News -> News TUE, SEP 13 10:05AM by IND Monthly Staff

Closing the Ag Loophole

20110914-news-0101Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Written by Heather Miller

Location: Dover Boulevard just off Ambassador Caffery
Acreage: 7 acres
Property taxes paid in 2010: $20.44
Owner: Dwight Andrus Jr.

This 7-acre tract off Ambassador Caffery Parkway sits among the most valuable commercial land in the city. Owned by Dwight Andrus Jr., the property does not appear to have any agricultural activity taking place but nonetheless paid $20 in property taxes last year. Andrus did not return several calls made to his office for comment. Lafayette Parish Tax Assessor Conrad Comeaux was unable to confirm what type, if any, farming is taking place on the land, but he says his office has begun a new process for monitoring agricultural land within the city. Using new aerial photos, the assessor’s office will identify properties potentially not complying with the law’s loose standards. By early next year, those property owners will be notified of their loss in agricultural status and must re-apply for farmland classification, certifying that there is some type of ag activity taking place on the land.

Comeaux, who is again unopposed this election cycle and will begin his fourth term as the parish tax assessor next year, admits that a few of his larger campaign contributions have come from landowners who use the tax loophole to pay next-to-nothing in property taxes. Glenn Stewart, Daniel Saloom, Richard Chappuis and John Chappuis are among the contributors who have benefited from the exemption, though Comeaux says he doesn’t look at the individual property tax brackets of people who choose to donate to his campaign.

As for whether the state law will ever be amended, The Independent has reached out to Lafayette’s legislative delegation to gauge lawmakers’ interest in reforming the statute. State Reps. Joel Robideaux, Rickey Hardy, Nancy Landry and Page Cortez (who is unopposed in his Senate bid) responded to our inquiries before press time Monday. Robideaux says he will research the current law and discuss the issue with legislative staffers to see what remedies, if any, are available.

Notes Cortez, “I am certainly willing to look at anything where there are misuses or unintended consequences of the law.”

“I’m not sure if it would have to be taken up in a fiscal session or not, but I will start looking into possible resolutions to the unfair application of the agriculture classification,” Landry says.

20110914-news-0102Hardy calls the ag exemption an “unfair practice” and maintains that “help is on the way.”

Comeaux says he would support a change in the law, depending on the language and whether the outcome would be fair for both landowners and farmers. Comeaux also points out that the law already has been altered a few times in the past — but not for the benefit of local tax coffers. When agricultural land use value was defined by the Legislature in 1976, the law clearly stated that when ag land is converted to another use, the property owner must pay five years in deferred taxes based on the land’s current usage. That means once ag-classified land is developed for, say, commercial use, the property owner would owe five years of back taxes based on the land’s current commercial value.

At some point in the early 1990s, that language was stripped from the law.

Reinstating that requirement is a good starting point to fixing a bad law that costs Lafayette Parish tens of millions in lost tax revenue each year.

[Editor’s Note: “Fair Share” is part of an ongoing Independent Weekly investigative series to expose local property owners taking advantage of what is widely viewed as an outdated state law. The state law, first reported in The Ind’s April 6 cover story “Green Acres,” mainly relies on the honesty of landowners who claim that there is some type of agricultural activity on their land in order to pay extremely low property taxes. While we argue that the law needs to be changed and will work to see that happen, we also maintain there is no excuse to exploit it. We have identified numerous tracts of land throughout the city that benefit from the exemption yet have no agricultural activity whatsoever taking place on them. Since we started this series, The Independent has been criticized for not reporting on certain agricultural properties and their owners due to personal interests at this newspaper, particularly property located within River Ranch. However, when this Fair Share project began, The Ind used a map provided by the Lafayette Parish Assessor’s Office that identified all agricultural property within the city limits of Lafayette as of March 23, 2011. River Ranch had no property listed on that map; the numerous tracts of agricultural land and their owners have all been identified using the same map.]

