14:39 - They are not being subsidized they are receiving a reduction on property taxes because the nature of their business requires more land.

The Agri tax rate is not about environmentalism. Farms are not a plus to the environment anymore than a gold course is in terms of wildlife, tree cover etc. The Agri tax rate is to enable business that requires more land with fewer building facilities and lower density to operate.

The small farms throughout the Agricultural Preserve do not serve a high % of residents. They aren't open to the public or required to participate in farmers markets. By your logic, these farms in MoCo should all be paying the same tax and ones that aren't open to the public or operating a roadside stand most of the year should be hurt and punished. Why should a business that only really supports people who like expensive local produce and farm to table dining experiences be encouraged or supported in MoCo. Who do I call to burn these down?

See where your logic takes you. The scenario with the club on more land due to a golf course, tennis court or pool is the same. It receives the lower tax rate for land because it requires more land with fewer facilities than other commercial businesses or residences. Its not different than the farm.

I also think you are not understanding economic principles if you think it would be wiser for MoCo to drive farms and clubs out of the county. These businesses are attractive to the surrounding communities, quality of life and help keep up property values. MoCo has already driven all the private sector jobs over to VA and small business out to Howard and Frederick. If you now start driving out quality of life businesses then why would people live here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then they can pay a premium for privacy. I'd say that any facility that is open to the public, e.g. to any tax paying resident, can retain the discounted rate as it is providing it's discounted services/amenities to all tax paying residents. Those who wish to retain the right to limit membership so that only some residents can access their facilities, should pay the same residential tax rate that citizens pay to have private property.

So, you get the discounted rate if open to everyone. You pay the going property tax rates if you want to be private; thus it becomes just like your home.

I am stunned that people think this way. A club is a club. Whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. It's abhorrent that people can advocate different tax rates based what a membership constituency looks like. Hell, even a poll tax was less discriminatory because everyone had to pay the same rate.

Really? I am stunned that there are so many who think that it is right to use county taxes to subsidize services for a select few. Why does the county subsidize clubs and not other businesses? Why is a club only open to a few hundred residents a priority for the county instead of other services that are available to any resident? Yes, whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. But why does it require a county subsidy that only benefits less than 0.1% of the population? The only reason I can see to give them any reduced tax break is if they provide their services to any resident. Otherwise, they can pay the same tax rates that individual residents and other businesses pay for property tax.

Your argument supports us. Yes, taxes should be the same for everyone. And the point is that the clubs do not pay the same as everyone. They get a discounted tax rate. They should be paying the same as every other business in the county pays for their property. The only reason to give them a tax break would be if they offered their services to everyone in the county. Barring that, I agree with you that they should pay the same rate as everyone else. Just like you do.

+1 million. Who should I call to make sure David Moon's bill gets passed? It's a no brainer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then they can pay a premium for privacy. I'd say that any facility that is open to the public, e.g. to any tax paying resident, can retain the discounted rate as it is providing it's discounted services/amenities to all tax paying residents. Those who wish to retain the right to limit membership so that only some residents can access their facilities, should pay the same residential tax rate that citizens pay to have private property.

So, you get the discounted rate if open to everyone. You pay the going property tax rates if you want to be private; thus it becomes just like your home.

I am stunned that people think this way. A club is a club. Whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. It's abhorrent that people can advocate different tax rates based what a membership constituency looks like. Hell, even a poll tax was less discriminatory because everyone had to pay the same rate.

Really? I am stunned that there are so many who think that it is right to use county taxes to subsidize services for a select few. Why does the county subsidize clubs and not other businesses? Why is a club only open to a few hundred residents a priority for the county instead of other services that are available to any resident? Yes, whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. But why does it require a county subsidy that only benefits less than 0.1% of the population? The only reason I can see to give them any reduced tax break is if they provide their services to any resident. Otherwise, they can pay the same tax rates that individual residents and other businesses pay for property tax.

Your argument supports us. Yes, taxes should be the same for everyone. And the point is that the clubs do not pay the same as everyone. They get a discounted tax rate. They should be paying the same as every other business in the county pays for their property. The only reason to give them a tax break would be if they offered their services to everyone in the county. Barring that, I agree with you that they should pay the same rate as everyone else. Just like you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the owners of those private clubs certainly have the right to offer to sell them to the county if it becomes too difficult to pay their fair taxes for the privileg of having a private club that discriminates against nonmembers.

Then the county can turn around an operate them as public facilities. Problem solved.

What about your house? How is it any different?

People belong to clubs to stay away from people like you.

Then they can pay a premium for privacy. I'd say that any facility that is open to the public, e.g. to any tax paying resident, can retain the discounted rate as it is providing it's discounted services/amenities to all tax paying residents. Those who wish to retain the right to limit membership so that only some residents can access their facilities, should pay the same residential tax rate that citizens pay to have private property.

