MARTIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY
A CASE STUDY ON LAND

Prepared by:

Greg Campbell and Joey Childers

For the

APPALACHIAN LAND OWNERSHIP TASK FORCE

November 1980

 

 

II.



IV.

MARTIN COUNTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to Martin County 

 

Land Ownership and Taxation

 

Land Use Patterns

The Impacts of Ownership and Use 

 

Conclusion

 

Footnotes 

Appendix A - Largest Land Owners
Martin County

 

Appendix - Largest Mineral Owners
martin County

 

   

I.



1/101

INTRODUCTION TO MARTIN COUNTY

A. Geography and Topography

Martin County is an eastern Kentucky county separated from Mingo and
wayne Counties, West Virginia by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River. To
the south of Martin County is Pike County, Kentucky and to the north Law-
rence County, Kentucky. Martin County consists of 147,840 acres of rugged
mountain land and narrow creek and river valleys. The county seat of
martin County is Inez, with a population of about 900. Other communities
in the county have names reflective of the attitudes of the people who live
there: Beauty, Lovely, Pilgrim, Tomahawk; and the names of families who
settled there: Stidham, McClure, Davisport, and DeLong.

B. Transportation

There are presently no four lane roads in Martin County, and transpor-
tation is difficult. A four lane highway from the center of Martin County
running north to Lawrence County is planned, but construction has not begun.
The existing road system consists mainly of state routes 3 and 40. Route 3
is the county's major north-south highway. Route 40 runs east-west and con-
nects Paintsville with Inez and Kermit, West Virginia. Route 292 also runs
north-south and follows the banks of the Tug Fork, and recently has become
a major coal hauling road, which has accelerated the deterioration of the
roadway.

According to local residents, the lack of an adequate transportation
system (there are no railroads or airports) is the major problem in the
county. A local attorney estimates that even after all the planned roads
are finished, 60 per cent of the county will remain isolated, and adds that
the roads which are in the worst condition are state roads, and doubts whe-
ther adequate funds are or will be available to alleviate the problem. He
Says also that it is unreasonable to expect industry to locate in Martin
County given the condition of the county's highways and lack of alternative
transportation facilities.

 

C. Demographic Profile

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 

In 1977, Martin County's population totalled 12, 100 which represua
a 29 per cent increase over 1970. This growth of population was a r-v
of earlier trends. Martin County, like most other Appalachian countiLg
experienced outmigration between 1950 and 1970. Between 1950 and 1970,
county lost 2,400 people, or 21 per cent of its 1950 population. The oq
migration between 1950 and 1970 reversed a long trend of population grid
which occurred between 1900 and 1950, and has resumed since 1970. Acc.'
to the University of Louisville's Urban Studies Center, this growth trg;
will continue, and Martin County will house approximately 25,030 peop 
the year 2020.1

Most of Martin County's population lives along the creeks and hi-k?
According to Martin County's Property Valuation Administrator, this 18',
result partly of the relocation of people by the coal and land companiTV
some of whom have bought entire watersheds. Also, people are becoming
influenced more and more by outside influences and are "coming out of
isolation." The increase in land values, which has paralleled the inc},
in coal production, has forced people to sell their land and move, oftu;
the cluttered creekside, or closer to town along the highways. She cii
the example.of Mapco, Inc., which bought the entire Big Peter Creek wail
and displaced hundreds of people, paying them exorbitant prices for t35

land, and forcing them to relocate.
D. Politics of Apathy

People in Martin County are hesitant to participate in the politic?h
process, if voting turnouts are any indication. Although 6,807 indivi?j
were registered to vote, only 1,330, or 19.5 per cent, voted in May 197?
according to records filed in the County Clerk's office. Local people 1
attributed this apathy to various causes, including corruption and exp'f
tion. A volunteer with the church-based Appalachian Reach-Out social 
agency explains the lack of participation in terms of a 
drawal of peOple seeking to escape exploitative outsiders.

The editor of the local newspaper points to corruption in county yr
ment as a cause. He points out that the current county judge was con"

of, and served time in prison for, five felony charges arising out of if

 

3 /103

embezzlement of flood relief money during the 1960's. He was pardoned from
his 20 year sentence by Richard Nixon; had his citizenship restored by Nixon
loyalist, and then governor of Kentucky, Louie Nunn; and was later re-elected
to the position of county judge in Martin County. The editor alleges that
since his re?election, the county judge and his machine have engaged in
nepotism, vote-buying, solicitation of illegal campaign contributions, and
use of county property for private purposes. This has resulted in decreased
community involvement in politics, says the editor. However, he goes on to
add that he believes the situation may be changing, as people in various
parts of the county are beginning to organize around their own causes. As
an example, he cites the recent jamming of the county courthouse by 800
people to protest the imposition of a one per cent occupational tax. The
feeling, says the editor, was that the money would go directly into the poc-
kets of the corrupt county political machine.

