Why does Montgomery County Subsidize Taxes for Country Clubs?

[Anonymous]

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.

This is an excellent post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Here is a proposal. We should figure out how much golf courses save the county by not being homes and buildings. We should add that number to the environmental benefits for the county from golf courses. Full tax liability minus that total. We should do same for churches and schools and other entities that have tax breaks as well. BTW. You do get something. County saves money on services, reducing your taxes. You get environmental benefits, for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This.

You should do more reading. Golf courses provide huge eco benefits. Take water runoff from storms as a simple example.

Feel free to cite the evidence of these "huge eco benefits" that don't come from GolfersAssociation.com. Because these are the impacts that many golf courses have according to the Audubon Society.

What are Golf’s Potential Environmental Impacts?
In the past, environmental issues on the golf course have been overlooked. These include:
? Pollution of ground water and surface water caused by the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other
contaminants
? Poor stream water quality due to eroding shorelines
? Withdrawal of large quantities of water for irrigation
? Degradation or loss of natural areas
? Health hazards from chemical handling and applications
? Negative impacts of chemical use on “non-target” wildlife
? Unsound turf management driven by increasing and unrealistic golfer expectations and demands
To download this fact sheet and more, visit: www.auduboninternational.org
Golfers share spaces with all types of
amazing creatures!
New golf developments may raise additional concerns, depending on their location and design:
? Loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitats
? Alteration or damage to wetlands
? Replacement of natural plant communities with intensively managed landscapes and non-native plants
? Increased conflicts with wildlife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Here is a proposal. We should figure out how much golf courses save the county by not being homes and buildings. We should add that number to the environmental benefits for the county from golf courses. Full tax liability minus that total. We should do same for churches and schools and other entities that have tax breaks as well. BTW. You do get something. County saves money on services, reducing your taxes. You get environmental benefits, for free.

How about we figure out the revenue foregone to MoCo because we're giving preferential tax rates to country clubs rather than businesses that could generate far more revenue? If you want to argue that country clubs deserve subsidies purely on environmental grounds, it would be far superior to subsidize a public park open to all with native plants that doesn't need to rely on gallons of pesticides that kill wildlife in an effort to keep a perfectly green manicured lawn. Country clubs are not costless: they tax the local infrastructure with the traffic they create and they require support from all our services, from water and sanitation to public safety.

[Anonymous]

Yay- let’s turn the Chevy Chase Club into an upscale shopping mall. We could certainly use another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yay- let’s turn the Chevy Chase Club into an upscale shopping mall. We could certainly use another one.

We don’t need another shopping center.

We DO need accessible open wild space, managed in a way that benefits the environment and animal life, that the public (that means everyone) can visit and enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This.

You should do more reading. Golf courses provide huge eco benefits. Take water runoff from storms as a simple example.

You are out of your damn mind if you think golf courses provide ANY kind of ecological benefit.

They are only SLIGHTLY better for the environment than an asphalt parking lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This.

You should do more reading. Golf courses provide huge eco benefits. Take water runoff from storms as a simple example.

You are out of your damn mind if you think golf courses provide ANY kind of ecological benefit.

They are only SLIGHTLY better for the environment than an asphalt parking lot.

Here is an idea. Lets turn golf courses into concrete parking lots per the suggestion. Then, we can figure out where the rainfall goes from the summer storms. Simultanously, we can figure out where the wildlife goes. Parking lots are not good habitats for wildlife. We then can figure out how to lower the hot summer temperatures with all that asphalt. Parking lots mean more roads and cars, so more noise pollution. What about the oxygen generated from trees, shrubs, and grasses on golf courses. I prefer to breath oxygen over carbon dioxide. Who is going to pay to maintain that large asphalt parking lot? MC is broke.

[Anonymous]

If Maryland residents are being asked to amend Maryland's Constitution which requires the same type of property to be treated the same in order to target select golf courses for more money, then Maryland residents should be asked also to do same for select day care providers, religious institutions and swimming clubs. The County needs the money, I guess. A Democrat here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If Maryland residents are being asked to amend Maryland's Constitution which requires the same type of property to be treated the same in order to target select golf courses for more money, then Maryland residents should be asked also to do same for select day care providers, religious institutions and swimming clubs. The County needs the money, I guess. A Democrat here.

Great. Start your own movement for all of those.

But this thread is about why private country clubs are paying a minuscule fraction of the property taxes a homeowner pays.

[Anonymous]

If Maryland residents are being asked to amend Maryland's Constitution which requires the same type of property to be treated the same in order to target select golf courses for more money, then Maryland residents should be asked also to do same for select day care providers, religious institutions and swimming clubs. The County needs the money, I guess. A Democrat here.

