Rain tax will cost more jobs in Maryland

[bcp]

Under Ulman's new proposal owners of townhouses and condominiums would be charged $15 annually. Owners of single-family homes on lots up to one-quarter acre in size would pay $45. Owners of homes on lots more than one-quarter acre would pay $90 annually.

The fee on commercial properties of $15 per 500 square feet of paved surfaces would remain

Something seems wrong to me with this type of fee structure.
First off, the people that live in town houses, in many cases have just as much impervious area as a modest size home. and certainly, a single family home on a quarter acre will have close to the impervious zone that the same size house on a lot that is 5 or more acres.

Now, the thing is this, if you have a house on 5 acres, the majority of your land is a non polluting buffer that actually absorbs the water before it gets to the bay. But, if you have a quarter acre in a neighborhood type setting, then you have little land to absorb runoff, and to make matters worse, you also have paved roads that run through the neighborhood. (these neighborhood roads are not being taxed)
basically, the people who contribute the least, are being charged the most. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Now look at the business end of it, 15 per 500 sq ft.
can you imagine if you took the Annapolis mall, rough estimate based on perimeter of the parking lot is 8,000,000 sq ft, X the $15.00 per 500 sq ft works out to somewhere in the neighborhood of 240,000 per year in additional taxes.

Im pretty sure that this is going to cause another mass movement of business from Maryland to surrounding states.

this all just points to the simple fact once again, Liberals are idiots.

 

[GWguy]

Something seems wrong to me with this type of fee structure.
First off, the people that live in town houses, in many cases have just as much impervious area as a modest size home. and certainly, a single family home on a quarter acre will have close to the impervious zone that the same size house on a lot that is 5 or more acres.

Now, the thing is this, if you have a house on 5 acres, the majority of your land is a non polluting buffer that actually absorbs the water before it gets to the bay. But, if you have a quarter acre in a neighborhood type setting, then you have little land to absorb runoff, and to make matters worse, you also have paved roads that run through the neighborhood. (these neighborhood roads are not being taxed)
basically, the people who contribute the least, are being charged the most. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Now look at the business end of it, 15 per 500 sq ft.
can you imagine if you took the Annapolis mall, rough estimate based on perimeter of the parking lot is 8,000,000 sq ft, X the $15.00 per 500 sq ft works out to somewhere in the neighborhood of 240,000 per year in additional taxes.

Im pretty sure that this is going to cause another mass movement of business from Maryland to surrounding states.

this all just points to the simple fact once again, Liberals are idiots.

That is what caught my eye. I have 5 acres, but 4.5 is protected buffer as it's a natural feed into the Patuxent. IF they are going to do it, it needs to be based on actual non-permeable, not how much land you have. My property is actually contributing to the accumulation of ground water. The more land, the less non-permeable (as a rule, unless you are a business with lots of driveway spaces...).

But the whole thing is a farce anyway.

 

[bcp]

That is what caught my eye. I have 5 acres, but 4.5 is protected buffer as it's a natural feed into the Patuxent. IF they are going to do it, it needs to be based on actual non-permeable, not how much land you have. My property is actually contributing to the accumulation of ground water. The more land, the less non-permeable (as a rule, unless you are a business with lots of driveway spaces...).

But the whole thing is a farce anyway.

My 5 is a low spot in the area, everything around me runs to my field I would have to flood almost by 50 ft of water for it to start draining down to the Patuxent River.
Ive never seen this happen.
so, if you think about it, my yard contributes nothing to the waterway

 

[RoseRed]

I have two acres and the only part that is paved it the parking slab in front of the garage and the walkway to the front porch. The shared lane and my driveway aren't paved. The rest is grass and woods. And there is a creek back in the woods.

How much would I be taxed for?

 

[GWguy]

I have two acres and the only part that is paved it the parking slab in front of the garage and the walkway to the front porch. The shared lane and my driveway aren't paved. The rest is grass and woods. And there is a creek back in the woods.

How much would I be taxed for?

By the quote, $90, which is absurd.

 

[Sweet 16]

Something seems wrong to me with this type of fee structure.
First off, the people that live in town houses, in many cases have just as much impervious area as a modest size home. and certainly, a single family home on a quarter acre will have close to the impervious zone that the same size house on a lot that is 5 or more acres.

Now, the thing is this, if you have a house on 5 acres, the majority of your land is a non polluting buffer that actually absorbs the water before it gets to the bay. But, if you have a quarter acre in a neighborhood type setting, then you have little land to absorb runoff, and to make matters worse, you also have paved roads that run through the neighborhood. (these neighborhood roads are not being taxed)
basically, the people who contribute the least, are being charged the most. Seems a bit backwards to me.

