Reply to Why does Montgomery County Subsidize Taxes for Country Clubs?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Why does Montgomery County Subsidize Taxes for Country Clubs?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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?  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics