04/09/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~age 8 case, including whether rental income qualified as agri- cultural income and whether real estate owned by several persons, each holding a fractional interest, qualified under the act even where all of the owners were not en- gaged in farming activities. The Court held in favor of the applicant in all of these issues. In the Reiss case the Supreme Court held that a greenhouse Which had been in possession of the applicants or a family corporation qualifies for Green Acres. In commenting about subdivi- sion 3, the Court stated: The requirements of subdivision 3, as set out in the three subparts, are presumably intended to ensure that farm property purchased for speculative purposes is not given the benefits of the green acres legislation. 290 N.W.2d at 788. There was no testimony in this case that the 20 acres were purchased or held for specu- lative purposes. Respondent argues that the Reiss and Elwell cases emphasize that the legislative purpose of Green Acres tax deferment is to allow continued agricultural use of property near urban areas until the property is developed and that the subject property having already been im- proved with a homestead costing $280,000, application of the Green Acres tax deferment would make no sense. We agree with the respondent that the one acre homesite is developed. But the remaining 19 acres is not yet de- veloped. Failure to grant Green Acres could well force development of the remaining 19 acres. It may well be argued that this is exactly the kind of property that was intended to be included within the Green Acres statute to avoid forced development. We agree with the respondent that the gross pro- ceeds ($649.30) does not indicate a high level of agricul- tural activity. However, the legislature in establishing the income criteria ($300 plus $10 per acre) did not re- quire a high level of agricultural activity. It is not for this Court to reuqire more intensive agricultural activity (growing hay) or more income per acre than that re- quired by the legislature. In conclusion we find no requirement in the statutes that classification as agricultural property in accordance with section 273.13 is a requirement to the granting of the Green Acres classification under section 273.111. The legislature having failed to impose such a require- ment, it is not for this Court to impose such a require- ment.