So, you get the discounted rate if open to everyone. You pay the going property tax rates if you want to be private; thus it becomes just like your home.

I am stunned that people think this way. A club is a club. Whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. It's abhorrent that people can advocate different tax rates based what a membership constituency looks like. Hell, even a poll tax was less discriminatory because everyone had to pay the same rate.

Funny that you don't see the inconsistencies in your own words and see nothing abhorrent about private country clubs currently paying a LOWER tax than Maryland residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the owners of those private clubs certainly have the right to offer to sell them to the county if it becomes too difficult to pay their fair taxes for the privileg of having a private club that discriminates against nonmembers.

Then the county can turn around an operate them as public facilities. Problem solved.

What about your house? How is it any different?

People belong to clubs to stay away from people like you.

Then they can pay a premium for privacy. I'd say that any facility that is open to the public, e.g. to any tax paying resident, can retain the discounted rate as it is providing it's discounted services/amenities to all tax paying residents. Those who wish to retain the right to limit membership so that only some residents can access their facilities, should pay the same residential tax rate that citizens pay to have private property.

So, you get the discounted rate if open to everyone. You pay the going property tax rates if you want to be private; thus it becomes just like your home.

I am stunned that people think this way. A club is a club. Whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. It's abhorrent that people can advocate different tax rates based what a membership constituency looks like. Hell, even a poll tax was less discriminatory because everyone had to pay the same rate.

Funny that you don't see the inconsistencies in your own words and see nothing wrong with country clubs currently paying a LOWER tax than Maryland residents.

I am stunned that people think this way. A club is a club. Whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. It's abhorrent that people can advocate different tax rates based what a membership constituency looks like. Hell, even a poll tax was less discriminatory because everyone had to pay the same rate.

I agree and the nut cases on this thread illustrate why MoCo is in trouble. There is no logic just an emotional, hysterical I want to hurt anything that I don't use because I'm a fool type attitude going on.

Businesses that require more land to operate often negotiate tax reductions. If the community sees a benefit to this business then it gets granted. I'd wager that the community surrounding the big clubs in Potomac would quickly vote that having those clubs in their community is an overall benefit for property values. I'd wager that in Rockville residents would quickly vote that the smaller, inexpensive swim and tennis club is a benefit to their community. In Gaithersburg, North Potomac, North Bethesda, Rockville, Olney, Poolesville and many other areas these small swim and tennis clubs end up being cheaper than paying a daily rate to go to the county aquatics facility which is often much farther away.

These clubs do memberships rather than daily transactions as a business operations function. For many of the small clubs there is nothing exclusive about it. You sign up and wait for a spot to open. You pay a monthly or annual membership fee. This lets the club stay inexpensive because they can forecast their budget with less risk and they don't need to hire people to handle daily transactions or accountants to manage regular cash deposits. Its a local teenager job to be a lifeguard or check cards at the front desk.

Clubs with nice facilities get more expensive to cover the costs. Clubs that wants more exclusivity charge much higher membership fees. The clubs that practice discrimination in membership like Burning Tree already don't take any tax breaks.

As these clubs are not in Takoma Park, a Takoma Park representative should not be trying to represent what the communities surrounding these clubs want. Its a great example of why Montgomery County is too large to have fair representative government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the owners of those private clubs certainly have the right to offer to sell them to the county if it becomes too difficult to pay their fair taxes for the privileg of having a private club that discriminates against nonmembers.

Then the county can turn around an operate them as public facilities. Problem solved.

What about your house? How is it any different?

People belong to clubs to stay away from people like you.

Then they can pay a premium for privacy. I'd say that any facility that is open to the public, e.g. to any tax paying resident, can retain the discounted rate as it is providing it's discounted services/amenities to all tax paying residents. Those who wish to retain the right to limit membership so that only some residents can access their facilities, should pay the same residential tax rate that citizens pay to have private property.

So, you get the discounted rate if open to everyone. You pay the going property tax rates if you want to be private; thus it becomes just like your home.

I am stunned that people think this way. A club is a club. Whether to be open to the public or not is a business decision. It's abhorrent that people can advocate different tax rates based what a membership constituency looks like. Hell, even a poll tax was less discriminatory because everyone had to pay the same rate.

Anonymous wrote:People aren't paying attention right now, but I'm betting this issue will get some serious traction in the next few months.

Frankly, I think it illustrates a blantant failure on the part of the local press to make people aware of this. That's a separate problem by itself, however.

Local press is dying out. lack of funding and an populous who doesn’t want to pay for content. Bethesda magazine did a little coverage of this issue, but I haven’t seen a folllowup. We need to email David Moon and see where this issue stands in the Assembly.

