Why does Montgomery County Subsidize Taxes for Country Clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be happy to see the country clubs pay at least as much as I do in property taxes. It's disgraceful that they don't, as it's basically a subsidy to their already rich members.

You use substantial County resources. Open spaces do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain why just those clubs? Why is Woodmont and Lakewood not on the list? Both are in MoCo. This looks likes a tax the white wasp clubs. Why isn’t this a tax across the board to all MoCo clubs?

Who cares? Tax the white wasps.

Your local pool is also not taxed, ditto for your local church. If you go after country clubs in this regard you can also expect that your summer pool and church will have a hard time staying open unless they charge it’s members a lot more money (contributions to church).
Private schools as well. Private schools do provide some open space and also jobs for residents. Pools and health clubs provide recreation.

I don't belong to a private pool. I swim at county swim centers. I also don't go to a church because I don't believe in fairy tails and make believe.

And I fully support taxing private pools and churches or other religious facilities at the same rate as businesses for their income, because that's what they are, and assessing their property taxes at the same rate of a private residence.

Frankly, everyone needs to be paying more in taxes. If we all did, a lot of problems would be solved.

With your attitude, residents would flee the County. It already is one of the most taxed jurisdictions in the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain why just those clubs? Why is Woodmont and Lakewood not on the list? Both are in MoCo. This looks likes a tax the white wasp clubs. Why isn’t this a tax across the board to all MoCo clubs?

Who cares? Tax the white wasps.

Actually, lets take whatever ethnic or religious group you belong to. What a racist statement!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.


Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh I'm not a golf fan or have any desire to join a country club but this is good example of why Takoma Park based politicians aren't good for the county. This rep's first try at this included all small clubs which would have made the small, cheapo neighborhood swim and tennis clubs all over the county go under. I guess his thinking was if it doesn't benefit Takoma Park directly then tax it more and send those dollars on over to Takoma Park pronto. He lost so now he's back focusing on only the clubs with larger golf courses.

While I personally don't care if the small number of clubs that David is targeting need to pay more taxes, I do care that MoCo politicians are once again not focusing on getting more business revenue into the county. Its embarrassing how badly MoCo is doing compared to VA,DC, Howard and Frederick! If David one and only plan for more revenue by increasing the taxes succeeds it would only go into place in 2031 and only raise 10M for the county. This will do nothing to steer away from the budget and financial crisis within MoCo.

I agree. Moon and his supporters are exactly what is wrong with the County. The County has stagnated for years, in a region that has boomed for over a decade. Even DC is doing better. And the County has a very high overall tax burden on its residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping your own money isn't welfare, nor is it a subsidy. Okay liberals, think of a pizza. You have a whole pizza, the government taxman wants half of the pizza as taxes. You manage to get them to only take a third. You have 2/3rd of a pizza now. Did you get a subsidy?

Yes, because everyone else has half a pizza. And perhaps, had everyone, including you, been paying the same, everyone could all have 60% of a pizza. But YOU only gave up 33% of your pizza, so everyone else has to give up 50% of theirs to make up for the 17% less pizza you are giving up. You are getting a 34% subsidy.


Excellent analogy. It makes it perfectly clear to everyone how these private clubs are being funded by people they’d never admit as members.


It’s shameful. Absolutely shameful.

The opposite is actually true. Unlike the PP, these places use very few County resources. If the land were schools, condos, houses, appts, etc, the County would use substantial resources to meet the increased needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm furious to find out that these private clubs not open to me to use and enjoy are being offered a lower tax rate than I pay for my own home.

Curious here - how do you feel about all the private swim and tennis clubs in the area paying a lower tax rate? They don't have more than 50 acres but I'm pretty sure that they aren't paying residential rates. How about private schools?

All of that needs to stop. Every bit of it.


The residential tax rate needs to be the BASE rate, the minimum rate, from which all other tax rates are benchmarked (except for agricultural property, since that’s obviously different).

Religious property needs to match residential assessments, business property needs to be higher, and private club or private school property (don’t care whether it’s a pool, tennis courts, church school, or whatever) needs to be the hightest of all.

Here is a great approach to attracting business to the County. I guess everything should be owned by the County in your eyes. Only public schools. Only public pools. Only public tennis courts. What if I and a few friends want to jointly build a pool on our land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we won't have private pools or private schools?

And???????? We have public pools. Wh have public schools. We don't need to subsidize private schools and club facilities that discriminate against non-members.


And no one is keeping you from having a church. You could start any church you want. You could go to any church you want. The church just needs to pay taxes for the land it owns - just like you do. What's unfair about that? You could even have a church that was entirely interenet based, and didn't pay any property taxes at all. Zero. None.



You're actually proving my point, rather than refuting it.

No, there is no subsidy. By encouraging private recreational facilities, the County has to spend fewer resources to develop public ones. The County saves money by allowing private parties to create these facilities. Maybe, you want everything owned by the County, a scary thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.


Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

Exactly. The notion that country clubs provide some sort of societal benefit to anyone other than their members is absurd.

And neither does your religious org private a benefit to anyone other than its followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the owners of those private clubs certainly have the right to offer to sell them to the county if it becomes too difficult to pay their fair taxes for the privileg of having a private club that discriminates against nonmembers.

Then the county can turn around an operate them as public facilities. Problem solved.

So, does the County have to own everything. Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except by not being an old racist white man, I'm certainly not as bad.

You though....

And who is the racist here! Not all old white men are racists. Most are not, in fact. And I am confident that not all members of your ethnic or racial group are free of racism, sexism, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.


Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

Then why do they need a public subsidy? Tax 'em the market rate.

I thought people like you loved free markets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.


Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

Then why do they need a public subsidy? Tax 'em the market rate.

I thought people like you loved free markets?

+1 All this bill is proposing is that country clubs pay the same rates other businesses and property owners do. This is a no brainer. Does anyone know the status of this bill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.


Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

Then why do they need a public subsidy? Tax 'em the market rate.

I thought people like you loved free markets?

+1 All this bill is proposing is that country clubs pay the same rates other businesses and property owners do. This is a no brainer. Does anyone know the status of this bill?

Not that simple. Unlike businesses and most other property owners, golf courses and open spaces require few County resources and save the County substantial money. No road, schools, public safety expenses They also provide proven environmental pluses to the region. Policy rationale is simple. Lower tax rates for open spaces as an incentive to save open spaces, particularly in dense areas. Farmland is another example. Many types of properties get tax breaks. Colleges, schools, religious organizations, nonprofit recreational facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.


Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

Then why do they need a public subsidy? Tax 'em the market rate.

I thought people like you loved free markets?

+1 All this bill is proposing is that country clubs pay the same rates other businesses and property owners do. This is a no brainer. Does anyone know the status of this bill?

Not that simple. Unlike businesses and most other property owners, golf courses and open spaces require few County resources and save the County substantial money. No road, schools, public safety expenses They also provide proven environmental pluses to the region. Policy rationale is simple. Lower tax rates for open spaces as an incentive to save open spaces, particularly in dense areas. Farmland is another example. Many types of properties get tax breaks. Colleges, schools, religious organizations, nonprofit recreational facilities.

No, that's not correct. Foregoing tax revenue that would be due to the County if the property were used in another way is not "saving the County substantial money." Other businesses don't require schools or road expenditures either, and as for public safety expenses, when I visited a club one night, there was a fire truck there, responding to an alarm, so it's not accurate that they don't cost any money in public safety expenses. If you want to benefit people with open spaces, make the country club into a public park. But there's no reason to subsidize the pleasure of a select few.