HomeMy WebLinkAbout0870 s~
,
I -
~ _
- ~
- t -
.
` ~ t, _ .
_ ~ . • ~ ~ .F _ - ~
~
~~TT, J., Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in that part of the majority opinion which holds
this statute unconstitutional, but I dissent to that part which
holds that classification of lands_naed not be based on character
or use of the land. -
In the first place, the majority should never have reached
the classification question. That issue was not presented by the
facts sad therefore not ruled upon by the trial judge.. Having
addressed the issue, the majority adopts the wrong criteria for
land classification tinder the constitution.
Article VIZ, section 4, Florida Constitution, provides:
By general larr, regulations shall be prescribed
which shall secure a just valuation of all prop-
erty for ad valorem taxation, provided: _
(a) Agricultural land may 6e classified
by general law and assessed solely oa_the basis
of character or use.
!iy disagreement with the majority stems from its interpre-
tation of this section. The majority believes that while agricul-
tural assessment must be based on use, classification of-agricultural
i
land may be based on criteria wholly uazelated to use. First, the -
majority correctly notes that under this provision, the legislature
may grant ar withhold favorable tax treatment by not classifying j-
any Land as agricultural. Next, the majority reasons that since
there is no 'right' to the special treatment and since the deter-
mination of whether or aot to classify 'is a matter committed to
the legislature,'-the legislature caa cllassify land as agricultural
or non-agricultural without regard to use. According to my colleagues,
it is only the •assessment of agricultural land which must be based
upon its character or use.' To reach this coacluaion, the majority -
rscedes from our two most recent cases addressing this issue.
:toden v. R i R Land Managesient, Inc., 368 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1978),
and Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368 iFla. 1977). In~both Roden
and Tuck, we e~sphasized that use is 'the guidepost in classifying
land' and that 'use is now and has always been the test.' 368 So.2d
at 589 and 354 So. 2d at 370. As support for its position that
assessment, but not classification, must be based on use, the r•
majority relies upon Rainey v. Nelson, 257 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1972).
In that case, this court upheld a statute pesmittinq agricultural
-14- a~317 PEE ~