or will these farming counties, where "family" agribusiness has brought so much prosperity to so many, provide the subventions themselves?
Finance, insurance and real estate special interests govern California as is fitting, because the people of the state sold it to them.