As discussed in another thread, this thread a discussion regarding the City's tax policy on golf courses.
Now, it would be good if someone could give us an accurate baseline on what actually occurs. My understanding is the City values the land as a golf course, and not as undeveloped land in a similar area would be worth.
If true, I have issue with this, particularly with non-public, non-City owned courses.
Golf courses use massive amounts of land compared to other local sports, have fees to access said land, and can exclude the public from accessing all together if private. Not to mention utility fees - not sure if these are fairly costed (such as water).
To me, this means we are as the tax payer directly subsidizing the upper middle class and the rich for a sport that takes up valuable land.
I would have all non-City owned golf courses taxed at rate of what undeveloped large swaths of land would be taxed at in the same area. Discounted for any additional demolition or costs which would be required to develop a golf course vs true undeveloped land. Hell, if a course is truly 100% private, I would be extremely unpopular but I would add a sin tax for having large swaths of private non-accessible land within the City boundaries.
- How am I wrong in my above blurb?
- How are non-City owned golf courses taxed in this City?
- What is done in other jurisdictions?
- What would you have done?