Conservation-use assessment is a sound idea: it keeps farm and timber land from being taxed out of existence by suburban land values, which protects both food production and open ground. Doubling the cap to 4,000 acres extends that protection to larger holdings. The honest tension is who benefits at the margin — raising the ceiling helps bigger landowners most, and a RESOLUTE voter who values the small family farm should ask whether this strengthens working agriculture broadly or mainly eases the tax bill on large estates. There is no obvious moral red flag here; it is a question of how far to extend a stewardship-minded break. If you trust that the land stays in genuine agricultural or timber use under the program's covenant, a 'yes' is defensible.
"The king himself is served by the field."
— Ecclesiastes 5:9 (KJV)