So I live on a working family farm in North Bend, of similar acreage and lower value. We aren't exempt from the state or federal estate tax, and the satellite view of our property would look similar (we have even more forest). Either the vast majority of the accountants in King County are incompetent or lying, because most of them will tell you the exact opposite of what Goldy is saying.
I support the estate tax, I'm just confused as what Goldy is saying goes against commonly held (and paid) tax beliefs.
I must say it puts a smile on my face to see him still making Stranger headlines.

#7, I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation I'm referring to. I know several accountants, personally. Farms like this pay state estate tax all the time in this state. Washington collects millions of dollars in taxes that if Goldy is right, aren't owed to the state. This wouldn't be a lying editorial if this were true. It would be a scandal that would unseat the Governor. This would be graft on the level that would make Chicago envious.

@3 According to Goldy's post, working farms are 100% exempt from Washington's estate tax, while federal estate taxes are exempt on the first $5.25-million. Also, according to Goldy (I'm not going to bother to look this up), 99.4% of working farms don't pay any estate taxes at all. So I have to wonder how it is that you're paying them.

#13, the estate tax. While the same working family farm does not pay it every month, every month in this state the head of a family farm dies somewhere. They usually pay state estate tax when that happens, even if the farm value is less than this one in Issaquah.
Most family farms in the state don't qualify as ongoing economic enterprises. They barely have a registered farm/forest plan. That one hurdle alone excludes the majority of eligible properties.

#21, those estates that aren't farms provide most of the produce for most of the farmer's markets in the county. That's a whole lot of food and produce for not being a farm.

@29, apparently you missed subsection 10a. Most small farms have no management decisions outside of daily operations, making them ineligible. This law is designed to look good on paper, but the number of qualifying farms is relatively small, especially in King County.

I don't think i've ever agreed before with any of the anonymous posters who change their name every time they post, but i certainly agree with this one. I'll never see 4.5 million dollars in my lifetime, and i'd still choose to keep the land/farm without batting an eye if those were choices presented. I'm sure this family would have done so as well if they could have, and the money is cold comfort for losing their home, their way of life, and their family history. (To say nothing of the waste of fertile land, or that many in similar situations get much less monetary compensation for their loss.) I'm feeling horrified that the prevailing opinion among Sloggers seems to be that a subdivision is better land use/more desirable than a farmstead. The estate tax should not apply here. You don't need to throw out the entire estate tax in order to carve out exceptions for people whose only financial asset is what the state says their land is "worth" if they should choose to abandon their livelihood, but the tax should not apply here, and if it does, the definition of "qualifying farm" needs to be amended such that it doesn't.