The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-02-18
est, something he was badly in need
of. Should the amount be limited to

est, something he was badly in need
of. Should the amount be limited to
one-third, very few farmers could
borrow sufficient funds to pay up
the mortgages on their property.
That the law has been abused, there
can be no doubt, that there have
been some who took advantage Of
the states offer, and unloaded worth
less property on the state is well
known; but, we should not condemn
all for the faults of some; we should
not deprive the honest farmer of the
benefit offered by the state loan de-
partment, because few Of his
neighbors tricked the state. We
should take steps to see that such
things do not occur again.
l believe that the state should pay
it's just share of taxes on any prop
erty owned by it. Why should il
escape scot free when the farm owner
is compelled to pay? Why should
the man who is increasing the value
of the states property lying beside
his be compelled to bear the whole
burden. While the suggestion OF
the state paying taxes on it's real
estate, may seem sometime like u
'robbing Peter to pay Paul PROPOSE.
ton, it would not be long before the
undertaking would be on self-sus-
tanning basis. ssGMH
In order to pay its just Shate 81
taxes, the state owned landsWOuid
have to rent at figure considerable!
larger than what it brings in rental
at the present time. While vacant
lands owned by outside interests are
, renting for from $50 per quarter sec
ton up to $75, the state owned prop
crty IS being leased at figure tai
below this amount. OF course i
can be leased at Il low price, as lont
! as it enjoys the privilege Of beinl
tax free. But, after all, h0WSman,
farm residents benefit fH0mi THU
lower rental? Very few. Skere : il
not q great deal Of state owMSd lant
in any one territory, and what Their
is is quickly snapped up by thos'
having the money to bid 1t in. lcav
ing the great majority without it
! benefits, and bearing an added bur
den of taxation. Let the state owne,
land rent for enough to pay its take
and little over. Let its cultivatc'
lands rent at the same figure out
side lands are leased for. The bene
fits derived from the lower renta
figure are not sufficient to offse
the increase in taxes. Far better t.
have higher rental, and less taxes
! For, the lowered taxes will benefit
the whole community where the stat
owned lands benefit only q certain
few.
II, on, the other hand, the stat
owned lands cannot be rented for
sum large enough 70 take care of tn
taxes against them, they should b
disposed of ut once, il H. is possibl
to sell them, even though they onl
bring the amount which was origin
4 ally borrowed on them. If this
impractical, and the state feels tina
they will bring higher price som
other day, it should be willing t
pay the taxes the same as q privat
citizen, and reap its profit when Ian
values are higher.
| Some may: ash: 'How can tn
state pay taxes on land where ther
was no crop?" will ask them
"How can the farmers pay taxes o
land which did not produce eve
enough to furnish the taxes, to "a
nothing of living expenses? As maj
.tcrs stand at the present time, tn
land Spectator is Of more actu;
benefit to the resident farmer tina
its state. The land Spectator pay
taxes on his land, which in turn
used to keep up the community, il
roads and its schools. The state pay
no taxes, therefore does nothing
aiding the community in which thes
lands are located. Yet, any rise
real estate values affects the Ian
owned by the state the same as tn,
owned by outside interests. tn
state is spending thousands of do
lars in an effort TO bring more farm
ers into its borders; and it is rigl
that it should do 80. It is rigl
that North Dakota, maligned an
slandered as she has been, should +,
last take her place with the gre,
Sisterhood of States. Sooner or late
this question Of state lands excmy
from taxation will. come. before eac
state and each state must solve it
its own way. It seems only fair I
me that the state should nay take
on the land acquired by it throue
foreclosure, as we'll as any otha
land it may own, the same as an
private citizen. It seems only IA
that since the state benefits throuR
the growth and prosperity of Il
community, that it should bear Il
just share Of taxation.