HomeMy WebLinkAbout0861 a-; ~
a.
F
- - 1' ~ - -
- -
- -
~ _
~ -
. ~ ;
_ ft. .
unrelated to the actual use of the taxpayer's property. The statute
_ 2
- at issue in Rainey, Section 193.461(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1973),
conferred upon county agricultural zoning boards the authority to
dewy an agricultural classification if the property vas bounded by -
urbaa or metropolitan development oa two or more sides aad the board
- found that continued use of the Property for agricultural purposes
would dater ordarl~cammunity expansion. Section 193.461(4)(b) vas
sustained due, is-part, to our determination that Article vIZ, Section
4(a), is permissive rather thaw-mandatory: that it eapovers the
legislature to remove the favored treatment of agricultural property.
As wa noted is Rainey, "there is ao 'right' to (this) special
treatment We further concluded that the enactment constituted
a valid exercise of the State's police power and, consequently,
.appellant-was not denied equal protection or due process of law.
- This is so because the public welfare is fostered by the removal of
favored tax treatment from those lands,. the continued agricultural
use of which has ceased to serve the best interests of the community,
~ -
f by hindering its growth and development.
Appellee's argument that land must be classified for ad valorea
i
tax purposes according to the use to which it is put purportedly draws
supFort Pram the opinion of this Court 3n Straugha v. Tuck, 354 So.2d-
368 (Fla. 1977). '"here, wa reviewed the legislative histosy of the
( -
enactments regarding agricultural classifications:
Florida's original 'Greenbelt Law,' Chapter 59-226, -
Lavs of Florida (1959) extended preferential
treatment to lands "used exclusively for agricul- -
tnral purposes- 'and all subaequeat enactments
have been conaistaat, at least with reference to
the nee requirement. Za the leading Casa oa this
subject, the Fourth District Court of Appeal
unequivocally stated:
The favorable tax treatment provided by -
this statute is predicated on land use,
that is, physical activit-1 conducted on
the land. (Pootnotes aoiitted) tinder the
terse of this statute, as ve understand
them, if the land is physically used for
agricultural purposes, it mast be accorded
agricultural zoning, provided the use is
primarily for bona fide agricultural
purposes. Hausman v. Fwdkin, 268 So.2d
407 (Fla. 4t
A similar provision now appears as S 193.461(4)(b), _
Fla. Stet. (1977).
- -5-
BOUKJ~~ .PAGE OVl) - ~ .