Exposed:
1. 1900 Kaliste Saloom Road (corner of Kaliste Saloom and Camellia Boulevard)
    • 13.5 acres
    • owned by Parc Lafayette developer Glenn Stewart
    • paid $42 in property taxes in 2010
    • lost ag status for 2011 due to breaking ground on development
2. 3100 Ambassador Caffery
    • 11 acres of forested land
    • owned mostly by members of the Arnould family
    • paid $28.69 in property taxes in 2010, is on the market for $3.3 million
    • lost ag status due to The Independent Weekly’s investigation
3. 200 Alleman Drive
    • 8 acres of undeveloped land with a residential building     using city services
    • owned by attorney Greg Logan
    • paid $17.41 in property taxes in 2010
    • lost ag status due to The Independent Weekly’s investigation



Comments (34)add
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 14, 2011 - 02:18 pm
Very nice work. Especially following up with another example of this, and digging up Comeaux's campaign contributors. Now THAT'S funny.

Conrad Comeaux's up for re-election? He's running unopposed?
...
written by James Melancon , September 14, 2011 - 06:06 pm
Assuming the law is changed, land owners without means, may have to sell the land. The economic consequences could result in depressing real estate values, or maybe not. Something to think about.
...
written by SwampRat , September 14, 2011 - 06:18 pm
I'm seriously trying to get something straight: there's a law that allows agricultural land to be taxed at a lower rate. And these people are using that law to pay less taxes. Am I correct in putting those facts together?

Tell me: would you choose to pay a higher rate of tax even though the law allows you to pay less? Come on now, be serious. I know for a fact that I sure as hell wouldn't.

Sanctimonious media is probably the worst form of media there is.
...
written by Gunga Din , September 14, 2011 - 06:43 pm
by SwampRat "Sanctimonious media is probably the worst form of media....
--------------

You mean there is another kind?
...
written by MeMe , September 14, 2011 - 06:47 pm
Unfortunately, Conrad is running unopposed.
...
written by Tim Supple , September 14, 2011 - 09:24 pm
The issue is not that landowner takes advantage of the law, it's that the law encourages these landowners to take advantage of an unfair tax policy. It was thought to be "supportive of farmers". But the reality is its not supportive of farmers, just the opposite. It's artificially increases the value of this particular type of real estate to the detriment of "real farmers" and to the development of our community. It serves no other purpose. It's tax subsidy and welfare at its worst. I hope the legislators of Acadiana will study the issue and actually do something to correct this inequity. Being on of the benficiaries of this inequitable tax policy, I know for a fact that it is wrong.

Thanks to the Ind. and Heather for continuing to bring this fraud to light.
...
written by Southsider , September 15, 2011 - 01:37 am
How about exposing the landowner of the property located at 1826 West Pinhook Road(corner of Pinhook and Kaliste SALOOM). 22 acres of wooded land...taxes paid = $298 for the city, $1400 for the parish. I already know who the landowner is...lets see if you will expose them. This is the third time i have given you the info.
...
written by James Melancon , September 15, 2011 - 01:11 pm
by Tim Supple "it's that the law encourages these landowners to take advantage of an unfair tax policy. It was thought to be "supportive of farmers"
--------------------

Mr. Supple is correct in that the law was written to be supportive of farmers. Nonetheless, how could the law be improved?

You could require proof of farming but that can be difficult and requires more effort on both the assessor and landowner, hence more red tape.

A better solution is to repeal property taxes and replace with a local income tax. The local tax would be collected by the state on the Louisiana income tax return. Income taxes are based on the ability to pay, property taxes are not, therefore more fair.

Also, the taxpayers would get an extra benefit since the assessor offices would be unnecessary.
...
written by For Sale , September 15, 2011 - 01:51 pm
Asking price of property reported is around $10.00 per SF or a total of $3.049 Million...parish taxes for 2010 would have been in excess of $26,000
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 15, 2011 - 06:29 pm
"A better solution is to repeal property taxes and replace with a local income tax. " HELL NO!!! You can't be serious.
...
written by robert ellender , September 16, 2011 - 12:11 am
River Ranch doesn't have any agricultural land now because the land has now been developed.....
...
written by snaildarter , September 16, 2011 - 12:12 am
Local... Parish or City income tax could be a great idea. Just like State Income Tax, it could be deducted from Federal taxes. The result would be that the Parish or City gets the money before it goes to DC. The rate and other parameters of our local income tax could be adjusted so that those who earn little would not have to pay much if any, and top earners would have a rate that allows their deduction from Federal income taxes to offset.