Other residents voiced similar sentiments concerning the political pro-
cess in Martin County. One resident says that people are reluctant to become
involved because everything in the county is run on a partisan political basis.
Another believes that people are apathetic because the county government has
ignored many segments of the population. Other residents describe power
elites composed of elected officials and members of the business establish-
ment who use every device within their grasp to retain power and keep opposi-
tion low. One resident commented, big-money boys always get what

they want."
E. Education and Financial Resources

The educational system in Martin County is beset by problems. There are
nine primary and secondary schools in the county, and in 1979 there were
3,248 children enrolled. Expenditures for education fall far below the state
average. According to a State Department of Education publication, Engile?_
Martin County spends 14 per cent less than the
state average on educational materials per pupil, 27 per cent less on instruc-
tion, and 22 per cent less on administration. Annual expenses per pupil were
24 per cent below the state average.

While the rest of the state (average) derives 14 per cent of its budget
from federal sources, Martin County obtains 23 per cent of its budget federally.

 

 

 

II.

   
  
   
   
  
 

State funds account for 62 per cent of the Martin County schools' .
while the figure for the rest of the state is 52 per cent. This leavi?
per cent of Martin County's budget to be generated locally, while ot.j?
school systems average 34 per cent.

Only 20 per cent of Martin County's high school graduates go on 
lege, yet the state average is 38 per cent. In addition, the percen.;
teachers in the county who have obtained a Master's degree is 41 per i
below the state average. For county residents older than 25, the ave -
number of years of schooling is approximately 7.4 years.

According to the County Superintendent of Schools, the disparity
state-local funding of the schools is the result of inadequate asseszV
and taxation of property in the county, which means that little reVLup?
generated locally. Another problem, feels the superintendent, is the;
ral conditions of the roads, which have caused great problems for thOEr
solidated schools of the county. Each of the school system's 26 busu:

travelled an average of 60 miles each day last year.

LAND OWNERSHIP AND TAXATION

 

A. Absentee Ownership

    
   
  
 
 
   
  

Ownership of land and minerals in Martin County is dominated by "g
absentee corporations and individuals. Out-of-state individual?

County, and 80 per cent of the surface land accounted for in this
Ownership Study(which did not include parcels of less than 250 acres 9
by "in-county" individuals). Corporations account for 64 per cent ofxr
surface acreage documented by the study, and at least 40 per cent of A
entire county. However, none of these corporations lists an address ?f
Martin County.

The top 10 surface owners in Martin County own 60,540 acres, 
ting 65 per cent of the total land in the study sample, and at least 5
cent of the entire county. They paid only 58 per cent of the taxes in
sample, though. Of these top 10, five are out-of-state corporations, 3

are out-of-state individuals, and two are local individuals, or estat .

5 I105

Mineral ownership is even more concentrated in absentee and corporate
hands than ownership of the surface. Corporations, regardless of residence,
own 88,070 acres of mineral rights in Martin County, representing 60 percent
of the total mineral acres in the county.* Of this, 86,200 acres, or 97.8
percent, are owned by out-of-state corporations. Out-of-state individuals
own another 23,541 acres, bringing the total for absentee ownership to 109,741
acres, or 75 percent of the total acres of mineral rights in the county. Local
individuals, on the other hand, own only 8 percent of the minerals. There are
no local corporate landowners, surface or mineral, in Martin County.

It is interesting to note that of Martin County's 147,840 total acres,
the land study documented and accounted for 146,412 acres, or 99 per cent
of the minerals. In no other county were all the acres,mineral or surface,
completely accounted for in the books of the Property Valuation Administrator.
Thus, while the complete mineral rights picture is cloudy in most counties,
it is clear who owns the minerals in Martin County. The top 10 mineral
holders in the county own 102,625 acres, or 70 per cent of the total. Since
the property tax rate on minerals in place is only l/lO? per $100 of value
in Kentucky, these owners pay virtually no property tax on their coal, oil,
gas, and other minerals. For example, the largest mineral owner owns 81,333
acres of mineral rights valued at over 7 million dollars, yet will.pay the
county only $76 in taxes this year.2

1. Pocahontas-Kentucky

The largest owner of land in Martin County is Pocahontas-Kentucky
Corporation. _This company, formerly known as Pocahontas Land Corporation,
and a subsidiary of the Norfolk and Western Railroad of Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, owns 47,869 acres of surface land and 81,333 acres of mineral
rights giving it top status in both categories. Pocahontas-Kentucky's
purpose, upon incorporating in 1977, was stated thus:

acquire, own, lease from others, improve,
occupy, develop, plant and grow timber on and utilize
lands and interests in lands, particularly lands con-
taining coal, oil, gas, iron or other ores, or minerals
or timber; to lease to others the right and privilege


*This figure refers to mineral acres as a percentage of the total surface acres
in the county.