Don't forgot private schools. I'm sure the poster who dreams of turning all golf courses into wild flower meadows hates private schools too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If Maryland residents are being asked to amend Maryland's Constitution which requires the same type of property to be treated the same in order to target select golf courses for more money, then Maryland residents should be asked also to do same for select day care providers, religious institutions and swimming clubs. The County needs the money, I guess. A Democrat here.

Great. Start your own movement for all of those.

But this thread is about why private country clubs are paying a minuscule fraction of the property taxes a homeowner pays.

My goal is is to target day care providers, religious orgs and swim clubs in your neighborhood, maybe TP. The ones in my neighborhood will retain the reduced tax break. I guess the State Constitution requires identical types of properties to be taxed the same, but so what. I want to tax the orgs in your neighborhood. I guess I should persuade Maryland voters to amend the State Constitution provision on equal treatment. BTW. I forget to say that TP politicos can't get the votes to change the state statute for all Maryland golf courses, so they are focusing on 4 golf courses. Nice precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If Maryland residents are being asked to amend Maryland's Constitution which requires the same type of property to be treated the same in order to target select golf courses for more money, then Maryland residents should be asked also to do same for select day care providers, religious institutions and swimming clubs. The County needs the money, I guess. A Democrat here.

Great. Start your own movement for all of those.

But this thread is about why private country clubs are paying a minuscule fraction of the property taxes a homeowner pays.

My goal is is to target day care providers, religious orgs and swim clubs in your neighborhood, maybe TP. The ones in my neighborhood will retain the reduced tax break. I guess the State Constitution requires identical types of properties to be taxed the same, but so what. I want to tax the orgs in your neighborhood. I guess I should persuade Maryland voters to amend the State Constitution provision on equal treatment. BTW. I forget to say that TP politicos can't get the votes to change the state statute for all Maryland golf courses, so they are focusing on 4 golf courses. Nice precedent.

I’m the poster you’re replying to/quoting

I agree with you 100%. Day care providers, religious orgs and swim clubs in my neighborhood should ALL be paying higher taxes. And anything you can do to further that end, I wholeheartedly support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

This.

You should do more reading. Golf courses provide huge eco benefits. Take water runoff from storms as a simple example.

You are out of your damn mind if you think golf courses provide ANY kind of ecological benefit.

They are only SLIGHTLY better for the environment than an asphalt parking lot.

Here is an idea. Lets turn golf courses into concrete parking lots per the suggestion. Then, we can figure out where the rainfall goes from the summer storms. Simultanously, we can figure out where the wildlife goes. Parking lots are not good habitats for wildlife. We then can figure out how to lower the hot summer temperatures with all that asphalt. Parking lots mean more roads and cars, so more noise pollution. What about the oxygen generated from trees, shrubs, and grasses on golf courses. I prefer to breath oxygen over carbon dioxide. Who is going to pay to maintain that large asphalt parking lot? MC is broke.

If MoCo is broke, all the more reason for country clubs to lose their preferential tax rates and pay what the rest of us citizens pay. This is a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Here is a proposal. We should figure out how much golf courses save the county by not being homes and buildings. We should add that number to the environmental benefits for the county from golf courses. Full tax liability minus that total. We should do same for churches and schools and other entities that have tax breaks as well. BTW. You do get something. County saves money on services, reducing your taxes. You get environmental benefits, for free.

How about we figure out the revenue foregone to MoCo because we're giving preferential tax rates to country clubs rather than businesses that could generate far more revenue? If you want to argue that country clubs deserve subsidies purely on environmental grounds, it would be far superior to subsidize a public park open to all with native plants that doesn't need to rely on gallons of pesticides that kill wildlife in an effort to keep a perfectly green manicured lawn. Country clubs are not costless: they tax the local infrastructure with the traffic they create and they require support from all our services, from water and sanitation to public safety.

Public parks cost money. They pay no taxes, and they must be maintained. Who pays to maintain them? Us, the taxpayers. With private parks and golf courses, the public via taxes pays nothing for the open space. Golf courses are actually terrific places for wildlife. Deer is rampant on many area courses for example. Pesticide use is way down on courses. And what pesticides that are used are handled by trained personnel. In terms of infrastructure, the clubs at issue are already taxed at market rates for the land with buildings. The open space obviously involves little infrastructure demand. In terms of water, they are most self sufficient at least in terms of the courses themselves, and they take care of their storm water (not into the county system). Turning a golf course into commercial buildings and/or residential homes would create huge NEW demands on infrastructure from roads, to schools, to more people, more public safety demands.