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.

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.

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.

Personally, I would like to eliminate the "subsidies" for swim clubs, religious organizations, private schools and other nonprofits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank the media-blackout for this.

Next year, it's going down.

There is little to no coverage on local issues absent the occasional Bethesda magazine article. I can't even find get a list of the nimrods who voted to save this country club tax break (but when I do, I will post it.)

Thamk you.

Because every damn one of them needs to be primaried next time.

Here are the delegates who voted FOR removing the tax subsidies for country clubs.

The members of the county delegation who voted in favor of the measure were Dels. Gabriel Acevero, Alfred C. Carr Jr., Lorig Charkoudian, Bonnie Cullison, Eric Luedtke, Moon, Julie Palakovich Carr, Emily Shetty, Jared Solomon, Stewart and Jheanelle K. Wilkins.

http://www.montgomerycountydelegation.com/

So if you're not a country club lobbyist, the ones you should be pissed at are: Craig Zucker, Cheryl Kagan, Ariana Kelly, Susan Lee, David Fraser-Hidalgo, Anne Kaiser, Nancy King. Will Smith, Jeff Waldstreicher, Lily Qi, Sara Love, Kumar Barve, Kathleen Dumais, Pam Queen, Marc Korman, Jim Gilchrist, Lesley Lopez, Eric Luedtke, Brian Feldman, Kirill Reznik, Ben Kramer, and Charlotte Crutchfield.

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank the media-blackout for this.

Next year, it's going down.

There is little to no coverage on local issues absent the occasional Bethesda magazine article. I can't even find get a list of the nimrods who voted to save this country club tax break (but when I do, I will post it.)

Thamk you.

Because every damn one of them needs to be primaried next time.

Anonymous wrote:Thank the media-blackout for this.

Next year, it's going down.

There is little to no coverage on local issues absent the occasional Bethesda magazine article. I can't even find get a list of the nimrods who voted to save this country club tax break (but when I do, I will post it.)

Thank the media-blackout for this.

Next year, it's going down.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are almost NO environmental benefits to a golf course.

The only thing they offer that an asphalt parking lot doesn’t is a moderate reduction in surface water run off. Other than that, they are ecological wastelands, devoid of an insect community and pollinators, small animals, reptiles and amphibians, and most birdlife. Even the water hazards, which should be oasises of life, are typically dead zones devoid of fish and other life because of fertilizer run off and aquatic herbicides to kill algae blooms from excess nitrates from the grass fertilizer.


That is the reality of a golf course. A green, attractive, toxic desert, that requires far more water than an equivalent meadow or forest.

They really are disgusting

You clearly have never been on a golf course. Stay in your own lane, whatever that is.

I’ve been on plenty of golf courses back when I was an undergrad working on my environmental engineering degree. That’s how I know so much about them. And the havoc the wreak on local ecosystems.

It would appear that MY lane, as a scientist, makes me far more informed about golf courses than whatever expertise you have with them in your lane. I suspect your knowledge of them consists only of: trying to get below a 24 handicap and sexually harassing the beer cart hostess at the 19th hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are almost NO environmental benefits to a golf course.

The only thing they offer that an asphalt parking lot doesn’t is a moderate reduction in surface water run off. Other than that, they are ecological wastelands, devoid of an insect community and pollinators, small animals, reptiles and amphibians, and most birdlife. Even the water hazards, which should be oasises of life, are typically dead zones devoid of fish and other life because of fertilizer run off and aquatic herbicides to kill algae blooms from excess nitrates from the grass fertilizer.


That is the reality of a golf course. A green, attractive, toxic desert, that requires far more water than an equivalent meadow or forest.

They really are disgusting

You clearly have never been on a golf course. Stay in your own lane, whatever that is.

I guess the Audubon society should stay in their lane too.

ecause 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 wrote:There are almost NO environmental benefits to a golf course.

The only thing they offer that an asphalt parking lot doesn’t is a moderate reduction in surface water run off. Other than that, they are ecological wastelands, devoid of an insect community and pollinators, small animals, reptiles and amphibians, and most birdlife. Even the water hazards, which should be oasises of life, are typically dead zones devoid of fish and other life because of fertilizer run off and aquatic herbicides to kill algae blooms from excess nitrates from the grass fertilizer.


That is the reality of a golf course. A green, attractive, toxic desert, that requires far more water than an equivalent meadow or forest.

They really are disgusting

You clearly have never been on a golf course. Stay in your own lane, whatever that is.

There are almost NO environmental benefits to a golf course.

The only thing they offer that an asphalt parking lot doesn’t is a moderate reduction in surface water run off. Other than that, they are ecological wastelands, devoid of an insect community and pollinators, small animals, reptiles and amphibians, and most birdlife. Even the water hazards, which should be oasises of life, are typically dead zones devoid of fish and other life because of fertilizer run off and aquatic herbicides to kill algae blooms from excess nitrates from the grass fertilizer.


That is the reality of a golf course. A green, attractive, toxic desert, that requires far more water than an equivalent meadow or forest.

They really are disgusting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how much sales tax do these country clubs generate? How much in property tax breaks do they get? Let’s compare the two.

what are they selling? Because memberships aren't "for sale" because then literally anyone could buy one, and that's not how membership in a private club works.

So what are they selling?

As noted above somewhere, the policy comparison is how the benefits of golf courses (lessened demand on MC resources + environmental benefits) compare to the tax break. Separately, the clubs generate sales taxes on their purchases and sales.