 

 

 

of mining and removing coal, oil, to lease
to others the right and privilege of cutting and
removing 

The surface lands of this corporate owner are assessed for tax 2?

at $50 per acre,bringing the county a total of $20,919 in tax r;n

   
    

As mentioned before, the tax on Pocahontas' minerals amounts to 
yearly. Therefore, even though Pocahontas-Kentucky Corporation 
one-third of the land in Martin County, and 55 per cent of the 
its total taxes would amount to little more than enough to pure.;

new school bus for the county school system.
2. Martiki Coal Corporation and Mount Sterling Land Company

The second and third largest owners of land in the county art
out-of-state corporations, although the extent of their ownershi*
only a fraction of that of Pocahontas-Kentucky. Martiki Coal Co;;
a subsidiary of Mapco Oil Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, owns 5,856rf

rates only $2,267 in taxes. Martiki is also a major coal produc-
Martin County. Mount Sterling Land Company of Bluefield, West Vv?-
is the third largest land owner in the county, owning 1,206 acres,

paying taxes amounting to a mere $784.
3. Harvard University

The second largest owner of mineral rights in Martin County,
Pocahontas-Kentucky Corporation, is that eastern institution of 
learning, Harvard University. Harvard University owns 9,720 acre;
mineral rights in the county. The assessment on these minerals in
tremely low by any standards at $5.01 per acre, or a total of 
One thing is certain; the taxes on Harvard's minerals will not ca:
cutback in the quality of education there, since the University
pay Martin County Sc in property taxes!

4. Arch M. Hewitt

An individual from Ashland, Kentucky, Arch M. Hewitt, is the LE

7/107

largest owner of minerals in the county, owning the 2,426 acres of
minerals under and around the town of Beauty. These mineral rights
are valued at $424,550 or $175 per acre. (See Appendix A.)

   

c. Absentee Leasing

 

It is clear that most of the minerals in Martin County, coal for the
most part, are owned by absentee owners. Pocahontas-Kentucky Corporation
alone owns 55 per cent of those minerals. We have also found that in general,
absentee corporate owners tend to lease only to large absentee coal corpo-
rations, and local people have not been granted leases. For example, Pocahon-
tas-Kentucky is probably as much responsible as anyone for the onslaught of
strip mining into Martin County during the last decade. Pocahontas has owned
the mineral rights in Martin County for decades, but mining of coal did not
begin on a large scale until the late 1960's. Since then, Pocahontas has
leased nearly all of its verylarge strip mining companies
headquartered in New York and Tulsa. The following is a list of the corpora-

tions who have leased from Pocahontas-Kentucky:

1. Ashland Oil Company (through its subsidiary
Addington Brothers Mining Company)
Ashland, KY
16,164 acres (1975)

2. Island Creek Coal Company (subsidiary of
Occidental Petroleum Corporation)
Los Angeles, CA
10,116 acres

3. Wolf Creek Collieries(subsidiary of
St. Joe Minerals Corporation)
New York, NY
5,257 acres

4. Martin County Coal Corporation (subsidiary of
St. Joe Minerals Corporation)
New York, NY
17,408 acres

S. Webster County Coal Coropration (subsidiary of
MAPCO Oil Company)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
17,870 acres

 

 

6. Pontiki Coal Company (subsidiary of
MAPCO Oil Company)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
13,400 acres

   
    
   
  
     
    
  
  
     
 

From these leases, we can see that it was the intention of the offic;l'
Pocahontas-Kentucky Corporation to put large oil companies and energy,.
glomerates into business mining coal in Martin County, with the profiq?
that industry being deposited in Los Angeles, Tulsa, and New York ba.;

D. Underassessment and Taxation
l. Underassessment

The lands of Martin County, which as we have seen are owned 4
part by absentee owners, do not produce very much tax revenue. 
the result of widespread underassessment of surface land in the Cn~
both corporate and individual land. The Kentucky Constitution man
that all real property in the state be assessed for tax purposes 6;
fair cash value. This has been interpreted to mean that price -3
the property would bring at a sale between a willing seller and 
buyer. However, it is clear, as we will see, that thousands of a?t
of land in Martin County are assessed at much less than fair cash.;
Underassessment of land produces lower government and school reVuu:
thus reducing the level of services provided by county government,1
the quality of education (in as far as more money means higher :4
education) in the county schools. The bulk of the tax burden is bf
not by the owners of vast amounts of land, but rather by the indi@
homeowner, since homes are more likely to be assessed at fair casg?
than is underdeveloped acreage.

In order to illustrate the disparity in actual assessments 
and the fair cash value of land, we will now look at some recent
transactions in Martin County. Prices brought at a sale of land ;f
be indicative of the assessment on the land. The corporation whi .
been buying most of the land recently is Martiki Coal Company, a :5
diary of MAPCO Oil Company. This company's purchases include: 1/4
for $42,000 in June 1979; 3 acres for $38,000 in February 1979; 500'
for $20,000 in April 1978; 1 acre for $20,000 in March 1978; 100 7

 

