EDITORIAL: Taxpayers and the Black Belt

Oct. 31, 2009 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- There are strong reasons to commend efforts to pump life into the Black Belt's economy. Even so, important questions remain unanswered.

The entire state of Alabama has an interest in bringing prosperity to the Black Belt. The idea of state aid and tax breaks to help the economy is built into our political DNA.

Private and public development offices have worked together to bring in automotive plants, high-tech industries and other employers that have boosted the economies in Alabama regions where they settled.

Fairness seems to dictate that the same should be done to help the Black Belt, where unemployment rates run as high as 25 percent (Wilcox County), where industries are closing (Dixie Pellet in Selma) and where a variety of social ills keep schools and students at the bottom of education achievement measurements.

Among the most promising ideas is the plan to nationally market the Black Belt as a paradise for hunters and anglers.

As this page has commented before, the idea has strong merit. The hunters and fishermen are there. Just ask Arkansas, South Dakota and Montana, where sportsmen come to hunt, fish and spend.

Statewide, Alabama already is tapping into this concept. In 2006, state officials estimated that hunters and anglers spend $1.4 billion a year in Alabama; approximately 25 percent of these outdoorsmen are from out of state.

More would come, it is argued, if the state got behind the effort to attract them.

To the surprise of many, the Black Belt already has in place much of what this industry needs. There are family farms with cabins for rent. There are small towns with cafes and motels already catering to sportsmen who hunt and fish on leased land. These facilities handle a lot of visitors, and they could handle more.

Nevertheless, some will argue that those who will benefit most from an effort to turn the Black Belt into a nationally known sportsman's paradise will be the same people who have long benefited from a state property tax structure that has favored those holding large tracts of "undeveloped" land.

Will state aid to bring in people to use the land for hunting and fishing constitute a change in the land's status under "current use" classification? Will it be fair for state and local governments to give additional breaks to landowners who, in comparison to neighboring states, are already under-taxed?

And how much of this will trickle down to the unemployed in the region? Certainly some, but will it be enough to justify the public investment?

These are hard questions that must be addressed before the state can throw full support behind the plan. Landowners will surely want to know the answers. So will taxpayers.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0317-39322966