City of Calgary Taxation on Golf Courses

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why is this all about class when it comes to golf? The truth is, recreation overall is expensive and this ends up subsidized in one form or another. Governments at various levels make all kinds of exceptions and fund all kinds of venues for these things. I'm not sure why golf would be any different.

Because Golfists are among the worst of people.

We should take Golf courses and make the fences higher and multi-purpose them.

The Calgary Golf, Pedestrian park, off-leash dog park, cycling and country Club.

Get 'em all in there and then lock the gates from the outside.

And then get some Napalm...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I have some friends who are really into golf and a lot of their disposable incomes go into it. They make below the median in terms of Alberta incomes.

Like I said before, golf in Calgary is not all that expensive. You can get on some very solid courses for $50 or under. You're not going to find many leisure activities like that, where you're paying $10 or less an hour. Maintaining a golf course is also insanely expensive. So you're always going to have to pay something substantial for a round.

If you want to go hiking you can do that for free, but the existence of golf courses doesn't affect that.

I think OP may be taking more issue with the private clubs.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by blankall

Like I said before, golf in Calgary is not all that expensive. You can get on some very solid courses for $50 or under. You're not going to find many leisure activities like that, where you're paying $10 or less an hour. Maintaining a golf course is also insanely expensive. So you're always going to have to pay something substantial for a round.

If you want to go hiking you can do that for free, but the existence of golf courses doesn't affect that.

I think OP may be taking more issue with the private clubs.

They are members of private clubs... literally spend all their money annually on them. Its their life (during the summer that is).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by blankall

Like I said before, golf in Calgary is not all that expensive. You can get on some very solid courses for $50 or under. You're not going to find many leisure activities like that, where you're paying $10 or less an hour. Maintaining a golf course is also insanely expensive. So you're always going to have to pay something substantial for a round.

If you want to go hiking you can do that for free, but the existence of golf courses doesn't affect that.

I think OP may be taking more issue with the private clubs.

I beg to differ, because not only is almost every course over $50, any decent course is significantly more.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by blankall

Like I said before, golf in Calgary is not all that expensive. You can get on some very solid courses for $50 or under. You're not going to find many leisure activities like that, where you're paying $10 or less an hour. Maintaining a golf course is also insanely expensive. So you're always going to have to pay something substantial for a round.

If you want to go hiking you can do that for free, but the existence of golf courses doesn't affect that.

I think OP may be taking more issue with the private clubs.

I to, remember the days before the Kananaskis Conservation Pass. Those were the good old days, when walking in the wilderness was free.

[Zarley]

If anything, we need more golf courses given the huge uptick in popularity of late.

Even if you aren't a golfer, why on earth would you wish for these greenspaces to be developed into banal suburban neighbourhoods a la Shawnee Slopes or Harvest Hills?It's not as if we have a shortage of greenfield development land in Calgary.

Most of the courses in the city are located in floodplains or otherwise undevelopable areas anyway, so the idea of developing these is absurd. The only easily developable courses I can think of would be Canyon Meadows (which will probably be sold off for development someday) and Shag.

[you&me]

The real culprits are the community lakes.

Let's fill in Lake Bonavista and take it from there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Zarley

If anything, we need more golf courses given the huge uptick in popularity of late.

Even if you aren't a golfer, why on earth would you wish for these greenspaces to be developed into banal suburban neighbourhoods a la Shawnee Slopes or Harvest Hills?It's not as if we have a shortage of greenfield development land in Calgary.

Most of the courses in the city are located in floodplains or otherwise undevelopable areas anyway, so the idea of developing these is absurd. The only easily developable courses I can think of would be Canyon Meadows (which will probably be sold off for development someday) and Shag.

Just a quick glance shows Lynx Ridge, Silver Springs, Earl Grey, Calgary Golf and Country Club,Willow Park Canyon Meadows, Maple Ridge, Douglasdale...and I've stopped looking. There are many that could easily be re-purposed, and some on super prime land.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by you&me

The real culprits are the community lakes.

Let's fill in Lake Bonavista and take it from there.

For laughs I decided to look them up. Bonaventure - $1.1M, Bonavista $3.3M in assessments. Kicker is both are exempt tax status

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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?

This is interesting that location is not considered in the assessed value but land is. Not sure how that is applied as land value is determined by location.
https://www.calgary.ca/for-business/...ssessment.html

[SebC]

Originally Posted by you&me

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.