Dare to dream really big and Progressive on this. This way, our leaders can get their beloved tax increase. I just hate to bitch about taxes without offering a solution. We could be just like other cities that have local tax, such as NEW YORK CITY!!
...
written by James Melancon , September 16, 2011 - 01:09 am
by ragin_cajun "repeal property taxes and replace with a local income tax. " HELL NO!!! You can't be serious.
------------------

Yes, serious. Replacing a tax based on the ability to pay is superior. How would you like to owe a tax and can't pay ? An income tax is based on the logic that you have the funds to pay, a property tax is not. It's a simple idea.

The side benefit is the elimination of a bureaucracy, the assessors office. Just think of the state wide savings if all the cost assessors office are eliminated.
...
written by James Melancon , September 16, 2011 - 01:41 pm
"Replacing a tax based on the ability to pay is superior."

Sorry, rephrase that, a tax based on the ability to pay is superior to a property tax which is not.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 16, 2011 - 05:22 pm
First of all, a person who owns property IS able to pay.

Second of all, I don't accept that a tax based on ability to pay is superior. It is certainly more "progressive", and it is right in line with Karl Marx's demands in the Communist Manifesto, but it is not "superior".

The idea that those with the "ability to pay" should pay more taxes than those deemed less able to pay is exactly consistent with another mantra introduced by Karl Marx -- "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

So tell us James, have you always been a Marxist? A Socialist? How long have you advocated Marxist ideology? Would you support other tenets of Marxism, like "abolition of all right of inheritance", or perhaps a "state monopoly on credit"? How did you become a Marxist? Did you read and think it through and choose collectivism over individualism conciously? Or did these Marxist ideas become your worldview by osmosis, without your concious and willful effort? Do you even REALIZE that you ARE a Socialist? I'm very serious, I'm very curious, and I really want to know just how a person come to hold such views while living a life of luxury and freedom in the only country that has ever been founded on the premise of individual liberty and limited government?

In all seriousness, with all due respect, please explain that to me. I have always wondered how an American can arrive at Socialism as the answer to anything.
...
written by James Melancon , September 16, 2011 - 06:37 pm
by ragin_cajun "First of all, a person who owns property IS able to pay".
--------------------

There is a cliche "land poor", often farmers and ranchers are in this category. It is not unusual for someone to have a high net worth made up mostly of land and little cash. The Federal Estate tax rules have special rules for this category when it comes to valuing and paying taxes due.

Sorry, not a Marxist. I am mostly inline with Libertarian ideas. Besides I doubt Marx would have taxation in his perfect world since no one would own anything.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 16, 2011 - 07:44 pm
Yeah, I've heard the cliche. I just don't buy it. I have no sympathy at all for a man who
Has so much land he can't pay his taxes.

Sorry, but you ARE a Marxist. Go read the Communist Manifesto and see how many of his 10 demands you support. Marx wanted a heavy, regressive income tax. You do, too. Every Libertarian I'VE ever met hates taxes, progressive income taxes most of all. So you're NOT in line with Libertarian ideas.

Given your unfamiliarity with Marxism and Libertarianism, I think it's reasonable to presume that you have not thought any of this out, and certainly not read any of this stuff. So your philosophy is a "feeling" you have? A set of beliefs you have and you know not why? You have a worldview and no idea how you've formed it.
...
written by James Melancon , September 17, 2011 - 01:18 pm
by ragin_cajun "Sorry, but you ARE a Marxist. Marx wanted a heavy, regressive income tax."
-------------------------------

Sorry, but where did I say heavy and regressive, or progressive? Moreover, the idea of an income tax predates Marx.

