by
Chase Rogan
| Dec 26, 2018
On Monday, December 17, members of the Montgomery County (MD) Delegation heard testimony in support and opposition of a proposed bill that would increase taxes for golf courses with property values greater than $500,000, unless these golf courses abide by a proposed pesticide ban that isn’t even in effect. If it sounds confusing, that’s because it is. For any amount exceeding this $500,000, the club would be left with the highest and “best use” assessed value.
Delegate Moon proposed a similar bill last year, in which he wanted to re-asses tax rates for golf courses at a much higher rate, something that would likely drive multiple facilities out of business. Luckily, that bill was fought hard and was shot down quite drastically, leading Delegate Moon to go back to the drawing board.
As he revised this bill, he decided to target only a handful of golf courses that are sitting on some of the most valuable property in the county. And although the pesticide bill that was enacted several years ago in Montgomery County is not in effect because it is tied up in litigation, he went ahead and tapped in to that bill as a tie-in to this tax-re-assessment proposal. Again, it’s confusing. Furthermore, even if the original pesticide ban were to go in to effect (which may be unlikely given that the courts originally ruled that it was unlawful because preempted by state law), golf courses would be exempt from this pesticide bill, further confounding the language brought forth by Delegate Moon in his most recent bill.
Rather than focus any more on the bill itself, let’s talk about the hearings. Several activist groups, including the Sierra Club, gave testimony in support of Delegate Moon’s proposed bill, citing the dangerous use of pesticides and the exclusivity of access to these green spaces. Really, opposing testifiers didn’t even seem to credit golf courses as a green space to begin with, which will make any golf advocate want to pull their hair out. Golf courses have long been proven a valuable green space as a filter for runoff, a sequestration space for carbon, and a cooling presence among developed land, just to name a few.
The opposition consisted of representatives from the MD Coalition of Concerned Clubs, RISE (Responsible Industry for Sound Environment), and hired representatives from Cornerstone Government Affairs. In the end, great points were made and seemed effective regarding not only the benefit of these golf courses as green spaces, but the rather ridiculous notion that these courses should be paying taxes at a rate that would not commensurate with the way the land is being utilized. And the fact that the tax rates currently being paid are rates that were approved by the delegation previously.
Although nothing has been voted on, the temperature for this bill from other MD Delegates seemed to be lukewarm at best. It would be a surprise if this bill went anywhere, and multiple representatives from several areas of the golf industry are advocating against this legislation. If you are interested in hearing more, please give me a call.