City of Calgary Taxation on Golf Courses

[Mull]

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?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

There are no privately owned public golf courses in Vancouver

Ok, good comparison for what another jurisdiction does, but are their courses that are privately accessible? So perhaps a non-profit but only members can access and there are large initiation member fees?

[CroFlames]

Sounds like you have an axe to grind without actually knowing details.

All businesses should be taxed the same IMO. Are golf courses? I don't know that answer either.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Sounds like you have an axe to grind without actually knowing details.

All businesses should be taxed the same IMO. Are golf courses? I don't know that answer either.

I think I am pretty clear I think have a idea of what occurs but openly willing to admit I don't know if my idea of what is occurring is correct...


....hence I posted on a local forum to see what the truth is so I can understand if my view is correct!

[KTrain]

Here's an older article (2017) from Global that has some details about the tax rates for private courses within the city limits.

Calgary councillor wants new tax rate for private golf courses
https://globalnews.ca/news/3271110/c...-golf-courses/

Under the tax formula, he says private golf courses are taxed as non-residential property–just like any other business. He said the course operators are telling him it isn’t fair to pay the same taxes for green space as they would for a business or commercial building.

Another article from the Herald with more quotes:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...e-golf-courses

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mull

To me, this means we are as the tax payer directly subsidizing the upper middle class and the rich...

The hell you say?

[DoubleK]

Suggest looking up the media articles surrounding the Harvest Hills and Shawnee Slopes redevelopments. All your questions are probably answered there.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The hell you say?

I believe he suggested golf courses make the poor subsidize the rich.
Vs everything else in society where the rich subsidize the poor.
Golf course are the rich man's revenge.

[TheIronMaiden]

How dare wealthy people enjoy benefits from the taxes they help to pay?

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

How dare wealthy people enjoy benefits from the taxes they help to pay?

No one is saying they can't, just that private golf courses should be taxed at the optimal rate for the land they own.

[Fuzz]

I don't play golf, and don't like that they use up so much land as pay-for-access. At the same time, there is value to cities to have green spaces, such as rain absorption, carbon capture, reduction of UHI, and beautification. Perhaps some trade off that applies a value for this can be considered.

I'd rather they just all be public parks, but as we saw in Harvest Hills, that doesn't seem like it flies. Also, each course and situation is unique. As we saw with the Highland Park ex-course, not all land is develop-able, or should be, given the benefits previously descirbed..

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I believe he suggested golf courses make the poor subsidize the rich.
Vs everything else in society where the rich subsidize the poor.
Golf course are the rich man's revenge.

Everything else?

Like hockey arenas?

Like lowering corporate tax rates and implementing user fees on public services?

I don’t disagree that it goes both ways, but it’s not exactly shocking when it goes that way either.

[Slava]

I love how golf gets characterized as a game for the rich. We subsidize hockey, and there are thousands of kids who'd love to play, but it's incredibly expensive. For some reason that gets a free pass, whereas people golfing is somehow targeted.

And as far as the courses themselves, people want to live on the courses. It's a well maintained greenspace where property values are higher solely because they're on a golf course as opposed to a more houses.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by KTrain

No one is saying they can't, just that private golf courses should be taxed at the optimal rate for the land they own.

But AFAIK, nothing else is taxed like that. Highest and best use taxation would be a nightmare for basically anyone not in a highrise apartment or office tower, not just golf courses.

[RoadGame]

In a city with ~6 months of winter, "golf courses" (the public ones anyway) is a bit of a misnomer. They're also important hubs for winter recreation including tobogganing, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. For those who, for various reasons, can't readily make it out to K-country or Canmore, they're vital.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by RoadGame

In a city with ~6 months of winter, "golf courses" (the public ones anyway) is a bit of a misnomer. They're also important hubs for winter recreation including tobogganing, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. For those who, for various reasons, can't readily make it out to K-country or Canmore, they're vital.

Which Private courses can I take my kid tobogganing on?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RoadGame

In a city with ~6 months of winter, "golf courses" (the public ones anyway) is a bit of a misnomer. They're also important hubs for winter recreation including tobogganing, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. For those who, for various reasons, can't readily make it out to K-country or Canmore, they're vital.

Yes, the city courses are entirely different. Confederation Park is also a vital water absorption zone, and needs to remain undeveloped. A city golf course is the best possible use for the land, given it's dual winter use.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Which Private courses can I take my kid tobogganing on?

Which private property can you take your kid tobogganing on?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I love how golf gets characterized as a game for the rich. We subsidize hockey, and there are thousands of kids who'd love to play, but it's incredibly expensive. For some reason that gets a free pass, whereas people golfing is somehow targeted.

And as far as the courses themselves, people want to live on the courses. It's a well maintained greenspace where property values are higher solely because they're on a golf course as opposed to a more houses.

Subsidizing golf courses is akin to subsidizing a ski hill.

[KTrain]

I don't have issues with public courses. They're still not cheap but, unfortunately, we can't have everything financially available to everyone. But they're public use, even in non-golf months, allowing for lots of recreation options.

It's the private courses that shutter at the end of the season and sit empty for months. It's a crazy amount of land that can't be accessed by everyone with the means to do so.