Thank you all for the discussion and replies. As OP a couple things:
1. Honestly wasn't trying to cause the defensiveness I saw. I did provide what I thought was a good path forward, but I also admitted it was based on a foundation of possibly incorrect assumptions, hence my post and hope for discussion (which I did get, so thank you for all the posts). I have zero problem with being wrong. I posted to get educated. I guess passionate people posting is good- it drives a deeper discussion!
2. No I don't want to eat the rich- by Albertian standards I am borderline "rich" so lets not do that please. I do think its the "rich"'s job to subsidize efforts to help increase upward social mobility via tax policy. However, I am not as far left as many of you think, for example I believe, the Federal NDP taxation policy of the ultra rich during the last election would of hurt Canada given the current global tax situation. I generally vote conservative, although, have never voted for the UCP or Wildrose
3. Comparing public transit, or any public accessible site to a private golf course with no public access is a joke.
4. I am 100% ok with the existence of private golf courses within City limits, its the tax policy I still have issue with (but less issue I admit after reading many good points in here). ie. let wealthy people enjoy the benifits of the taxes they pay, via by paying "proper" taxes on said private golf course.
5. Green spaces don't need to be golf courses, but in areas where they are flood prone, I concede there is an argument that a tax paying golf course may be more beneficial to society then another green space park... in some instances. Calgary Golf and Country club's "high ground" was indeed in my mind when I made my post, although a) there is discussion to be held that the lower ground can't be utilized as a golf course without the high ground area and b) if the elbow river dry dam gets built, I would consider the entire golf course as well (assuming the capacity of the dry dam sufficiently protects it).
6. Below the the best post of this thread. I read this last night and honestly it made me giggle. My secret agenda was found, as an upper class, white male I truly hate myself, and my "people". So to offset my "white guilt" I decided I would attack golf, because of its racial and gender norms. I want to dismantle white/male slanted activities- next up is outlawing micro brews serving Pilsner (serve better beer!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Absolutely. The posters in question should just come out and admit that the energy behind this whole thread and many of the arguments in it is 'eat the rich' and dismantling things that are culturally slanted white and male.
|
One thing I am confused about- sorry if I missed it. Which of the following is true, if any?
1. Golf courses in the City of Calgary are taxed under the same
flat tax rate as commercial land, only valuation changes from site to site.
2. Golf courses in the City of Calgary are taxed under the same tax rates as commercial land, however, commercial land has different rates for different zoning and golf courses have a rate different then lets say a tower (i.e. rate being % of land value, not the land value)
3. Golf courses in the City of Calgary are taxed under the same
flat tax rate as commercial land, but golf courses don't account for location when calculating valuation where other commercial land does.
If 3 above is true, how does the city calculate valuation of said course?
