Why does Montgomery County Subsidize Taxes for Country Clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take note that I wish to increase taxes on these orgs in your neighborhood, not those in mine. I want those in mine to retain their tax breaks, but not those near you. Lets see how many day care providers/religious orgs/swim clubs survive with higher property taxes. You should note, of course, that Maryland's Constitution prohibits this unequal treatment, maybe for good reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take note that I wish to increase taxes on these orgs in your neighborhood, not those in mine. I want those in mine to retain their tax breaks, but not those near you. Lets see how many day care providers/religious orgs/swim clubs survive with higher property taxes. You should note, of course, that Maryland's Constitution prohibits this unequal treatment, maybe for good reason.

No. We'll be raising yours, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Take note that I wish to increase taxes on these orgs in your neighborhood, not those in mine. I want those in mine to retain their tax breaks, but not those near you. Lets see how many day care providers/religious orgs/swim clubs survive with higher property taxes. You should note, of course, that Maryland's Constitution prohibits this unequal treatment, maybe for good reason.

Unclench, weirdo. It's pretty obvious that country club lawyers got Annapolis to carve out a special interest tax break. This is the epitome of corrupt backroom self-dealing. Drain the swamp!

[Anonymous]

Yeah, there needs to be more sunlight cast on this.

[Anonymous]

I suggest they take away those tax breaks and give them to Amazon as an incentive to build at White Flint. How much does a bunch of country clubs do for the county? How much would Amazon do for it in comparison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suggest they take away those tax breaks and give them to Amazon as an incentive to build at White Flint. How much does a bunch of country clubs do for the county? How much would Amazon do for it in comparison?

That is actually a really excellent idea. The White Flint site is already an ecological dead zone. No net environmental loss there. And if the country clubs go under because they can’t afford to pay the legitimate taxes they owe, then the county could just acquire them and manage them as parks and wild spaces.

That would actually be a huge win-win-win.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty simple minded to endorse higher property taxes on golf courses without considering any of the economic or community consequences of such action. People spend a lot of money at golf courses. The sales tax generated by these places is large. Plus the jobs. You drive the golf courses away, you drive their patrons away. To Virginia. I’m sure that Virginia will happily take the sales taxes, employment taxes, and jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest they take away those tax breaks and give them to Amazon as an incentive to build at White Flint. How much does a bunch of country clubs do for the county? How much would Amazon do for it in comparison?

That is actually a really excellent idea. The White Flint site is already an ecological dead zone. No net environmental loss there. And if the country clubs go under because they can’t afford to pay the legitimate taxes they owe, then the county could just acquire them and manage them as parks and wild spaces.

That would actually be a huge win-win-win.

Here is more stupid thinking. Yes, MoCo should go after Amazon, but MoCo should understand that Amazon will cost MoCo serious money in terms of roads, schools, public safety. Hopefully, those costs would be offset by the increased income tax revenues. Separately, the idea that whatever tax "breaks" golf courses receive is going to Amazon is stupid. Yes, stupid. Not enough money. The reason you provide Amazon tax breaks is that you think that Amazon will bring substantial additional tax revenues, in the form of income, property, sales, etc taxes. So, if you estimate that Amazon will bring $100 in additional tax revenue, you might say, as a state or county, that you will give Amazon a tax break of $20. If your estimate is correct, Maryland/MC wins. AOC is an idiot to say that now we can spend in NYC that $3B that was going to Amazon on other priorities. That $3B, of course, does not exist and will not exist. On golf courses, MC does not have the money to acquire these golf courses and certainly does not have the money to maintain them as public parks. This is very simple. Golf courses reduce the burden on public resources (ie, MC taxpayer dollars) in the form of roads, schools or public safety, and the provide environmental benefits as open spaces. So, yes, the courses could become (theoretically) public parks, but MC has no money to buy the land and no money to maintain more public parks, and private golf courses (unlike public ones) produce some property taxes. So, the targeted private courses reduce the burden on govt resources and provide environmental benefits. In exchange for that reduced burden and environmental benefits, the courses pay a lower tax rate on the land used for the courses (not the land used for buildings which is the full rate). The real question is how the sum of the reduced burden and environmental benefits compares to the tax breaks. I do not know, and neither does anybody on this thread. But I do know that turning the targeted golf courses in commercial buildings or homes would dramatically increase the demand on public resources in parts of MC that are already dealing with congestion.

[Anonymous]

Word salad that makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest they take away those tax breaks and give them to Amazon as an incentive to build at White Flint. How much does a bunch of country clubs do for the county? How much would Amazon do for it in comparison?

That is actually a really excellent idea. The White Flint site is already an ecological dead zone. No net environmental loss there. And if the country clubs go under because they can’t afford to pay the legitimate taxes they owe, then the county could just acquire them and manage them as parks and wild spaces.

That would actually be a huge win-win-win.

