HomeMy WebLinkAbout0868 n - -
~ -
a -
- ~ ;
• j' ~ 4 '
- ~ _
`t\ ( -
- • ~ -
4'`
~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~
The requisite valid and substantial reason was present with regard - -
- to Section 193.4b1(4)(b), which we reviewed in Rafnay, supra.
- Although that enactment permits the denial of as agricultural - ~
classification to land without regard to its present agricultural _
- use, we held that it does sot deny those within its ambit equal
protecticn of the Law. Thisis so because the public welfare is _
fostered by the removal of favored tax treatment from those lands, i
the continued agricultural use of which has ceased to serve the best
iatereats of the comdunity, by hindering its growth and development.
The appellants here, however, have failed to show a constitutionally
justifiable reason for applying other than a present use standard '
to those property owners who have done no more than file a subdivision
plat. Because, as we have indicated, the act of platting, without -
sore, is indicative only of the use which the taxpayer intends to -
make of the platted land in the future and those is appellee's class -
have been unreasonably singled out for classification under this -
disparate standard, nie find that Section 193.46i(4)(a)4., Florida
Statutes (1975), effects a denial of equal protection of the law. _ -
-Due to our finding that Section 193.461(4)(a)4. is unconstitu- -
tional it is unnecessary for us to address the question of its ~
purported conflict with Section 195.062, Florida Statutes (1975).
Ia summary, we hold (1) that classification of agricultural
land for special tax treatment by utilization of a use standard is
sot compelled by Article VII, Section 4(a), Florida Constitution;
(2) that, nonetheless, Section 193.4b1{4)(a)4., Florida Statutes
(1975), inherently eaploys a use standard; (3) that it is unreasonable _
sad constitutionally imperaiasible to presume conclusively Eras the
recording of a subdivision plat that the platted land is not -
presently being used primarily for good faith conaercial agricultural
purposes; and (4) that although the recording of a subdivision plat
may support a conclusive presusption that the intended future use of
- the platted land will be aonagricultuzal, to single out this class
of taxpayers-from all others who are assessed on a present use
criterion is so disparate as to deny them equal protection of the law.
_12- eooK31`7 PacE X67 .