Exactly.
You can still have the open space. Just make it a park. Or even a public golf course. |
Yes, it is. Multiple errors. If open space land is used for other purposes, residential or commercial, MC, of course, must spend for more roads, more or bigger public schools (more students) and public safety (more people). Higher density (workers or residents) means higher burden. The logic for tax breaks for open spaces (which breaks exist in dozens of states) is that they reduce burdens on government. Sames with tax breaks for agricultural land, which breaks exist in MC and elsewhere in MD. Take note that the land used for buildings are already taxed at the higher rate. Yes, golf courses could be public parks, but then the County would have to maintain them, spending substantial tax revenues to do so. Now, as with other private recreational facilities, they are maintained with private dollars, while paying some taxes. Public parks pay no taxes by definition and cost the County money. Environmentalists recognize that open space land offer many environmental benefits that are not paid for by the public thru tax dollars. With private golf courses, as with private agricultural land, we get the environmental benefits without paying anything other than foregoing some tax revenues. |
What you meant to write is that a select few get to enjoy the environmental benefits, while the rest of Maryland pays a higher tax rate to subsidize the activities of the ultrarich. |
This debate is silly and misses much. Why are some NYC folks protesting Amazon's arrival? Why are some relieved that Amazon is not coming to White Flint? Because Amazon would bring a substantial need for more Montgomery money on roads, schools and public safety. The fear is that the tax revenues Amazon would bring do not offset the costs. By incentivizing open spaces thru lower taxes, Montgomery avoids those expenses.
|
Environmentalists are strong supporters of open spaces, for helping with local watershed, water runoff, wildlife habitats, oxygen production, air pollution, cooling hot temperatures. The broader public gets these benefits without payment. |
So turn the country clubs into public parks if the country club owners can't afford to pay the market rate on taxes. Subsidy avoided, public good increased. |
But we do pay higher taxes to compensate for country clubs paying lower taxes. Preferential tax rates aren't costless. |
Exactly. And golf courses aren’t exactly wildlife sanctuaries either. Between the vast ecological deserts of turf, the pesticides, the herbicides, the fertilizer and the lack of beneficial habitats for most animals, country clubs don’t do much for ecology. It would be better if they were carefully managed and allowed to grow as wildflower meadows. That would greatly benefit pollinators and birds, as well as curb fertilizer run off into our streams. |
Budgets are fungible. If less money comes in from “X”, then “Y” and “Z” each need to pay more to make up the difference. Everyone’s taxes in the county are incrementally higher to make up for the revenue lost from country clubs not paying as much. You CANNOT argue otherwise. This is simple math. |
So if we tax country clubs per acre st the same rates that SFHs and businesses pay, more if not most clubs will cease iperations and be sold for McMansions. That will mean the need for more school capacity, road and transit infrastructure and additional services. And who pays for that? Well, you do, my dear. Although new development will certainly add to tax rolls, the incremental revenue is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to pay for the additional infrastructure and services needs. Your tax bills will also be higher, as will the added congestion that you will experience and additional crowding that your kids will face at school. |
No, it is not that simple. Commercial buildings, apartment buildings, condos, and home cost money, in terms of more congestion, roads, schools, public safety. Why did some object to Amazon bid for White Flint, because Amazon would bring more people, demanding more everything. While more people pay taxes, those taxes may not offset the added burden on govt. So, yes, golf courses and other open spaces reduce demand for govt expenditures on everything (ie, save govt money). More importantly, open spaces provide real tangible environmental benefits. One maintenance guy complained to me yesterday that the recent record rainfall has overwhelmed many county drainage systems. Stormwater is a real issue in urban areas. Why do you think pervious paving materials are favored over impervious driveways? Turning open spaces into buildings, houses and roads only worsens issue, costing money to solve. So, yes, open spaces reduce burdens on govt resources and offer real environmental benefits. Whether economic value of reduced burden and environmental benefits is less or more than tax breaks is hard to judge, obviously. But, on your theory, lets go after religious organizations, educational institutions, other nonprofits who also get tax breaks and who provide other benefits, but not those. So, saying everyone's taxes are incrementally higher is rather than simple minded. Yes, county has a very high tax burden, not because of golf courses, but because of its leadership, both current and past. County total tax burden is absurd and is higher than neighboring jurisdictions, including next door in Washington, DC. A mentality to tax, tax, tax will only continue to drive residents away. County has fallen behind its neighbors, dramatically. A tax tax perspective will not help. |
Because your tax dollars will then maintain and patrol those parks. |
But at least I get something out of those parks. Right now, I subsidize country club owners who pay a lower tax rate than I do and get...nothing. |
This. |
You should do more reading. Golf courses provide huge eco benefits. Take water runoff from storms as a simple example. |