The British had one decades before Marx and the U.S. considered one in the early 19th century. During the Civil War, Lincoln had one but it was later declared unconstitutional after the war. The 16th amendment which changed the constitution to allow income taxes was proposed by President Taft in 1909 and passed by Congress that year. It is interesting to note that Lincoln, Taft, and the Congress of 1909 were all Republicans.

As to my position, I would have a flat rate income tax (about 20% or less) with an low personal exemption and elimination of all credits and deductions.
...
written by Tim Supple , September 17, 2011 - 05:00 pm
The subject under discussion was whether or not everyone should have the same property tax rate? Or is it that "some are more equal then others"
...
written by realitycheck , September 17, 2011 - 06:39 pm
A property owner should not be taxed according to what is happening next door. This opens the door to being squeezed out of one's property by the next door neighbor, by commercial enterprises, etc. Talk about having to keep up with the Joneses just to survive! An investor should be able to sit on a property until such a time as he wishes to make improvements or sell; in his own time. Think of the people who buy a piece of property, and pay on it over time, dreaming of the day they will build their "dream retirement home" and/or divide it amongst their kids. After 10 years of making land payments with 5 left to go, a place like OLOL goes up 10 acres away and suddenly, they are facing an enormous bill for taxes? NO!

In Calif, the property owner decides to raise his own taxes at the time he commits to making improvements. For instance, considerations of enlarging one's home includes the higher taxes that will accompany the improvement. One has to be able to afford both. Otherwise, taxes increase at the point of sale which is the only time that the owner is actually making any money from the increased values surrounding him.
...
written by James Melancon , September 17, 2011 - 07:21 pm
by realitycheck "A property owner should not be taxed according to what is happening next door".
------------------------

Excellent comments. Nonetheless, someone, not me, will see Marxism in them :-(
...
written by the original northsidian , September 17, 2011 - 10:36 pm
James Melancon: The subject is about landowners paying the agriculture tax rate when the land is not used for that purpose. Plain and simple. What don't you and the other @## K!$$34$ not understand about that? I want everyone to be taxed accordingly. I do not want a local tax, because the abuse will increase geometrically for the politically connected. Can't you people see the abuse now! That is why people hate politicians & the politically connected. Because the little man always gets the 2 1/2 crooked from the big boys!! Ya'll are pissed off because the Ind. is exposing all of the so say civic minded business men who are screwing the system. If everyone paid their fair share maybe, just maybe, they would not be wanting tax increases ever 3 frickin' years!!
...
written by realitycheck , September 18, 2011 - 01:53 am
perhaps TheInd could take up the issue of "redlining" in north Lafayette? How many decades will this issue be ignored? We now the poverty pimps on both sides benefit, but maybe you TheInd could expose this problem as well?
...
written by Tim Supple , September 18, 2011 - 04:11 am
dear realitycheck: see the problem is everyone is having to pay property taxes based on what is happening "next door". everyone that is except anyone with more than 3 acres who applies for agricultural exemption. If the value of land, what other criteria of land use do you think should be exempt from the same rate of property taxes as everyone else. Even property taxes on "residential" (home) is based on what is happening next door. Why should an "investor" in ag exempt lands have a different rate then the homeowners or other land use.

Everyone is against more taxes. The only thing worst than more taxes is unequal distribution of the tax burden based on arbitrary political power of one class over another.
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , September 18, 2011 - 01:44 pm
"COJRAD COMEAUX WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY EVERY Administration, going back to his first term, the tax dodgers and the monopolist of the land flanking Ambassador which was purchased by the insiders, Andrus'S, Saloom's, Hebert's Young's, was pre Joey's time and he has never gotten over the fact he was not in on the ground floor,
but that was going all the way back prior to Bowen, and Lastrapes, this was when JOEY was selling his birdseed to the cronys children, and now Joey has stepped into the same shoes, Walkin and Talkin A LA KENNY BOWEN, and he is trying his best to appease everyone of his hanger-on cronys, like the GreenAmbulanceMan and the Festermaker Surveyman with the uncalibrated scope. COMEAUX is just the Politically correct pimpmeister, show everyone how you bend over Conrat.
...
written by ragin_cajun , September 18, 2011 - 04:06 pm
"The only thing worst than more taxes is unequal distribution of the tax burden based on arbitrary political power of one class over another. "

This is THE point! This whole "ability to pay" nonsense has been used and abused for so long now, that half the country now pays nothing and the other half pays everything.

