The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that counties can collect property tax from businesses operating on public land. This is a positive development for counties with vast tracts of federal land within their borders; it’s also a development that may need careful consideration in order to optimize both business revenue and property-tax revenue. It’s also a great triumph for Bob Slough, who, as attorney for the Montezuma County Commissioners, has made this issue his personal crusade.

It makes sense that businesses should be taxed on their use of property, regardless of where that property lies, because to do otherwise creates an unfair advantage for those businesses fortunate enough to have negotiated the use of public land.

It’s possible to argue that businesses on leased public lands operate under more restrictions than businesses in town or on other private property. Possessory interest is not the same as ownership. That’s true, and it’s fair, because such businesses also benefit from considerable advantages, including the three most important: location, location, location. The net difference is not a significant distinction between businesses on public and private property, which may be situated very close to each other and compete for the same customer base. Even if it were significant, though, it’s not particularly relevant to tax law, which should be designed to fund governmental activities in the fairest way possible.

As the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument begins to attract increased visitation, for example, substantial opportunity will develop for nearby landowners. They should be able to compete fairly, rather than being undercut by businesses that have the advantage of long-established relationships with the federal government.

Such competition benefits the local economy in which public-lands businesses participate. They also utilize services that are funded by property-tax revenues. Their employees’ children attend local schools, for example. Both employees and customers depend on the local hospital. Those services, and diverse others, depend on the support of a county’s entire property-tax base.

That tax base is already severely restricted by the ratio of public lands to private property in most states throughout the West. Counties receive some federal payments in lieu of taxes, but that compensation is unrelated to private uses of the public lands. If a county has the right to tax business uses of private land — and it clearly does — it only makes sense that such a right should extend to taxing all businesses within a county’s boundaries.

A more convoluted argument against such taxation — that businesses will pass tax costs on to their customers, and such a tax burden, especially in the case of a ski area or large sports franchise, would have a counterproductive effect on the local economy that benefits from the existence of such businesses — has several flaws. The costs should be borne by those who benefit directly from business operations, not just those who happen to live in the same taxation district, and they should be borne consistently by all businesses.

That’s fair and equitable taxation, which is one of the fundamental principles of our form of government. The Colorado Supreme Court saw fit to uphold that principle, and although the Colorado Legislature may soon attempt to craft loopholes, an important point has been made. The owner of a small business in a small rural community in Colorado should have the same rights and responsibilities as a stockholder in a large corporation doing business at Mesa Verde National Park or Coors Field. Might really doesnmake right, nor does it make good law.