Biscuit Run reform: Deeds would loosen secrecy... some

In Virginia, tax returns are so sacred that a section of code forbids state officials from revealing individual info– even if those individuals have reaped millions of dollars for their land from state taxpayers.

Such was the case of Biscuit Run, where developers attempted to parlay a dubious $88-million appraisal– practically double the land's $46.2-million boom-time purchase price– into a bail-out for the underwater development by re-purposing the land as a state park and taking $11.7 million in tax credits atop the $9.8 million sales price, all aided by a Virginia law that shrouds the details from public scrutiny.

It was only a leaked appraisal that allowed the public to see how Biscuit Run's former owner, Forest Lodge LLC, was attempting to recoup its losses at taxpayer expense. And with Virginia's land conservation easement program, which has been called the most generous in the country, handing out over $100 million a year to landowners, the potential for abuse is significant.

Last year, even as outrage mounted, the program's creator, State Senator Creig Deeds, declined to promise major reform. However, now that the Biscuit Run backers have risked further tarnish to the state's lauded rural protection program with a lawsuit, Deeds has decided to shine a little more sunlight. His SB355 would require the Department of Taxation to annually publish the assessed value, appraised value, and the amount of credits issued for each property winning a land preservation tax credit.

"It identifies the parcel," explains Deeds, "and people can make their own judgments about whether it warrants the amount of tax credit it got."

For critics, however, the bill doesn't go far enough.

"For real reform, they wouldn't have tax credits at all," says Norman Leahy, contributing editor to Bearing Drift, a conservative political blog.

"I encourage them to be more aggressive," says Leahy. "The state needs to keep track of this money they're handing out."

Leahy worries that Deeds has already tempered his reform by tailoring it to what will "sell" in the General Assembly. He says opposition would most likely come from a small group of high-dollar beneficiaries of the program.

Appraiser George Dodd calls the bill a "start," but he wants the appraisals and tax credits open to public scrutiny before any deal is finalized.

"Otherwise," says Dodd, "it's closing the barn door after the horse is out."

Senator Deeds, who hails from rural Bath County, remains a defender of conservation easements.

"I'm not proud of Biscuit Run," says Deeds. "But in the long run, the program is going to benefit all of us."

From the other side of the aisle, Republican Senator Emmett Hanger offers another endorsement of conservation easements. His SB403 would raise the conservation tax credit rate for working farmers from 40 percent to 50 percent of fair market value.

Both bills are in the Senate Finance Committee.

This story is a part of the The Biscuit Run cash grab special.

8 comments

This is an example of journalism that brings change in policy. The Hook led the charge, now it's up to us to make sure that the 1% do not prevail in killing it, and that it is amended to be even more transparent. This is after all a democracy.

No, this is an example of sensationalistic journalism that makes the Hook a joke. There is a story here, but simply interweaving new quotes with innuendo from previous stories does not make a story (or spark change for that matter.) Getting someone to go on record about the backroom, good old boys network deal that was (is) being cut…that would be journalism that sparks change.

He just doesn't want to look bad but also not step on any rich toes; he made this mess he need to completely clean it up not just pick at it.

@really now. I agree getting the unmarked envelope, as the Hook did in the case of the Biscuit Run appraisal, or the Morrissey e-mails with UVA would be great. But what other local media has been willing to stay on this case the way the Hook has and that's what it takes to start the process of change.

I'm sure if Deep Throat calls the Hook will publish the story, but until then we- the voters have a responsibility to do our part as well and call, write, and advocate for more transparency in this process.

Creigh Deed ran a dreadful campaign for governor, and now he's offering up a terrible explanation for –– or defense of –– his very moderate proposal to "reform" the badly abused tax credit system in Virginia.

As most everybody knows, the tax credits for historic preservation and for conservation easements, and the land use tax subsidies prevalent in Virginia, go overwhelmingly to the wealthy. In Albemarle County, for example, there are any number of large estates that are in the county's land use subsidy program (60 percent of all count land is in the subsidy program even though agricultural production and jobs are in decline), gleaning large tax reductions, that are also sucking down taxpayer subsidies for not "developing" the private estates that they have no intention of developing and that in many cases are ineligible for development.

Many of the same people who benefit from socialism for the rich vote for and lobby against government programs that actually help the working class and promote the general welfare of society. Indeed, being AGAINST government "of the people, by the people, for the people" is now the ethos of conservatives in general and the Republican party in particular.

It's a shame that Creigh Deeds seems to be on their side.

Oops...2nd line of 2nd paragraph should read:

In Albemarle County, for example, there are any number of wealthy landowners who place their estates in the county's land use subsidy program (60 percent of all county land is in the subsidy program even though agricultural production and jobs are in decline), gleaning large tax reductions, who are also sucking down taxpayer subsidies for not "developing" the private estates that they have no intention of developing and that in many cases are ineligible for development.

@really now, you are a joke and with the financial climate we have now globally you will soon be ignored.

If the public does not want property to be developed then the public should be willing to pay for it. Probably on a cheaper basis it choose to buy development rights rather than buy the property. Which is cheaper to the public?