Here is more stupid thinking. Yes, MoCo should go after Amazon, but MoCo should understand that Amazon will cost MoCo serious money in terms of roads, schools, public safety. Hopefully, those costs would be offset by the increased income tax revenues. Separately, the idea that whatever tax "breaks" golf courses receive is going to Amazon is stupid. Yes, stupid. Not enough money. The reason you provide Amazon tax breaks is that you think that Amazon will bring substantial additional tax revenues, in the form of income, property, sales, etc taxes. So, if you estimate that Amazon will bring $100 in additional tax revenue, you might say, as a state or county, that you will give Amazon a tax break of $20. If your estimate is correct, Maryland/MC wins. AOC is an idiot to say that now we can spend in NYC that $3B that was going to Amazon on other priorities. That $3B, of course, does not exist and will not exist. On golf courses, MC does not have the money to acquire these golf courses and certainly does not have the money to maintain them as public parks. This is very simple. Golf courses reduce the burden on public resources (ie, MC taxpayer dollars) in the form of roads, schools or public safety, and the provide environmental benefits as open spaces. So, yes, the courses could become (theoretically) public parks, but MC has no money to buy the land and no money to maintain more public parks, and private golf courses (unlike public ones) produce some property taxes. So, the targeted private courses reduce the burden on govt resources and provide environmental benefits. In exchange for that reduced burden and environmental benefits, the courses pay a lower tax rate on the land used for the courses (not the land used for buildings which is the full rate). The real question is how the sum of the reduced burden and environmental benefits compares to the tax breaks. I do not know, and neither does anybody on this thread. But I do know that turning the targeted golf courses in commercial buildings or homes would dramatically increase the demand on public resources in parts of MC that are already dealing with congestion.

No one here has advocated turning them into commercial building spaces or residential areas.

The three consistent alternatives seem to be:

1) they pay their fair share of taxes

2) if they continue to receive a huge tax subsidy, then they admit the general public to use the facilities any time they're open.

3) if they're unable to stay in business after paying their taxes or aren't willing to admit the public, then the county can acquire them through eminent domain and run them as public parks.




Private country clubs are a relic of an era that needs to be forgotten. A sanctuary for old rich white guys to gather and plot out the ways they will screw over everyone else, so they can continue to be old, even richer, white guys.


The whole model is gross and offensive.

Country clubs are the equivalent of having a lawn jockey ornament at the end of your driveway. That's what being a member of a country club says about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest they take away those tax breaks and give them to Amazon as an incentive to build at White Flint. How much does a bunch of country clubs do for the county? How much would Amazon do for it in comparison?

That is actually a really excellent idea. The White Flint site is already an ecological dead zone. No net environmental loss there. And if the country clubs go under because they can’t afford to pay the legitimate taxes they owe, then the county could just acquire them and manage them as parks and wild spaces.

That would actually be a huge win-win-win.

Here is more stupid thinking. Yes, MoCo should go after Amazon, but MoCo should understand that Amazon will cost MoCo serious money in terms of roads, schools, public safety. Hopefully, those costs would be offset by the increased income tax revenues. Separately, the idea that whatever tax "breaks" golf courses receive is going to Amazon is stupid. Yes, stupid. Not enough money. The reason you provide Amazon tax breaks is that you think that Amazon will bring substantial additional tax revenues, in the form of income, property, sales, etc taxes. So, if you estimate that Amazon will bring $100 in additional tax revenue, you might say, as a state or county, that you will give Amazon a tax break of $20. If your estimate is correct, Maryland/MC wins. AOC is an idiot to say that now we can spend in NYC that $3B that was going to Amazon on other priorities. That $3B, of course, does not exist and will not exist. On golf courses, MC does not have the money to acquire these golf courses and certainly does not have the money to maintain them as public parks. This is very simple. Golf courses reduce the burden on public resources (ie, MC taxpayer dollars) in the form of roads, schools or public safety, and the provide environmental benefits as open spaces. So, yes, the courses could become (theoretically) public parks, but MC has no money to buy the land and no money to maintain more public parks, and private golf courses (unlike public ones) produce some property taxes. So, the targeted private courses reduce the burden on govt resources and provide environmental benefits. In exchange for that reduced burden and environmental benefits, the courses pay a lower tax rate on the land used for the courses (not the land used for buildings which is the full rate). The real question is how the sum of the reduced burden and environmental benefits compares to the tax breaks. I do not know, and neither does anybody on this thread. But I do know that turning the targeted golf courses in commercial buildings or homes would dramatically increase the demand on public resources in parts of MC that are already dealing with congestion.

No one here has advocated turning them into commercial building spaces or residential areas.

The three consistent alternatives seem to be:

1) they pay their fair share of taxes

2) if they continue to receive a huge tax subsidy, then they admit the general public to use the facilities any time they're open.

3) if they're unable to stay in business after paying their taxes or aren't willing to admit the public, then the county can acquire them through eminent domain and run them as public parks.




