News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.



BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast “Revisionist History” had an interesting discussion last year about how property tax legislation has specifically (and in his view, unfairly and/or improperly) benefitted private clubs in California. You may disagree with the conclusion, but it’s an interesting discussion.

Buck Wolter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Surprised no one has Kelo'd a golf course -- Cypress Point would have to be create more tax revenue as a resort than a golf course.
Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience -- CS Lewis

SB

  • Karma: +0/-0
The courses are zoned residential, so the high assessed values are justified, assuming they could actually redevelop if they wanted to.  Unfortunate for the club, so they need to somehow get zoned to something less valuable.  Many municipalities have special golf zoning for just such a reason.  Of course that would eliminate their ability to redevelop if they ever wanted to do so. 


Where it gets bad though, is a place like Nassau County, NY.  There, they assess everyone for the full market value as residential land, but don't actually give you permits to redevelop when you want to.  I've seen it happen a couple of times and it's BS. 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
The courses are zoned residential, so the high assessed values are justified, assuming they could actually redevelop if they wanted to.  Unfortunate for the club, so they need to somehow get zoned to something less valuable.  Many municipalities have special golf zoning for just such a reason.  Of course that would eliminate their ability to redevelop if they ever wanted to do so. 


Where it gets bad though, is a place like Nassau County, NY.  There, they assess everyone for the full market value as residential land, but don't actually give you permits to redevelop when you want to.  I've seen it happen a couple of times and it's BS.


Could they not put the golf courses into a conservation easement to preclude development?  (Assuming they were willing to give up a future sale to a developer?). I agree with your take on the first situation, the land is still valuable if the club keeps the option to develop it.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
TD,

I don't think you can do the conservation easement on private...the couple I know of that were audidted had issues because they were not semi-private or public.

However,  I have seen her ein Ga some counties reduce golf course taxes significantly when it was argued that the value of the homes on the golf course were increased due to being on the course and thus the golf course value was absorbed in the home values...and then just last year I appealed my place and based it on the business apraissal at the time I got the place...it knocked it way down...oh well...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Feeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Here is a shrewd way to deal with property taxes...

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20180415/nature-conservancy-pays-2m-to-protect-agawam-hunt-golf-course-from-future-development

Agawam seems to have found a creative & clever way to re-capitalize (after bankruptcy) and reduce property taxes.  “Selling” development rights to a non-profit conservation group — Nature Conservancy   This is like selling “the sleeves of your vest” (or, like me promising not to hit any drive over 300 yards) — a conservation group, of course, will never develop. 

Also, a gateway to reduce property taxes via conservation easement.  To do this, they made the case of public access to golf (4 days) & a nature walking trail (chuckle).  I suspect if they were to re-build membership access to golf on those 4 days could just 1 or 2 tee times a day.

And, they have an initiative to restore the golf course looking at Ian Andrew for this effort

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0



Some of these jurisdictions are trying to have it both ways, taxing clubs out of existence (taxing based on present zoning) yet ready to fight should the club seek to develop.


Will be very interested what happens to the Trump Westchester Club where the town/village and Trump Golf have a substantial difference of opinion as to what the tax bill should be.


Trump will "win" one way or another, probably in a TKO based on better lawyers, more money, and more business acumen.  It does not hurt one iota that he can also develop the land himself were they to push him that far.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Corey,

Taxation, as you know, has nothing to do with fairness.  It is all about ability to pay AND lack of recourse.  Golf clubs are an easy target because though many are not set up to generate a profit, the public perceives their members as oxen to be rightfully gored.  The Deepdales of the country can offer defenses to higher taxation and Kelo attacks, but most private clubs in blue states probably can't.

In Texas, property taxes are the major source of revenue to finance education and there is tremendous pressure on appraisal districts to generate the valuation totals each year that will generate the revenues state and local governments crave without changing the tax rate appreciably.  Fortunately, state law prevents tax increases exceeding 10% per year, though that is little consolation for retirees and others living on fixed incomes who are being hit with 10% increases year after year.  Sadly, the hunger for tax revenues is never satisfied, so, those with pockets sufficiently deep that can be picked will have much more to worry about than their country club being sold for redevelopment.

As long as the public demands more free stuff and rewards those politicians who "bring home the bacon", golf has no way to go but down.  Unfortunately, it is a real estate, labor, energy and water intensive sport, and the secular confluence of diminishing discretionary income and higher costs pretty much seals its fate (as essentially a niche sport).

I do hear that bicycling and gca.com are adequate substitutes.
 

Mike_Trenham

  • Karma: +0/-0
I believe here in PA a course can be taxed at a rural/farming rate even if the zoning is for residential, the rub is that if you use this tax deduction if you sell for development taxes for 10 prior years at the improved rate are owed. So:


200 homes x $10,000 x 10 years = $20 million or $100,000 per home.
Proud member of a Doak 3.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 ???


Makes no sense to me that golf courses are taxed on potential development !  When and if that time comes then obviously the new improvements (?) will be taxed accordingly.


Many farms make far more revenue than golf courses so why the difference. Both provide open space , which is the reason they should be given some latitude.

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0



Very smart Archie but why should all open space be somehow judged the same/taxed.  Taxes should be reduced for organic farms and those that use less water and perhaps even be dependent on what type of farm. 


A polo horse farm is certainly better than a pig farm... and certainly it is a better use of land if it grows wine grapes rather than iceberg lettuce. 

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 ;D

Kudos Corey very good !   But I would worry about conferring any more power to our legislators to pick winners ..


They have consistently shown an inability to carry out less subjective decisions viv a vis valuations that you suggest, no matter how logical they may seem !
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 02:30:41 AM by archie_struthers »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
;D

Kudos Corey very good !   But I would worry about conferring any more power to our legislators to pick winners ..


They have consistently shown an inability to carry out less subjective decisions viv a vis valuations that you suggest, no matter how logical they may seem !

I would bet the pig farm next to Stonehenge that Corey is being 100% facetious.

Years ago, I took a retail site on a secondary location to Planning and Zoning on behalf of a day care provider for a zoning change.  The commission turned it and the proposed use down unanimously as not being congruent with the master zoning plan.

After the vote, the owner of the land, a young heir from a wealthy, high profile family, winked at me and said that they would take it to city council anyways.  The zoning change was approved unanimously with little discussion and all the permits were procured without delay.

Lesson learned.  Was the wind farm offshore from the Kennedy compound ever built?  I'd bet the said pig farm that it was not.     

Steven Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Here in Wisconsin we are zoned and taxed differently.  For example our course is zoned agriculture which inhibits our ability to build any structures or hold events like weddings.  However we are taxed commercial which greatly increases our tax burden.  Totally unfair government red tape at its finest.  The system is there to benefit the government and its workers not small businesses like mine.


Steven Blake

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back