9 /109

and a tract of land for $75,000 in January 1978. The purchases identi-
fied for this study, which represent a fraction of Martiki's total land.
holdings, amounted to $425,500. This much money has been paid out by
Martiki for land, excluding deeds which did not list the price, in the
last two years. However, Martiki's entire 5,856 acres in Martin County
are assessed for tax purposes at only $292,840, or $50 per acre. It is
clear that these lands should be assessed at a greater value in order to

be in compliance with the law.
2. The Role of the State

For all of Martin County's 92,627 acres identified by the study, the
total assessment of that land is $5,132,713. This amounts to a mere $55
per acre, which will only generate about 39? per acre in taxes. From this
39?, roads must be maintained, school systems financed, and county govern-
ments operated. It is inconceivable that a county could operate any type
of government or provide any services when the land in the county gene-
rates only 39? per acre in taxes. Property Valuation Administrator Betty
Muncy lays the blame for low assessments on the state. She says that
she has consistently tried to raise the assessments on Pocahontas-Kentucky's
land, but every time she does, the company protests and the State Board
of Equalization in Frankfort sides with the company. She says the same
is true for other companies that own land in Martin County. Getting the
assessments raised to $50 per acre was a tremendous job, says Muncy, be-
cause the company obviously had more money to fight the assessments with
than the county, and Pocahontas' efficient lawyers were able to keep the
assessments low.

The state of Kentucky must shoulder substantial blame for keeping
local tax revenues low. The state within the decade has created a
severance tax on coal, which generated $177 million dollars this year,
but which will go entirely into the state treasury with a small amount
coming back to the counties where the coal was produced. The state
has also prohibited the counties from levying a property tax on coal
through legislation which limits the tax rate to the incredibly low
figure of l/lOc per $100 value. And now we see where the state has
prohibited Martin County from complying with the law and assessing land

 

at fair cash value through its Board of Equalization.

   
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
  
  
   

The state, by prohibiting county governments such as Martin
taxing the ownership of its resources and the exploitation of the
rals in its county, has in effect cut its own throat. The state,.
addition to prohibiting the counties from collecting a property
coal, also prohibits coal producing counties from levying a severn?
tax on coal. This is accomplished through state legislation, as
preted by Kentucky's courts. Since coal counties are prohibited 
collecting tax revenues for their own use in Kentucky, the situa?e
becomes one where the state must subsidize every public service
the county. Thus, we have the Martin County financial picture, wi,
state providing 89 per cent of the funding for Martin County sch-u
while the county only kicks in 9 per cent. The state provides Ma-.
and many of its sister counties in Eastern Kentucky, with only enr-
money to keep the schools open and the roads passable. The rest a;
tax money generated in Martin County for the benefit of the state 
the form of severance tax money is spread among the affluent countg
central and western Kentucky. Meanwhile, Martin County remains one
"dole."

A Martin County attorney, and former county attorney echoes 
allegations made by Muncy concerning the fact that although local .
have tried to raise assessments on absentee land holdings, the stal
consistently aborted these efforts. The effect, says John Kirk,
Martin County's services to its residents are inadequate. A local?
paper editor laments the fact that $15 million in severance tax rz'?
left the county last year, and only $340,000 came back to the counr
appears, from all indications, that the state of Kentucky has jo 
long list of exploiters of the region's wealth, since so much money
taken from the coal region, while the bare minimum is returned. Sd?
government does not seem to be representative of eastern Kentucky's?
The result is that Martin County remains entirely dependent on the 

and federal governments for even the most basic services to benefitw

residents.

 

.II.

11/111

LAND USE PATTERNS

The large percentage of land in Martin County that is owned by absentee
corporations and individuals brings to mind the question: how do these
owners use their land? As we have found, Pocahontas-Kentucky Corporation
dominates land and mineral ownership in Martin County. We have also seen how
Pocahontas has chosen to profit from its lands and minerals: by leasing to
large oil companies and energy conglomerates. How do the companies, lessees

of Pocahontas, and the other corporate owners, use their land?
A. The Coal Boom

The answer, of course, is that these companies are solely interested
in profiting from the land through mining coal. Martin County does not
have a long history of coal mining; the phenomenon has been relatively re-
cent in arriving. When Lyndon Johnson visited Martin County in 1964, and
soon thereafter declared his War on Poverty, the county produced very little
coal and very little of anything else. In 1964, there were only 112 men
employed in the coal industry in Martin County, and only 211,144 tons of
coal were produced. This included 4,000 tons produced by surface mining.3
The county was truly a rural county with a stagnant economy. Thousands of
people had left Martin County during the previous decade, and thousands
more were leaving during the time Johnson made his visit.