Private country clubs are a relic of an era that needs to be forgotten. A sanctuary for old rich white guys to gather and plot out the ways they will screw over everyone else, so they can continue to be old, even richer, white guys.


The whole model is gross and offensive.

Country clubs are the equivalent of having a lawn jockey ornament at the end of your driveway. That's what being a member of a country club says about you.

Wow, pp! Could you be more out of touch or stuck in 1950? Nothing in your sad temper tantrum of a post reflects the reality of 2019
I am a single, suceesful, mid-30’s AA female and I belong to one of the prestigious clubs frequently castigated on DCUM. Why? Because it gives me hours of enjoyment. It is no different than any recreational activity you engage in. You spend your $ where you like and I will do the same.
By the way, while pursuing my hobby of choice, all of my interactions with those much demonized old white dudes has been nothing but pleasant.
And I don’t have a lawn jockey on my lawn either. Get a grip, pp.

[Anonymous]

Mmmmmm, no. Don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mmmmmm, no. Don’t think so.

Sorry, you are wrong. Playing on stereotypes is racist, whatever the group you are making assumptions about. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest they take away those tax breaks and give them to Amazon as an incentive to build at White Flint. How much does a bunch of country clubs do for the county? How much would Amazon do for it in comparison?

That is actually a really excellent idea. The White Flint site is already an ecological dead zone. No net environmental loss there. And if the country clubs go under because they can’t afford to pay the legitimate taxes they owe, then the county could just acquire them and manage them as parks and wild spaces.

That would actually be a huge win-win-win.

Here is more stupid thinking. Yes, MoCo should go after Amazon, but MoCo should understand that Amazon will cost MoCo serious money in terms of roads, schools, public safety. Hopefully, those costs would be offset by the increased income tax revenues. Separately, the idea that whatever tax "breaks" golf courses receive is going to Amazon is stupid. Yes, stupid. Not enough money. The reason you provide Amazon tax breaks is that you think that Amazon will bring substantial additional tax revenues, in the form of income, property, sales, etc taxes. So, if you estimate that Amazon will bring $100 in additional tax revenue, you might say, as a state or county, that you will give Amazon a tax break of $20. If your estimate is correct, Maryland/MC wins. AOC is an idiot to say that now we can spend in NYC that $3B that was going to Amazon on other priorities. That $3B, of course, does not exist and will not exist. On golf courses, MC does not have the money to acquire these golf courses and certainly does not have the money to maintain them as public parks. This is very simple. Golf courses reduce the burden on public resources (ie, MC taxpayer dollars) in the form of roads, schools or public safety, and the provide environmental benefits as open spaces. So, yes, the courses could become (theoretically) public parks, but MC has no money to buy the land and no money to maintain more public parks, and private golf courses (unlike public ones) produce some property taxes. So, the targeted private courses reduce the burden on govt resources and provide environmental benefits. In exchange for that reduced burden and environmental benefits, the courses pay a lower tax rate on the land used for the courses (not the land used for buildings which is the full rate). The real question is how the sum of the reduced burden and environmental benefits compares to the tax breaks. I do not know, and neither does anybody on this thread. But I do know that turning the targeted golf courses in commercial buildings or homes would dramatically increase the demand on public resources in parts of MC that are already dealing with congestion.

No one here has advocated turning them into commercial building spaces or residential areas.

The three consistent alternatives seem to be:

1) they pay their fair share of taxes

2) if they continue to receive a huge tax subsidy, then they admit the general public to use the facilities any time they're open.

3) if they're unable to stay in business after paying their taxes or aren't willing to admit the public, then the county can acquire them through eminent domain and run them as public parks.

Private country clubs are a relic of an era that needs to be forgotten. A sanctuary for old rich white guys to gather and plot out the ways they will screw over everyone else, so they can continue to be old, even richer, white guys.

The whole model is gross and offensive.

Country clubs are the equivalent of having a lawn jockey ornament at the end of your driveway. That's what being a member of a country club says about you.

The idea that MC has the money to acquire them in absurd. Why would MC spend hundreds of millions to acquire 4 targeted tracts of land in the inner suburbs? MC is broke, not because of these tax exemptions, but because of its political leadership. Moreover, MC has no resources to maintain them as public parks. Most importantly, these tracts are private property, and MC has no ability to use eminent domain to acquire them. Private property is exactly that, private property. If MC tried to use eminent domain, MC would be sued and would lose. Take note that, along the Texas border, some land owners will likely sue the Feds for trying to use eminent domain to acquire their land for the "national emergency" along the border. Same principle. (3) is not an option. And, whatever your views are about the whole model being gross and offensive is irrelevant. I am confident that I would find some of your lifestyle choices, customs, traditions, practices, etc repugnant. And that is okay. It is a free country. BTW. I am a true liberal Democrat. You clearly are not.