Why does Montgomery County Subsidize Taxes for Country Clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultra-rich rejoice! The country clubs and their lobbyists prevailed again and their tax break remains. Sorry poors--you will continue to pay more than the country club near you that has a 75K membership fee to join while your 1st grader experiences public school with 26 other kids and one teacher. The bill only narrowly failed, with the more recently elected delegates voting to end the subsidy, so it's only a matter of time....

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2019/02/23/country-clubs-prevail-again-in-montgomery-county-delegation/

A Montgomery County bill to impose fees on tax-capped country club properties puttered to a halt Friday after it was narrowly voted down by the county’s delegates.

The measure, from Del. David Moon (D), has been introduced before. But this time the measure picked up extra support from newly elected delegation members. Nevertheless, the 2019 iteration of Moon’s bill failed in an 11-13 vote on Friday morning.

The goal of Moon and freshman Del. Vaughn Stewart (D), who worked extensively on amendments to lobby support for the bill, is to alter 10-year agreements with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation that allow land owned by a golf course or country club to be assessed at $1,000 per acre.

The property tax break was first introduced in state law to dissuade country club and golf course owners from developing their land.

But the tax break results in a considerable loss of revenue for county governments, and Montgomery County is predicting a $40 million-plus budget shortfall this year.

Any shortfall the County may have has nothing to do with golf courses. It has to do with incompetent political leadership. The County has the highest tax burden in the region, so it has plenty of money!

Wait until you have to pay for more schools and transportation capacity for all of those new residents at “The Commons at Congressional” or some such new comminity. Talk about subsidies then!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed. Targeting four select clubs was ridiculous and awful policy.

I'm actually quite disturbed by the class warriors on this thread.

ok, why don't you identify better sources of revenue to generate for MoCo because there's a fiscal deficit currently, and as a homeower , I don't want to pay more taxes, than the country club near me which is assessed at a far lower rate. and I wouldn't be too smug. the bill failed to pass only by 2 votes. i wouldn't be surprised if it passes the next go around if media attention increases.

What you fail to realize is that the problem with the budget has nothing to do with the 4 targeted golf courses. The budget issues have entirely to do with the political leadership of MoCo over the last 10 plus years. MoCo has the highest tax burden in DMV and MoCo has not grown much during a record period of economic expansion while its neighbors have grown. MoCo's income tax revenues have been flat for 10 years. Almost no new business over 10 years. MoCo needs to slim down and needs to attract more businesses. Businesses bring jobs, businesses bring tax revenues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed. Targeting four select clubs was ridiculous and awful policy.

I'm actually quite disturbed by the class warriors on this thread.

The supporters actually needed to amend the State Constitution to achieve their goals. The State Constitution requires similarly properties to be taxed similarly. It prevents targeting. Frightening thinking on their part. Supporters also have talked about taking the properties by eminent domain. Trump would be proud of their efforts. Who cares about the Constitution? It can be amended for any reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the self-styled class warriors are really doing the bidding of the Big Development lobby. Imagine how they’d love to see certain clubs economically pressured to sell for development.

I’d rather keep the open space and home for birds and other wildlife.

Good point! Lets force one of these golf courses to go out of business. Who really wins? Developers. The County has no financial resources to buy the properties or to maintain them. So, who wins? Great to see class warriors and real estate developers on the same team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the self-styled class warriors are really doing the bidding of the Big Development lobby. Imagine how they’d love to see certain clubs economically pressured to sell for development.

I’d rather keep the open space and home for birds and other wildlife.

Good point! Lets force one of these golf courses to go out of business. Who really wins? Developers. The County has no financial resources to buy the properties or to maintain them. So, who wins? Great to see class warriors and real estate developers on the same team.

Don't be dense. None of the golf courses that would have been affected would have gone out of business. They just would have paid the same rate as other homeowners and businesses. But instead they keep on with their subsidy.

[Anonymous]

The wealthy club owners can by far afford to pay the fair market tax price. It will be pass thru to annual dues.

However, country clubs are going the way of the do-do bird. Many are struggling to get and keep members. Golf is dropping in popularity every year as its demographic dies off. Families are over-stretched on expenses, activities, and vacations to make country club membership a worth the expense. Companies are trimming back on perks, like club membership. The new generation of leaders don't network in country clubs. They network on social media, in Tulum, or at TED-style "thought leadership" conferences.

Frankly, even without a tax increase, I don't give MoCo country clubs more than 20-25 years before financial pressures force them to consolidate and sell.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone explain why those 4 clubs were targeted? Why wasn't Congressional named, for example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the self-styled class warriors are really doing the bidding of the Big Development lobby. Imagine how they’d love to see certain clubs economically pressured to sell for development.

I’d rather keep the open space and home for birds and other wildlife.

Good point! Lets force one of these golf courses to go out of business. Who really wins? Developers. The County has no financial resources to buy the properties or to maintain them. So, who wins? Great to see class warriors and real estate developers on the same team.

Nope. They won't become subdivisions.

They'll be urban parks.



It's inevitable, folks. You can be the hammer, or you can be the nail. Your choice. But the age of country clubs is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of the self-styled class warriors are really doing the bidding of the Big Development lobby. Imagine how they’d love to see certain clubs economically pressured to sell for development.

I’d rather keep the open space and home for birds and other wildlife.

Good point! Lets force one of these golf courses to go out of business. Who really wins? Developers. The County has no financial resources to buy the properties or to maintain them. So, who wins? Great to see class warriors and real estate developers on the same team.

Nope. They won't become subdivisions.

They'll be urban parks.


It's inevitable, folks. You can be the hammer, or you can be the nail. Your choice. But the age of country clubs is over.

Who is going to pay for these urban parks? Isn't Rock Creek Park and Norwood Park nearby in inner BCC? I am pretty sure that these orgs are not going to simply turn the land into urban parks. Maybe, in a 100 years, they will sell the land to developers. The real question is why do you care whether they survive or not. If they are unable to attract sufficient members, they will go out of business At the moment, they are doing just fine. The open space land (ie, not buildings or roads) reduces burdens on local schools (inner BCC schools are already overcrowded), local roads, etc. Get a life. The entire discussion reminds me of the high school parties to which I was not invited.

[Anonymous]

They're doing fine because they don't have to pay the "real" taxes on their property.

If they paid their fair share, membership costs would skyrocket.