Blog 7 Oath of Membership Provision 1

Blog 7.  Oath of membership                                                                    Provision 1



All new members sign an Oath of Membership.   It has just five provisions.

[Note:  Words can often have different meanings to different people and are therefore subject to interpretation.  The law in the United States is based on ‘case law’ because the various laws are subject to interpretation and the court cases refine and define the meaning.   This is my personal interpretation of the words of the Oath and of the Constitution.]

Provision one:

  “I do solemnly pledge myself to promote and  perpetuate The Single Tax Principle that human energy and labor should not be taxed and man should be allowed to keep that which by his labors he creates.”

I have been promoting and perpetuating the Single Tax Principle that human energy and labor should not be taxed and man should be allowed to keep that which by his labors he creates in two main ways:

1.  I support following the lease--the legal contract FSTC has with its lessees--that  says that all rents go into a trust for the benefit of the lessees.  I believe that taking the trust fund monies and spending them outside the FSTC community is taking from the lessees 'that which by his labor he creates.' 

2.  I support informing lessee's of their rights as leaseholders and allowing them to have the information that FSTC has about the value of their leasehold interest, especially as it relates to eminent domain.  I believe that not allowing the leaseholder the full value of his leasehold interest in condemnation cases (such as is happening now on Highway 181 as the State of Alabama is condemning Colony land to widen the highway) is depriving the lessee of 'that which by his labor he creates.'

 FSTC was chartered in Alabama  as a 'mutual benefit single-tax’ entity.  Mutual benefit is to mutually benefit a certain group of people--the Fairhope Single Tax community.  The FSTC constitution says "there shall be no private ownership of land within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, but the Corporation shall ...hold the title of all lands upon which  its community shall be maintained."   That seems pretty clear that the "community" is the community of lessees (2900 leaseholds) where all pay the 'single tax' or 'demonstration fee'  for their mutual benefit. 

The entire Fairhope Community that includes much more than the City of Fairhope  is much larger than the FSTC Colony (Community).  Some of the FSTC Community is inside the City Limits of Fairhope.  Some is not.   

Here is a copy of TheFairhopeCourier.com that shows a map of the FSTC Colony and the city limits of Fairhope.  While yellow is the City of Fairhope, green is the Colony land inside the city limits, and blue stripped areas are Colony land outside the city limits, all of the white area is also in the Fairhope Community.  There is more land that is considered in the Fairhope Community that is not on this map.  It gives a visual picture of how much larger the Fairhope Community is than the Colony. 

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Colony Lands and City Limits

 

Yellow is the City, Green is Colony land in the City and the Blue striped area is Colony land outside the City. 

These are the current maps distributed by the City and the Chamber of Commerce. The Fairhope Single Tax Colony does not maintain a map of its properties. 

Shading of map by www.TheFairhopeCourier.com

 

How is it not taking from the lessee (those in the blue  and green areas)   'that which by his labors he creates' when money is taken from him that under the contract with the FSTC is a trust for his benefit, and is spent instead to benefit an area larger than depicted by this map?

I've heard members say they don't mind "paying extra" to help our wonderful city.  I don't mind either--in fact I often donate to things that make our city better.  That sentiment is beside the point.  There are 2900 leaseholds who have FSTC leases  (a legal contract with FSTC) that say "all values accruing from the land are held in trust for the benefit of those leasing the land...and no part of rents paid by [the lessee] shall be appropriated as dividends to its members or any other persons, but all shall be administered as a trust fund for the equal benefit of those leasing its lands."  The Supreme Court in Rezner agreed with this lease provision and said FSTC serves as a fiduciary for this Trust Fund to benefit the lessee. 

As to rights of leaseholders when land is being taken by Eminent Domain as it is right now by the State of Alabama to widen Highway 181, I believe that FSTC has a duty to inform the lessees of their rights as the owners of the 'leasehold interest' in the land. 

When someone sells  Colony land, it is the leaseholder who sets the price and sells land and the improvements on it.  FSTC owns the land, but does not get any money when a lessee sells the land (actually the lessee is selling the  'leasehold interest' in the land and the improvements on the land).
People purchasing the  leasehold interest in FSTC land  pay full market value--the same price their next door neighbor on deeded land pays.    That seems to indicate that the 'leasehold interest' is  worth 100% of the value of the land. 

Of course FSTC 'owns the land.'   FSTC holds the title to the land in trust.     All leaseholders pay rent to the FSTC which shows they understand that FSTC owns the title to the land.  That rent includes the property taxes, an administration fee of $100, and the 'demonstration' fee now set at .002 of the appraised value of the land.  

Why would anyone pay the full market value on land they do not own?  They do because that lease gives the lessee the exclusive right to use and enjoy the land for 99 years.   That lease says all rents will be used to benefit the lessees.  That lease is renewable.    It is transferrable.  It is inheritable.  It is valuable. 

Tim Kant, Mayor of Fairhope, has a video about owning FSTC land, where he explains there is no difference in buying and selling a home on Colony land.   It is not a new video, and FSTC is aware of it and has not, to my knowledge objected to it, indicating they agree with Mayor Kant.   You can watch the video here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujI_pccNM5Q

Now that the State of Alabama is condemning land along Highway 181 to widen the highway, FSTC is claiming that "We own the land.  We get  all the money."  Yes, they own the land.  That does not mean they get all the money.  Why not?  Because the law recognizes 'leasehold interest' as a ‘property ownership' that must be compensated in condemnation cases.   In fact, in Alabama, a lessees' losses are covered first.  FSTC paid for two law firms to give FSTC a legal opinion on what FSTC could expect its share in condemnation would be.   Stone, Granade, and Crosby said FSTC's share would be zero.  Maynard, Cooper, and Gale told FSTC not to expect more than 10%.   FSTC does not share this information with the lessees. 

TheFairhopeCourier.com posted these comments that Dean Mosher made at the FSTC July regular meeting.  These were comments were made right before the beginning of the meeting when lessees and members are allowed to express their concerns.   "The question I have for you is a Georgist question." he said after telling a brief history of the past 30 years of the Colony during which he has been very involved. He continued, "Under any kind of Georgist system, how can we justify taking 70% of the leasehold value, in condemnation, that they have created?... Because I would like you to rethink that position."

  The Supreme Court ruled in Rezner that FSTC lessees' improvements include the shade trees, the grass, the flowers, the care and nurturing that went into the land, as well as the lessee's good taste in planning were all part of the 'improvements' that belong to the lessee.  FSTC is  not considering those improvements as required by the Supreme Court of Alabama.  That, to me, seems to be taking from the lessee  'that which by his labors he creates."