How the ultra-wealthy use government funds to finance their backyards
Some of the wealthiest people in the world live (or pretend to live) in Jackson, Wyoming. That includes some of the biggest names in Hollywood. Digging into the property tax records, we discovered that one of the most successful actors in film history pays less in property tax than a single mom living on less land. What gives? Why are rich people paying less in property tax than working people?
The answer has to do with a thing called a conservation easement. A conservation easement is essentially an agreement between a landowner and the government that says, “I promise I’ll keep my property from certain kinds of building projects”. In return, the government gives the landowner massive tax benefits on the federal and local levels.
In this episode, Chris digs into the history of these instruments to understand what they are and how they are impacting rural Wyoming and the rest of the country.
UPDATE: The original version of this episode contained an error that has since been corrected. The original version stated that getting an $800,000 tax deduction was essentially the same as getting an $800,000 refund. That is incorrect. My apologies.
Helpful links:
- Helpful article about conservation easements
- Excellent pamphlet with information about easements
- YouTube video about how taxes are assessed
- Search the Teton County property tax records
Discussion Questions
- What do you think about public land?
- Do conservation easements seem fair?
- Are conservation easements a helpful way to preserve the environment or government-sponsored private land? Both?
- What should Jackson locals do to make the property taxes fair?
- How do you feel when you learn that taxation practices favor the rich?
- Are there conservation easements where you live?
Love your podcast so far, but this episode was pretty weak. Seemed more like a personal rant than a well researched and thought out topic. You didn’t really go into how working family farms could afford property taxes if they were charged just as much as everyone else per acre. How rising property taxes force working families out of owning farm land, then the only folks who can afford those property are rich absentee land owners. You also didn’t talk about solutions, or any examples of how to make the system better. I’m all for rich folks paying their fair share, but does just raising property tax really solve the problem. You also didn’t really explore how we can limit rising land prices. I also live in a place where land prices are starting to sky rocket and am interested in solutions to help this issue. Maybe you’ll address some of these issues in the next podcast. Less rant, more journalism!
Thanks for the comment. I’m happy to reply here! I know that this episode is a difficult one for my audience. The next one will be more difficult, I’m afraid. But I know that I can’t please everyone. Especially as a one-man operation!
I didn’t offer solutions for many reasons. First, one of the main functions of journalism is to say “look! This thing exists”. It’s actually quite rare that a piece of journalism offers solutions. Turn on any channel, read any paper, you’re unlikely to find solutions offered. Most stories are, “a bomb was dropped in country x” or “there was an accident on Interstate 5”. You don’t see them going step by step through how to clean up a wreck or the foreign policy that led to the bombing. But don’t let that get you down. There is great power in saying, “this thing exists”. Otherwise, I am at risk of going into advocacy, which is rarely the goal of this program. You’ll see that in the next episode when I wrap up the western series and leave the audience with a big question: “what do we do with the story of the rich young ruler?” I don’t answer the question because I want the audience to wrestle with it.
Sometimes offering solutions gives the audience a reason to stop thinking about a piece. I generally like it when my audience leaves with an itch that is hard to scratch. It makes them think about the piece for a longer time if I don’t tie everything up in a bow.
As for the farmers, that would have been a good separate episode for sure! This episode was designed to parallel the Johnson County War episode. Both demonstrate how wealthy folks use government tools to push people out of Wyoming. It’s a story about wealth and the myth of the west, not about farmers. That’s why they aren’t addressed in there.
Also, the story isn’t about rising land prices. Same thing as above. It’s an interesting separate story, but not the point of this piece. This one is about wealthy people using their position and government tools to push poor and working people out.
As for solutions in your own area (if you have a problem with housing) that is probably a case-by-case basis thing. In Jackson, Wyoming we can solve our issues in a number of ways:
* A state income tax.
* Prosecute people who pretend to live here in order to cheat the states where they actually live.
* Revoke the National Forest license of Jackson Hole Mountain Resort ski resort.
* Build actually affordable houses. The local agencies attempting that call a $500,000 house an “affordable” with a straight face. Houses need to be built cheaper, without green space restrictions, as condo complexes, without granite countertops (who puts granite in affordable?). We also have to ban HOA fees from affordable units. Some people here pay $300/month to have the maintenance people not show up. What family do you know that can pay $300/month for basically nothing to happen except occasional snow removal? We also need to build faster and can’t see 10-12 new houses on the market as a victory when hundreds and hundreds of families are on the list.
Just a few ideas. Thanks for writing in! I disagree that the episode was a rant, but I’m okay with you thinking it was one. Sometimes when we disagree with something it’s easier to call it a name rather than to see it for what it is. This was a “this thing exists” episode.
May God bless you! Hope this helps.
This episode was poorly researched. You claim that a land easement increases the value of a property, which is incorrect. The value of the parcel decreases. Admittedly, other nearby properties may benefit, but the property owner who grants an easement is placing a permanent restriction on the parcel, which deceases the marketability of the property and therefore its value.
Your anger at the owners is misplaced. While one could argue that the State of Wyoming might not need more protected land, to assign blame to the owner who is giving an easement is misguided, arrogant, and ill-informed.
You may want to go back and re-listen to the episode. I never say that the land values will go up. The Teton County Tax Assessor does, but she clarifies quickly that she’s talking about the neighbors.
It’s also worth noting that Teton County works differently than the rest of the country with these things. The house prices are still out of control here, even for land with a conservation easement.