If a landowner can't afford to pay taxes on his property, he loses it. That's life. If I can't afford to pay tax on MY property, that is what will happen to me and no one here or at City Hall will shed a single tear over my misfortune. Why should ANYONE be treated any different?


...
written by James Melancon , September 18, 2011 - 09:29 pm
by the original northsidian "I want everyone to be taxed accordingly".
------------------

Agreed. That's why an income tax is better than property tax. It taxes everyone according to their income; not net worth. Net worth in this case limited to real estate.

Property tax is inherently regressive. It is a subjective measure of a changing value. Income tax, relative to the value of a dollar over a calender year, is an objective value. Besides, a local income tax can be easier to administer. You base it on a percentage. The percentage could be related to Federal or State taxable income or the Federal or State tax.

by the original northsidian "I do not want a local tax, because the abuse will increase geometrically for the politically connected".
-------------------------

The property tax is a local tax and all taxes are politically connected.
...
written by James Melancon , September 18, 2011 - 09:36 pm
by ragin_cajun "If a landowner can't afford to pay taxes on his property, he loses it".
---------------------

Even now that can happen. Nevertheless, property tax is a poor method of taxation. Property tax is a wealth tax just like the Federal estate or so-called death tax. Perhaps we should call it a pre-need death tax; Pre-needed by our elected officials.
...
written by the original northsidian , September 18, 2011 - 11:26 pm
James, do you have a lot of property? Or does your boss? We don't need a local income tax, we need a REVOLUTION!!
...
written by James Melancon , September 19, 2011 - 01:14 am
the original northsidian "James, do you have a lot of property? Or does your boss? We don't need a local income tax, we need a REVOLUTION!!
-------------------------

No, sorry don't own much real estate, boss too. As an investment, I am luke warm on it.

REVOLUTION? If you mean at the ballot box that's OK but guns and bombs, no thanks.
...
written by realitycheck , September 20, 2011 - 01:40 pm
dear Tim: I'm thinking the value should go up at the time that the actual owner makes an improvement. (loathe using Calif for an example but it does work here) "Raw" land is very different from already developed commercial land and residential neighborhoods. There could also be a huge problem with variances that allow a new commercial endeavor in what was previously a residential. Remember when the coffee plant wanted to go commercial, was that on Moss Street? That investor would have sold 1/2 of the property to another interest, essentially getting his newly-acclaimed-commercial-but-only-paid-residential-value-land for free and maybe even a large cash profit due to the variance. Quite a portfolio coup! Would each of those neighborhoods surrounding been suddenly taxed exponentially? What's to prevent the proverbial "evil and greedy developer" from squeezing out the neighbors who refuse to sell to him and cannot afford a sudden increase? Remember, wages and raises don't come up exponentially, like the value of property next door might. And for people on "fixed incomes", it's not coming up at all. While the loophole could be addressed, property owners need protection from development that does not coincide with their own life plans and in particular the present threat of eminent domain abuse that we saw with HB 531 which is a present and real threat to Upper Lafayette.
...
written by UtahCajun , September 20, 2011 - 09:25 pm
Instead of allowing these landowners to "lose their ag status," I say we fine them on top of that for failing to comply with local tax laws. They should only get the ag status via farmland. No farm land, then no ag status. Failure to report should be a punishment.
...
written by the original northsidian , October 16, 2011 - 06:33 pm
What is Conrad Como's plan to correct this injustice?
...
written by the original northsidian , November 22, 2011 - 05:21 pm
No comment from Ko-Mo? I guess he was spending too much time trying to get Doise elected.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it