Things began looking up towards the end of the sixties, though. The
coal business once more became a viable industry, and people began to flock
back to Martin County, as they did to other/eastern Kentucky counties. Vast
coal deposits were discovered in Martin County under lands already owned in
large part by Pocahontas Land Companyu. It was during this time that large
mining companies from around the country began to take a look at Martin
County. This was the only county in eastern Kentucky that had substantial
deposits of high grade coal which had not been extensively mined. There was
a period early in the century when the Himler Coal Company mined substantial
amounts of coal from its coal camp at Himlerville. However, that mine has
been shut down for decades and the residents have renamed the coal camp
Beauty. These large energy companies, most notably MAPCO Oil Company of

Tulsa, Oklahoma, and St. Joe Minerals of New York, saw that there was a

 

IV.

fortune to be made in coal in Martin County.
These corporations were able to acquire leases to thousands of :4

of coal rights from Pocahontas Land Company, and the result was that 

  
   
  
   
  
 
    
  
 
    
 
  
   
  
  

mining became a booming industry in Martin County beginning around 19,
Initially, the mines opened by the companies were deep mines, but gr;:
the situation changed and strip mining came to dominate the local io.
By 1973, strip mining was accounting for more tonnage than was the try
tional deep mining. Coal production leaped from 421,842 tons in 1966?
9,272,338 tons in 1978.4 By 1978, twice as much coal was being taken?
of the ground by strip mining as by deep mining.

Martiki Coal Company, a subsidiary of MAPCO Oil Company, is the a
pany that is responsible for most of the strip mining in Martin Count:
four mines, this company produced 1.7 million tons of coal in 1978. I
coal company was such a large strip mine operation that by the mid-19%
it saw the need to bring into the eastern Kentucky coalfields the fir;
"drag line" coal mining machine. This machine, eight stories tall,
more common to flat coal regions, is able to swallow entire tops of my
with one "bite" from its huge shovel. Strip mining had indeed come to
County in a big way. The domination of the Martin County mining indu?
by MAPCO and St. Joe Minerals is apparent: Six of the top ten coal mij
companies in the county in 1978 were subsidiaries of one of these two 
rations. In addition, five companies account for over 70 percent of 
permitted surface mining acreage in Martin County, and are led by subf
of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, St. Joe Minerals, and MAPCO. 

Decisions concerning the mining industry in Martin County, incl
decisions on when and where to mine coal, when to open or shut down 
or how to mine the coal are not made in Martin County, but are effect-3 i
the corporate boardrooms of Roanoke, Tulsa, New York, and Los Angeles.
local resident comments:

These companies are taking their money out of the
state and leaving nothing behind but wages; no roads,
no recreation, no nothing!

IMPACT OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE
A. Environmental

The increase in strip mining during the 1970's has taken its toll 

 



Martin County. Strip mining in mountainous areas causes increased run-off
of rainwater, washing mud down the banks and into the streams. This has
resulted in siltation of the streams, and increased flooding in the county.
Although data on water quality was not specifically available for Martin
County, there was data for the Big Sandy River basin in general, an area
which contains Martin County. The 1978 Kentucky Water Quality Report to
Congress, prepared by the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, states that
the major problem with water pollution in eastern Kentucky is that the streams
have become inundated with silt. The reservoirs of the region are filling
with silt as well. The causes of siltation include strip mining, clear cut?
ting, and road building. The study identifies other pollutants of the streams
as fecal coliform, due to the general lack of sewage treatment facilities,
and solid waste which is dumped into the streams. The existence of the
major pollutants, however, is "indicative of the coal mining which takes place
in the base," says the report.5

Local people are mixed on the question of strip mining's benefits versus
its harm. Strip mining has given many people jobs in the county, while
simultaneously increasing flooding and destroying the surface. An employee of
the circuit court points out that never before in the county's history had
the floodwaters risen to the levels that have been recorded in the past few
years. He attributes this to strip mining. He believes that deep mining
would be far more advantageous to the county, and less costly in terms of harm
caused. One resident remembers the county's streams as they were when he was
a boy: filled with fish and the sounds of bullfrogs at night. Now, he laments,
mud fills the streams and the nights are still. This resident is a self-
proclaimed "old-timer," who is currently involved in writing a history of
Martin County. Many local residents point out that strip mining has increased
flooding in the county, yet are hesitant to call for complete abolition of
this mining practice. One resident, a member of Concerned Citizens of Martin
County, a group which has organized to oppose forced relocation and to protest
general conditions in Martin County, says that local people who are strip
miners are no different from absentee companies. "Strip miners are all looking

for a fast buck,"she says.

 

B. Cultural

    
 
 
  
   
   
    
 
  
  
  
  
   
  
    
 
  

There is the widespread belief in Martin County that there has 
a cultural evolution in the county recently. The positive effects of
changing culture are stressed by some people, while others see the 
more negatively. Those who see the changes positively relate how th=i
watched the populace become more politically motivated, and deve10p a
healthy militance. This is partly due to the fact that many people
Martin County years ago, saw how things could be better, and then retj
and began demanding changes, according to one local citizen. An editv
a local newspaper cites the example of the jamming of the county courg
recently by 800 people to protest the planned imposition of a one perf
occupational tax.

Many people, however, feel like the coal boom has caused people 
become more greedy, placing more emphasis on materialism. One residzg
thinks that people's attitudes towards the land have changed, and pe-r
view land as a commodity rather than as sustenance for life.

One resident of the Wolf Creek area, an area which has been intu?
strip mined in recent years, commented that strip mining is "pitiful, .
that it kills game and fish, and that "every time it rains, you have a
for high ground." Residents of Martin County are divided on the issud
strip mining along lines that reflect the economic ties to the indust -
the disastrous effects of strip mining that people must live with on 
to-day basis.

