As you and I have both found out, she misrepresented herself in the name of getting elected. I, too, am ashamed that she would ever claim to have been a Patriot. Benedict Arnold was more of a Patriot.

I have opposed many aspects of the land reform movement over the years. I have been a critic of flaws in logic, presentation and conclusions in “white papers” that are cited in support of down zoning and TDR’s. I have been critic of the land purchases when public officials pay more than assessed values for recreation land as well as farm land. I have spoken at meetings when public officials seem ignorant that down zoning reduces the line of credit extended by banks to farmers. I did comment on aspects of the Comprehensive Plan during the appropriate public comment period.

When a commissioner chides the public, as in the recent public comment period regarding a development right purchase, for waiting until a specific purchase before registering a protest, then that is an inaccurate and irrelevant criticism of the public. Is that elected official suggesting public opinion is limited to those special ceremonial moments of “speak now or forever hold your peace”? Does the commissioner suggest that no one has ever done a “redo” of prior commissioner decisions? Does the commissioner suggest that beneficial transactions can be executed if the program is faulty?

I did email comments to the commissioners that I believe farmland preservation is a failed policy in many aspects, but particularly should not be financed in a manner that increases the settlement costs of real estate purchases.

First, the taxes/ fees assessed in real estate closings amount to a redistribution of wealth from working class and middle class citizens to the large land owners. That is an example of allowing the levers of government to be used to benefit powerful individuals and corporate interests. As a government of “conservatives” becomes more autocratic and less protective of individuals, I view that as an example of “slouching toward fascism”.

Second, the local officials continue to assess those taxes/ fees but have put the collected funds to general revenue. That is an example of misappropriation of funds, or collection of funds under a false pretense. My words may fail to be accurate or precise; but the practice does not pass the “smell test”. If the commissioners do not use the funds for designated purposes; they should eliminate the taxes/ fees collected at the real estate closing and increase the general tax assessments. Some fundamental honesty seems to suggest that. I am inclined to view that failure as a dishonesty and/ or an institutional corruption.

Third, if the commissioners do not use taxes/ fees for the designated purpose; then my logic would suggest the funds already collected from those assessments may be allocated to the general operations of the county and not be restricted to the land preservation purchases. We see the state has reduced county support for recreational land purchases, and those funds are also collected in the real estate closings. I believe that indicates the state is using designated funds for general revenues, as well as releasing previously collected funds to general purposes. However, I have not traced those funds. Again, there is a stink.

I encourage real estate professionals to attend the public meetings and hearing; they need to see how our officials use the funds collected in the real estate closing process.

I do encourage people working in the real estate professions to become advocates of lower closing costs, even if the reductions are only the price of a “happy meal”.