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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.

Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

Then why do they need a public subsidy? Tax 'em the market rate.

I thought people like you loved free markets?

+1 All this bill is proposing is that country clubs pay the same rates other businesses and property owners do. This is a no brainer. Does anyone know the status of this bill?

Not that simple. Unlike businesses and most other property owners, golf courses and open spaces require few County resources and save the County substantial money. No road, schools, public safety expenses They also provide proven environmental pluses to the region. Policy rationale is simple. Lower tax rates for open spaces as an incentive to save open spaces, particularly in dense areas. Farmland is another example. Many types of properties get tax breaks. Colleges, schools, religious organizations, nonprofit recreational facilities.

No, that's not correct. Foregoing tax revenue that would be due to the County if the property were used in another way is not "saving the County substantial money." Other businesses don't require schools or road expenditures either, and as for public safety expenses, when I visited a club one night, there was a fire truck there, responding to an alarm, so it's not accurate that they don't cost any money in public safety expenses. If you want to benefit people with open spaces, make the country club into a public park. But there's no reason to subsidize the pleasure of a select few.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taxed per-acre not on land value, just like all land in the massive agricultural reserve. They pay double the per-acre rate of Ag Reserve land. Both preserve green spaces.

Therein lies the problem. They need to be taxed on the land value, the same way residential and commercial lots are.

Golf courses aren’t farms, they don’t grow food for people or contribute anything meaningful. They also aren’t nature preserves, they are completely artificial environments that require massive amounts of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and gasoline powered lawnmowers to keep nature at bay, and prevent the area from becoming an *actual* green space. They are vast biological dead-zones.

Golf courses and country clubs are THE most selfish and wasteful uses of open spaces. They need to be taxed at the highest rates conceivable, to reduce the number that currently exist, and to make those that remain pay mightily for the privilege.

We have private property rights here in the US, which is a good thing. So, get a life.

Then why do they need a public subsidy? Tax 'em the market rate.

I thought people like you loved free markets?

+1 All this bill is proposing is that country clubs pay the same rates other businesses and property owners do. This is a no brainer. Does anyone know the status of this bill?

Not that simple. Unlike businesses and most other property owners, golf courses and open spaces require few County resources and save the County substantial money. No road, schools, public safety expenses They also provide proven environmental pluses to the region. Policy rationale is simple. Lower tax rates for open spaces as an incentive to save open spaces, particularly in dense areas. Farmland is another example. Many types of properties get tax breaks. Colleges, schools, religious organizations, nonprofit recreational facilities.

No, that's not correct. Foregoing tax revenue that would be due to the County if the property were used in another way is not "saving the County substantial money." Other businesses don't require schools or road expenditures either, and as for public safety expenses, when I visited a club one night, there was a fire truck there, responding to an alarm, so it's not accurate that they don't cost any money in public safety expenses. If you want to benefit people with open spaces, make the country club into a public park. But there's no reason to subsidize the pleasure of a select few.

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.

Exactly.

You can still have the open space. Just make it a park. Or even a public golf course.