C. Housing

Martin County is a relatively small county in terms of square milv
yet produces nearly 10 million tons of coal per year, more than 6 mil'i
which is strip mined.6 It is obvious, therefore, that the leading usei
the land in Martin County is for strip mining of coal. Coal companies 
in strip mining coal have, in recent years, displaced hundreds of peop
their homes by paying them inflated prices for their land and homes.
of this are found in the Wolf Creek and Big Peter Creek areas, where
has been displacing people. The cultural effect on these people, cla i

Property Valuation Administrator, Betty Muncy, has been great, since

 

15 /115

were people who had lived in virtual isolation for 100 years, and now were
being herded into communities.

Another recent attempt at displacing people was attempted by the
Martin County Housing Authority. This agency of local government 
for a Community Development Block Grand (CDBG) through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This grant would have called for the
purchase of over 100 homes in the Beauty area, and the relocation of these
people to new homes. The planning process did not involve any of the local
people from Beauty, and the feeling in that community was bitterness and
opposition to the plan. The result of that Opposition was the formation of
concerned Citizens of Martin County, a citizens' group in Beauty that has
over 100 members. Some of the residents in that community, members of the
citizens' group, have expressed a belief that the coal interests were behind
the plan from the start. A.T. Massey Coal Company strip mines just over the
ridge, and has attempted to buy a choice lot in Beauty for a coal preparation
plant. There may be some truth to the allegation, since Beauty is underlain
by vast coal deposits.

The plan itself was full of discrepancies, including one which claimed
all the houses were in the flood plain and 95 per cent were substandard.
Actually, the residents point out, only about 16 houses were in the flood
plain and no more than 25 per cent are substandard. This was a case of
people refusing to move from their community which had been their home for
generations. The relocation site was identified as a flood-prone site itself.
HUD has scrapped the plan, and it is doubtful now whether the Martin County
Housing Authority will attempt to revive it in the near future.

In general, people have been displaced by strip mining in the southern
half of Martin County. This is the part of the county that has continuous
coal seams, whereas the northern half contains seams which are broken. The
people who have been moved out of southern Martin County have either had to
locate in northern Martin County, or buy trailers to place along the creeks,
or leave the county entirely. According to Muncy, people have done all
three of these things. The result has been a tremendous demand for non-
existent housing. In addition to the displacement, more people are continuously
coming into Martin County and there are simply not enough housing units.
According to a 1977 HUD financed study, Martin County had 3,785 units of
housing, 3,744 units or 99.7 per cent of which were occupied. Thirty-one
per cent of the housing in Martin County was classified as substandard. This

 

 

 

 

  
   
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
   
    
  

situation is very grave, given the fact that there is a coal boom in
Martin County which is drawing more and more people to the county, cruf
a demand for housing which is simply not available. 

The ironic character of the housingizrisis in Martin County is 11.
by the fact that the ownership and use patterns of absentee corporati?
taneously create the need for additional housing and limit the availag;
of housing. "The corPOrations have affected the housing situation by
land at inflated prices, thereby driving up land values," according tn
county planner. This has been extremely critical in the Wolf Creek as
where MAPCO bought the entire watershed. The practice of leasing land,
large coal mining companies has created a booming coal industry in
County, which means more people come into the county to work the min::
who need housing. Yet the land holding and coal companies that own 
not make it available for housing. According to the editor of the Ma;

Countian:

Pocahontas-Kentucky owns vast amounts of land in the
county, yet will sell or lease only to coal companies.
The average individual who must work for a living
doesn't stand a chance of getting any land from them:
he is simply left out of consideration.
The local land agent for Pocahontas-Kentucky denies that this allegat 
true, and claims that all of Pocahontas' property is hillside propertyi
unsuitable for housing sites. However, it is unimaginable that out of
47,869 acres that Pocahontas owns, there would be no sites suitable 
housing.
One local resident adds that strip mining has contributed to the 
shortage, because the floods associated with strip mining have made it
impractical to build houses on level land beside the county's streams.?
points out that people are having to live in nearby counties and drive-
Martin County for work each day. According to many of those people int,
viewed for this study, there are two major problems with locating good?
in Martin County. First, there are few sites available on which to 
houses, due to both the mountainous terrain of the region and the land?
ship patterns; and, second, the fact that the price of housing has sk"

since the coal boom.

 

17/117

D. Economic

Martin County is certainly characterized by a one-industry economy.
The economic well-being of the county presently is completely determined by
the well-being of the coal industry. In 1976, the county had total personal
income of $60,643,000, of which $48,582,000 or 80 per cent7 was directly
attributable to mining or quarrying. Nearly 5,000 workers were employed by
the mining industry that year. County planner Larry Smith believed that
one reason for the lack of alternative industry in Martin County is that the
coal industry pays high wages and other industries simply cannot pay similar
wages. Many of those interviewed expressed similar concerns, that
alternative industries would find it difficult to attract good workers due
to the high pay and benefits provided by the coal industry. Other residents,
however, point out that many people, for varying reasons, will not work in
the mines, and would embrace new employment opportunities, even if it meant
working for less wages. Lack of safety in the mines, they add, is a major
reason many people shy away from them.

The state representative for Martin County, Leo Marcum, states that
small factories which could be built in Martin County would provide needed
employment for many available female workers in the county who are presently
unemployed. Nearly everyone agreed that Martin County's labor force is gene-
rally a skilled labor force, due to the high percentage of vocational school
graduates in the area and the return of factory workers from the northern
cities. Presently there is no manufacturing plant of any kind in Martin
County.

Since the coal boom in Martin County, unemployment has decreased from
21.4 per cent in 1965 to 4 per cent in 1977. It is interesting to note that
in 1977 the coal industry in the county employed 4,746 workers, but only 2,152
were residents of Martin County. The remaining 2,594 commuted to work in the
county. The average weekly wage in Martin County for 1977 in all industries
was $356.77. For themining and quarrying industries, the figure was $412.00.8

The coal boom has certainly brought more prosperity to Martin County
than has ever been the case before. In terms of individual impacug the
Changes since the decade of the sixties are phenomenal. For instance, per
Capita income jumped from $953 in 1958 to $4,968 in 1976, an increase of over

400 per cent. Median family income rose from $3,415 in 1970 to $5,900 in
1977.

 

    
   
    
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
   
    
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  

Martin County's recent economic gains have not benefitted every.g
the county though. In 1976, 3,655 residents, or about 1/3 of the to .
lation, were living below the poverty level. Approximately 13 per cu.
the population was receiving public assistance in 1977. For the fis'i
1976-77, 52.6 per cent of Martin County's public school students wet;
sified as economically disadvantaged, a level which is 69 per cent .
than the state average.9 The County Coordinator of the Big Sandy CAPI
that the coal boom has bypassed a good portion of the county's popular

He says: 

major factor which explains the county's high leveljg
poverty is the hiring preference given to non-residents by the area'sv
companies. There are plenty of poor people in the county who would
job at the mines, but just can't get one." Similar sentiments were.
by citizens of the Beauty community, who cited the example of the coV;
mining coal in Martin County which have brought in workers from Texas.

other western states rather than employing local people.
E. Local Services and Infrastructure

It is doubtful at the present time whether Martin County has the b2
infrastructure capable of handling industrial growth. The county's
system is capable of handling up to one million gallons of water pervd
Present consumption is 500,000 gallons per day. The fact that Martid*
has no sewage treatment plant is a major drawback in luring industry?r
county, according to local residents. In addition, the county's road?
in terrible need of upgrading, and there is no railroad in the county.
health care available in thecounty is minimal, with no hospitals and-~
physician and RN rate much lower than the state average. The full-t 
force for the county consists of the sheriff and two deputies. The
two fire department at Inez and Warfield are totally staffed by volun?
Very little money for funding the fire departments comes from the co ML
according to a representative of the Warfield Fire Department.

In spite of the recent surge in employment and coal mining, Mar
government simply does not have very much money to operate with. Totf
tures for fiscal year 1978-79 amounted to a mere $712,150. From th 9
the county must finance every aspect of the county government's servii
cluding schools). Services which must be financed include: protectii

police, etc.), sanitation (for which no money was appropriated in 1974

 

19 /119

health care, libraries, social security contributions, road building and
maintaining, and numerous minor services. This amount of money spent in-
cludes all the revenue generated through local taxation, license fees, and
revenue sharing.

It is obvious that Martin County is a connty that is being strangled
by forces beyond its control. Huge energy companies are ripping the county
apart, extracting millions of dollars worth of coal from which the profits
leave the county forever, and no tax revenue remains behind. State govern-
ment has tied the hands of local officials, who might wish to take the initia-
tive and regain some of Martin County's lost wealth, by legislating that
the state rather than local governments must tax the large energy companies'
profits.

Martin County, even though it contains much of eastern Kentucky's
premier coal and has become a major coal producing county, remains one of
the state's poorest counties. The only money remaining in Martin County after
all the coal is mined is in the form of wages-wages that are often squandered
on material goods. The substantial wages paid by the mining industry go for
things like new four-wheel-drive trucks, mobile homes, clothes, instead of
for real estate and homes which cannot be bought in the county. The real
beneficiaries of the coal boom in Martin County are not the people who live
and work in the county, but rather are the people who own stock in the large
coal and energy conglomerates in business in Martin County. Substantial wealth

leaves the county, but very little is re-invested there.
V. CONCLUSION

What will become of Martin County once all the coal is gone? There is
not enough wealth remaining in the county after the profits are shipped out-of-
state to run even the local government or school systems, let alone establish
any sort of trust fund for future development. There is not enough tax money to
provide even the most basic of human services, let alone lure industry to Martin
County. One-third of the county's land, and 55 per cent of its minerals are owned
by one corporation, a corporation interested only in its own well-being and pro-
fitable future. Yet the taxes paid by this enormous property owner will hardly
buy a bus for the county school system. There is no available land for housing
Martin County's people or prospective industries because so much is owned by
Companies solely interested in exploiting the wealth of that land and its re-

sOurces. Substantial taxes in Martin County are the ones paid on houses,

buildings, and city lots, not on rural undeveloped land like that which 2
to Pocahontas-Kentucky. Yet that corporately owned land will remain u.aF
so long as a single coropration exercises complete and total dominion ova