Vancouver bases taxes on highest and best use, and it works. If you are a property owner who doesn't have the capital to develop your property to the highest and best use, you are incentivized to sell it to somebody who does. It's expensive to be a nail house.

The media writes a bunch of articles about how it's a nightmare for commercial tenants when they're paying property taxes for a property far greater than what they're renting because the taxes are passed to them through "triple net leases", but the problem in that scenario is actually that the lease makes them responsible for the taxation cost of upzoning while the property owner gets the benefit. The small business associations should be taking point on getting tenants to reject triple net leases and sign something based on the market value of the space they're renting instead.

[powderjunkie]

Earl Grey Golf Course is leased on city-owned land...which is how the city was able to cut out the lakefront for a new bike path.

I think Calgary G&CC is privately owned land...their address is weird so I couldn't find any assessment info (and nothing shows up zoomed in on the map).

Nothing comes up for Fox Hollow or The Winston...guessing they are leased, too?

Inglewood Golf and Curling is only valued at 3.84M for nearly 300k sq meters. And another 1.75M for Improvements Only (presumably clubhouse; no assessable land). Drawing the area on google maps calculated over 500k sq meters, so maybe they lease some? It is a weird parcel between Deerfoot and the river that wouldn't have much other use.

Canyon Meadows shows 6.7M, but no land area calculated.

Silver Springs is 4.15M for about 25000 sq m...that's only enough space to cover the clubhouse and parking lot.

Willow Park is 6M for 460k sq m, which seems like it accounts exactly for the whole course + clubhouse + parking. 10 houses in that community, well removed from the golf course would easily get over 6M and probably cover about 6k sq meters of land.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I have some friends who are really into golf and a lot of their disposable incomes go into it. They make below the median in terms of Alberta incomes.

Are they single, or soon-to-be single?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because Golfists are among the worst of people.

We should take Golf courses and make the fences higher and multi-purpose them.

The Calgary Golf, Pedestrian park, off-leash dog park, cycling and country Club.

Get 'em all in there and then lock the gates from the outside.

And then get some Napalm...

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Are they single, or soon-to-be single?

You guys both know, and adore, a golfer! 😎

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is interesting that location is not considered in the assessed value but land is. Not sure how that is applied as land value is determined by location.
https://www.calgary.ca/for-business/...ssessment.html

From that link:

Golf courses are typically valued using the cost approach. The main factors in golf course valuations are:

land
course development (e.g. slope rating, length of course, number of sand traps)
physical improvements (e.g. club house, maintenance shops).

The Marshall and Swift Cost Estimator is used to value the improvements and added to the cost of the land. Golf course location is not a factor in the valuation.

The bolded is simply insane.

ps. 'Slope Rating' is essentially course difficulty - nothing to do with hills vs. flat land.

[timun]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think Calgary G&CC is privately owned land...their address is weird so I couldn't find any assessment info (and nothing shows up zoomed in on the map).

The bulk of the course has a municipal address of 909 - 50th Ave SW, which is a quarter-section that happens to straddle the river. There's a little chunk of 909 - 50th Ave southwest of the course on the other side of the river; you'll find the property value there on https://maps.calgary.ca/myproperty:



It's appraised at $5.15M.

The other chunk around the clubhouse is addressed 919 - 50th, and is appraised at a scant $175,000 because it's in the Elbow River floodway.

[Snuffleupagus]

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.

Like church land?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

You guys both know, and adore, a golfer! 😎

Oh theres more irony there too, I just think its funny. I actually have genuinely no opinion of Golfers other than when they were whining about not being allowed to Golf during the pandemic.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by timun

The bulk of the course has a municipal address of 909 - 50th Ave SW, which is a quarter-section that happens to straddle the river. There's a little chunk of 909 - 50th Ave southwest of the course on the other side of the river; you'll find the property value there on https://maps.calgary.ca/myproperty:



It's appraised at $5.15M.

The other chunk around the clubhouse is addressed 919 - 50th, and is appraised at a scant $175,000 because it's in the Elbow River floodway.

That checks out. The report pegs that 5.15M at 480k square meters.

The public address I could find on both their website and google maps was '5788 Station A, Calgary AB'.


So the going rate seems to be about $1M in assessed value per 100k square meters (10 hectares/24.7 acres). Which seems pretty damn low.

[timun]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The public address I could find on both their website and google maps was '5788 Station A, Calgary AB'.

That's just the mailing address.

(It's a post office box.)