Another Visit to Jack's Horse Farm in the Suburbs

I heard back from our good friend Andy. I'll give you what he says and then translate a little bit at the end.

I took some time yesterday to ask one of my friends at the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation if they had heard anything about this story since I had seen it pop up a few times via the Alliance and while I couldn't recall which local pol we were talking about, my source mentioned that Congresswoman Schmidt might have some similar issue about her property. I believe she also has a horse farm in the area.

At any rate, yes, the equine industry is a very important part of Ohio's agricultural economy. Ohio is one of the top three horse states per capita, and the amount of hay and grains consumed by these animals is a significant source of income for Ohio farmers. The question about CAUV designation for properties such of this one becomes interesting, because the intent of CAUV really is to encourage agricultural land to stay in agricultural production. With more and more Americans taking an interest in the rural lifestyle and taking up hobbies like horsemanship and specialty animal care (goats, llamas, alpacas, etc), it is becoming far more common for a landowner in a suburban/exurban area to own 5-10 acres, have a barn, a small utility tractor, and typically some number of animals. These folks are obviously not farmers in the strict sense of the word, but they are certainly a part of the agricultural economy. When this trend first started, these folks were largely unaware of the CAUV designation, but now the observant among the non-farm legal/accounting realm are much more familiar with the provision.

Also, the CAUV designation stays with a property even after the land sells to a new owner. For example, if the pol in question had acquired a tract of land that had been a traditional working farm, that land usage wouldn't necessarily change automatically. So the issue becomes at what point is something agricultural - i.e. owning horses for breeding purposes - not an agricultural use? Is there a point at which the legislature/regulatory bodies determine to be a "cutoff" for CAUV eligibility? Say for example, a producer must earn a certain amount of money from his or her agricultural endeavors to qualify?

I don't have the answer to that question, but I expect it will be discussed as more and more "non-farm people" own land that is designated with an agricultural use value...

Translation: This is still a gray area. And politicians like Jack and Jean are going to be able to legally take advantage of that situation until there is some clarification made.

In Jack's case, I still think the question of whether or not he's sold any off-spring of his stud is still quite valid.

I also wanted to go back and point out something that commenter "GOP lawyer" had to say in the comments of the original piece where this subject came up:

The auditor's website lists the property in the name of "Zettler Jack A TR" Jack is named as a trustee for the property perhaps in his capacity as an attorney and may most likely not be the owner.

Turns out that he is claiming ownership of the land but (at least it appears so from the article by our favorite intrepid reporter) isn't it interesting how he is listed as a trustee? What's the point in that? Is it to hide Jack the Owner from some sort of liability? You lawyer types can feel free to debate that in the comments because I'm interested...

NOTE: Thanks for the assist Andy!