Coal corporations like Pocahontas are not interested in develyij
for industry, because alternative industries and local control over res. 
are threatening to the well-being of large absentee owners. These Con-:5
short sighted, concerned only with the profit which can be milked from .i
like milk from a cow. Local people, who see beyond the short-term and 
cerned with the future well-being of Martin County and its future Citilay'
frustrated because they have no control over their own destinies. One ?5
miner notes:

I've seen mining come and go, and I'd just like to
see something from all the money taken out left for
future generations.

Perhaps a local Circuit Court employee sums it up best, though, after pr{'
an economic bust once all the coal is gone: "I'm not concerned about my:i

concluded, "just my grandchildren."

 

 

MARTIN COUNTY
FOOTNOTES

U. S. Census data.

Data gathered for this study.

Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals,
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals,
Kentucky Water Quality Report to Congress,
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals,
Kentucky Deskbook of Economic Statistics.
Ibid.

Ibid.

21/121

Annual Report, 1964.
Annual Reports, 1966, 1978.
1978.

Annual Report, 1978.

 

APPENDIX A

LARGEST LAND OWNERS - MARTIN COUNTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SURFACE Per Cent
ACRES TAXES ACRE COUNTY.
l. Pocahontas Ky. Corp 47,869 $16,902 .35 32
Railroad)
.Roanoke, Va.
2. Martiki Coal Corp. 5,856 2,059 .35 4
(MAPCO Oil Co.)
Tulsa, Okla.
3. Mount Sterling Land Co. 1,206 660 .55 
Bluefield, W. Va. .
4. Ben Fitzpatrick 989 135 .14 .6
Beauty, Ky.
5. J. B. Goff Land Co. 836 295 .35 .5
Williamson, W. Va.
6. Pontiki Coal Corp. 793 287 .36 .5
(MAPCO Oil Co.)
Tulsa, Okla.
7. T. J. Wireman-Estate 786 64 .08 .5
Bluefield, w. Va.
8. T. J. Hardin-Heirs 755 177 .23 .5
Inez, Ky.
9. Marjone Blackburn 725 255 .35 .5
Cleveland, Ohio
10. H. R. Blankenship 725 144 .20 .5
Columbus, Ohio
60,540 $20,978 .35 40.851

 

q-

 

These ten corporations paid 58.14% of the prOperty taxes in the ARC
study sample, and own 65.51% of the land.
one given in the above column represent both the tax on the surface?

and the inconsequential tax on any minerals that they own.

This tax figures (and 

For 

Pocahontas is also the largest owner of minerals in Martin County 
81,333 acres valued at over 7 million dollars, yet the total tax on
these minerals amounts to only $74.05.

The ARC study documented all the land recorded in the tax books for'
the county, with the exception of parcels of less than 250 acres 

by individuals who reside in Martin County.

The excepted acreage ff

all the other categories of owners (individuals and corporations)
parcels of less than 20 acres.

 

23/123

APPENDIX 

LARGEST MINERAL OWNERS - MARTIN COUNTY

 

 

 

TAXES PER CENT
(1/10 of CF

ACRES VALUE 1c per $100) COUNTY
yocahontas Ky. Corp. 81,333 $7,604,963 $74.05 55.01%
(?aw Railroad)
Roanoke, Va.
mrvard University 9,720 48,700 .00 6.57
Cambridge, Mass. (oil gas)
Arch 1hwitt 2,426 424,550 4.25 1.64
Ashland, Ky.
Mark Dempsey-lhirs 1,890 349,650 3.50 1.28
Inez, Ky.
T. J. Hardin-Heirs 1,520 140,775 1.41 1.03
Inez,Ky.
Jefferson Coal Co. 1,417 247,800 2.48 .96
Ashland, Ky.
Sterling Land Co. 1,206 209,000 2.09 .82
Bluefield, W. Va.
Russ Williamson 1,084 93,900 .94 .73
Inez, Ky.
W. J. Ward, Jr. 1,061 196,285 1.96 .72
Richardson, Ky.
R. F. Vinson-Heirs 968 128,680 1.29 .65
Ashland, Ky.

102,625 $92.02 69.41%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Kentucky has virtually no property tax on coal or other minerals.
The state rate on taxing coal originally was 31.5c per $100 value,

according to the assessment.

by the 1978 legislature is 1/10 of lc per $100 value.
property tax on minerals other than coal, and the only reason the

legislature left the bill intact at all was that it would keep

everything in compliance with the state constitution.

The present tax structure, enacted
There is no