People aren't paying attention right now, but I'm betting this issue will get some serious traction in the next few months.

Frankly, I think it illustrates a blantant failure on the part of the local press to make people aware of this. That's a separate problem by itself, however.

I want to go further than that. I’d like to bleed them dry. Well, almost. Not to the point they are forced to shut down, but right up to it. I want it to hurt to be a private club.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the owners of those private clubs certainly have the right to offer to sell them to the county if it becomes too difficult to pay their fair taxes for the privileg of having a private club that discriminates against nonmembers.

Then the county can turn around an operate them as public facilities. Problem solved.

What about your house? How is it any different?

People belong to clubs to stay away from people like you.

Then they can pay a premium for privacy. I'd say that any facility that is open to the public, e.g. to any tax paying resident, can retain the discounted rate as it is providing it's discounted services/amenities to all tax paying residents. Those who wish to retain the right to limit membership so that only some residents can access their facilities, should pay the same residential tax rate that citizens pay to have private property.

So, you get the discounted rate if open to everyone. You pay the going property tax rates if you want to be private; thus it becomes just like your home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping your own money isn't welfare, nor is it a subsidy. Okay liberals, think of a pizza. You have a whole pizza, the government taxman wants half of the pizza as taxes. You manage to get them to only take a third. You have 2/3rd of a pizza now. Did you get a subsidy?

Yes, because everyone else has half a pizza. And perhaps, had everyone, including you, been paying the same, everyone could all have 60% of a pizza. But YOU only gave up 33% of your pizza, so everyone else has to give up 50% of theirs to make up for the 17% less pizza you are giving up. You are getting a 34% subsidy.


Excellent analogy. It makes it perfectly clear to everyone how these private clubs are being funded by people they’d never admit as members.


It’s shameful. Absolutely shameful.

+1 It's absolutely ridiculous that country clubs are paying lower rates than other residents. Here's another article about this.
https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/12/06/moon-moves-to-close-country-club-loophole/
Apparently they tried to take away this tax break for country clubs a year ago, but lobbyists defeated it. You should write Craig Rice (D-2) who opposes the removal of this corporate welfare to country clubs.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Rice/contacts.html
https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/12/06/moon-moves-to-close-country-club-loophole/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh I'm not a golf fan or have any desire to join a country club but this is good example of why Takoma Park based politicians aren't good for the county. This rep's first try at this included all small clubs which would have made the small, cheapo neighborhood swim and tennis clubs all over the county go under. I guess his thinking was if it doesn't benefit Takoma Park directly then tax it more and send those dollars on over to Takoma Park pronto. He lost so now he's back focusing on only the clubs with larger golf courses.

While I personally don't care if the small number of clubs that David is targeting need to pay more taxes, I do care that MoCo politicians are once again not focusing on getting more business revenue into the county. Its embarrassing how badly MoCo is doing compared to VA,DC, Howard and Frederick! If David one and only plan for more revenue by increasing the taxes succeeds it would only go into place in 2031 and only raise 10M for the county. This will do nothing to steer away from the budget and financial crisis within MoCo.

+1. I’m a DC resident who have previously considered MoCo for a future home. This sort of thinking (let’s tax the H$ll out of private clubs!) is scary and why I don’t think I can consider living in MoCo. The entire state seems to be about driving business away and passing legislation that ultimately hurts the state and future tax dollars. It’s like the lawmakers cant stand prosperity and want everyone on the dole. It isn’t surprising that northern Virginia has experienced more growth.

Signed, a liberal

You can't be serious, as this kind of BS sweetheart deal to white country clubs would never be granted in the first place in DC.

Have you lost your mind? You live in DC and are claiming MoCo is "too liberal" for you? GTFO and come back to reality.

Sincerely,
A DC Liberal

Anonymous wrote:Keeping your own money isn't welfare, nor is it a subsidy. Okay liberals, think of a pizza. You have a whole pizza, the government taxman wants half of the pizza as taxes. You manage to get them to only take a third. You have 2/3rd of a pizza now. Did you get a subsidy?

Yes, because everyone else has half a pizza. And perhaps, had everyone, including you, been paying the same, everyone could all have 60% of a pizza. But YOU only gave up 33% of your pizza, so everyone else has to give up 50% of theirs to make up for the 17% less pizza you are giving up. You are getting a 34% subsidy.


Excellent analogy. It makes it perfectly clear to everyone how these private clubs are being funded by people they’d never admit as members.


It’s shameful. Absolutely shameful.

Keeping your own money isn't welfare, nor is it a subsidy. Okay liberals, think of a pizza. You have a whole pizza, the government taxman wants half of the pizza as taxes. You manage to get them to only take a third. You have 2/3rd of a pizza now. Did you get a subsidy?