Help me with a little civics please. You may have many forms of democracy, but in this country I'd assume that there are protections of property and capital. As an example if 20% for land owners own 80% of the property. What fundamental prevents those smaller property owners from passing a petition with their 80% larger number to make the large property owner pay 80% of the cost for an improvement without his permission.
I've been under the illusion that a petition like that would require the owners of 51% of the property to ask for an assessment by acreage, but I'm wrong. There is no statute requiring it. This is socialism just like a mob storming the castle and declaring “The Democratic Peoples Community of Timbuktu” and will never be allowed by the county – I hope. At the grass roots level I've experienced a very rapid “better deal for me – that's fair, because this guy may someday sell all that land and make some money” attitude. Scares me, because that thinking is rooted in socialism.
What prevents 2 guys with $5 each from from saying to a guy with twenty bucks “you've gotta pay 4 fifths the price of lunch” when we're all eating the same thing?

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

This might be awfully simplistic but what you pay for lunch usually depends on what and where you consume not what you can afford to.

What the county can do is governed by your state and its own charters... no?

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

Sure. But in this country what basic protection do we have from a majority from infringing property rights with what seems like a socialist agenda. Socialism = a society where property is controled by majority rule??

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

I thought that is socialistic countries, you don't really own anything and the 3 guys at the top can do what they want?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I think you only have the right to equal treatment under that socialism.

This is real hard to think about without specifics btw.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

OK, look at this as an example. On one side of a dirt road you've got an 800 ac. ranch. To the side and on the other side of the road are 50, 4 ac. lots and homes. Should the home owners be able to form a road improvment district and make the rancher pay for 80% of the total cost? The rancher is not a subdivider and has never sold any property. I'd expect all to pay equally and to consider road frontage which may make the ranch pay more along with any one else that fronts the road. Total cost $1.2mil. In the real world we're talking about 4 mi. of road and a good deal more acreage, but the princaple is the same.

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

Boy thats a tough one.

Maybe if you can show that your property is not benifited by the road improvement in a significant way you can opt out of the district or get them to reasses the tax accordingly.
edit: The 'rancher' bennefits from the road but maybe only the 1st 1/4 mile is a benifit to him and that could be the basis for a more equitable division of the tax burden...

It certainly seems unequal for an unwilling partner to be brought along to foot the majority of the bill but I think you might need a 'high end' lawyer to tell you about your options here. Not a case you want to be on the loosing end of.

Do you have a link to the law? ...I can't find it.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

I would guess that the costs would be divided based upon lineal feet of frontage rather than by acreage.

I think that's why some states offer farm and ranch exemptions.

For example in LA and MS (probably other states, too) a tree farmer pays taxes of cut trees and the value of the land on that basis. It's a good way for some folks to avoid taxes, true. But therein lies a valuable lesson in unintended consequences.

Back in the early 1900's there was a big populist push. Folks wanted rich people to "pay their fair share." So populist politicians enacted taxes that taxed the "true" value of the land, including the crop. No big deal, right?

So you own some forest land, say 40 acres (and a mule). Here comes the assessor and says, "Your timber is worth $100, pay 5%." You pay. Next year he comes back and says, "You owe $5.01--your timber grew. And I'll be back next year, too." Being a mathematical genius, you realize that it wont be long before your timber will be costing you more than it is worth so you go over to Mr Snopes who owns the sawmill and sell your timber. You do not replant, either--where's the incentive?

But the land still has some tax value so the assessor comes for his $0.50 on land that is not producing anything. So you go to Mr Yan Kee Plutocrat and beg him to buy you out so at least you'll have something.

Bot

51% can ask but acres = votes if this is what is applying to you:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=48
...Article 5 Rural Road Improvement Districts
48-1035. Order forming district; election

A. After the hearing, the board of supervisors may adopt a resolution ordering the formation of the district, deleting any property which the board determines should be excluded from the district, adding any property which the board determines should be included in the district, modifying the proposed improvements or determining that the district not be formed.

B. If the board of supervisors determines that the district should be formed, it shall submit the formation to an election of the owners of land in the proposed district who are qualified electors of this state. At that election each owner shall have the number of votes or portions of votes equal to the number of acres or portions of acres owned by that owner in the submitted district, except that no owner may have more than one thousand two hundred eighty votes.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

Everyone will pay a percentage of their properties' assessed value.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

If each lot and the rancher owned one car, why should 1/51 (rancher) of the drivers using the road pay 80%?

__________________
MB-less

Exactly my point -
I'm not being very clear I guess. What I'm trying to get to is that this seems like a classic definition of democratic socialism for a majority of smaller acreage owners with an 80% majority in terms of parcels to be able to petition for an assessment based on acreage when 20% of the owners control 80% of the acreage. It can be filed with the county, but I'm looking for a basic argument that this goes against the capitalist model we live by. Is there some basic guiding principal that provides a protection or forces an assessment by parcel = everybody pays the same. This is actually happening by the way, but in a somewhat more complex twist.
We've filed a petition to be assessed by parcel with a 68% mix of large and small owners, but are being sued by a group that says we did not explain to the 80% smaller parcel owners that they could file by acreage and basically screw us. Our defense is that it would be absurd to think the county would honor a petition that is only signed by smaller parcel owners that would pay as little as $1,000 to, in the worst case $60,000, by larger owners of a section.
I'm just looking for the guy on the streets view as I've been shocked by how quickly people will jump ship when it's money over principal. Lawyers are involved. Interestingly some of the right wing loonies that like to dress up and play militiaman are leading the charge against the larger owners. These are the guys that portray themselves as conservatives and as I see it are pushing a socialist agenda. See Link TV's special “Walking the line” show, and this guy is at least the fat one that makes some sense. We've been front page news around here three times now and this is getting out of control as the unspoken player is the county assessor, whose family's ranch (homesteaded in 1902) happens to be included in the district along with his brother's (the fire chief) investment property. James (his brother) bought it for his retirement and since property doesn't send you a check every month, may have to sell some off- pay cap gains tax – just to pay the assessment.
I just think this stinks in the US, but what is worse is to see people forsake what I'd consider our basic ideals of capitalism for what will amount to $3 or $4,000 to the smaller 80% owners of 20% of the land, and since each one is a vote they'll probably win.

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

Is it a commercial ranch?

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Is this under AZ title 48 'Rural Road District"? (see my post above)

It indicates that votes are aportioned by acerage.

Or has the district already been approved?

P.S. If you're looking for an argument there might not not be much of one, but I'd bet useing the term 'looking for a hand out' might ruffle some feathers.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html