Now look at the business end of it, 15 per 500 sq ft.
can you imagine if you took the Annapolis mall, rough estimate based on perimeter of the parking lot is 8,000,000 sq ft, X the $15.00 per 500 sq ft works out to somewhere in the neighborhood of 240,000 per year in additional taxes.

Im pretty sure that this is going to cause another mass movement of business from Maryland to surrounding states.

this all just points to the simple fact once again, Liberals are idiots.

They will move across the river to business-friendly Virginia, where they fought the rain tax and won. One more reason to live, and shop, outside our borders.

 

[PsyOps]

Does anyone even know the math behind assessing this? It’s my thought they would have to create a whole new department just to go house-to-house to assess property size, house size, driveway size, shed size... then somehow calculate when you actually get rain, how much, and for how long, then come up with some calculation to assess the tax. It’s easy to assess taxes on things you buy and income because they are exact numbers. How do you assess something against people when you aren’t even there to see how much of it is hitting you personally? What if rain hits houses down the street from me, but it doesn’t hit my house; are they still going to assess a tax on me when rain never hit my house, but was close enough to count? How do they calculate how much rain actually hit me?

This really has to be the most insane things, and even attempting to have a logical discussion about it is a waste of time. This ‘rain tax’ has not one thing to do with homes depleted or absorbing or preventing rain runoff back into the ecosystem; it has to do with this state finding more creative ways to suck your hard-earned money away from you. The fact that MDers continue to support such insane oppressive taxation is beyond me.

 

[Crewdawg141]

My co-worker who lives in Montgomery County pointed out to me that the Rain Tax information that he has received basically states to compute the rain tax cost to yourself look at your overall property tax assessment and multiply that number by 2% to see what it will cost home owners. He and his family are actively looking for a new home in Virginia.

 

[bcp]

I have two acres and the only part that is paved it the parking slab in front of the garage and the walkway to the front porch. The shared lane and my driveway aren't paved. The rest is grass and woods. And there is a creek back in the woods.

How much would I be taxed for?

By the quote, $90, which is absurd.

Those figures are for this area, each county is allowed to come up with their own tax rate.
Frederick county came out and said that they would tax the residents one cent.
Other county leaders are not being as realistic.
and, only the counties that contribute to the bay watershed are being taxed.
I like that idea of only taxing those that contribute. We should go another step with this one. only use tax dollars for welfare that are generated by those that use welfare. only use tax dollars to print in spanish that are generated by those that only speak spanish. Same with school tax, lets only tax the people that have kids in school and base it on the number of kids that they have in school.

 

[bcp]

Does anyone even know the math behind assessing this? It’s my thought they would have to create a whole new department just to go house-to-house to assess property size, house size, driveway size, shed size... then somehow calculate when you actually get rain, how much, and for how long, then come up with some calculation to assess the tax. It’s easy to assess taxes on things you buy and income because they are exact numbers. How do you assess something against people when you aren’t even there to see how much of it is hitting you personally? What if rain hits houses down the street from me, but it doesn’t hit my house; are they still going to assess a tax on me when rain never hit my house, but was close enough to count? How do they calculate how much rain actually hit me?

This really has to be the most insane things, and even attempting to have a logical discussion about it is a waste of time. This ‘rain tax’ has not one thing to do with homes depleted or absorbing or preventing rain runoff back into the ecosystem; it has to do with this state finding more creative ways to suck your hard-earned money away from you. The fact that MDers continue to support such insane oppressive taxation is beyond me.

It actually has nothing to do with rain, or the amount. It has to do with the impervious areas on a given piece of property. They claim they will compute the rate by doing fly overs and taking pictures, then look at the pictures to determine the amount of impervious coverage on a given lot.

but it still comes down to the fact that those people that have large lots are actually doing less damage than those that chose to live in neighborhoods.

 

[RoseRed]

By the quote, $90, which is absurd.

Agreed.

 

[Lurk]

It actually has nothing to do with rain, or the amount. It has to do with the impervious areas on a given piece of property. They claim they will compute the rate by doing fly overs and taking pictures, then look at the pictures to determine the amount of impervious coverage on a given lot.

but it still comes down to the fact that those people that have large lots are actually doing less damage than those that chose to live in neighborhoods.

There is no Federal law behind all this. It's all in response to an EPA finding and regulation five or so years ago. This is the same process by which OBAMACARE regulates the cost of taxes and healthcare, no law, just regulations by liberal bureaucrats.

 

[GWguy]

Agreed.

BCP did mention that what he quoted may not apply to our area. I was thinking MD, not county.

So, in order to calculate the area, they use satellite or aerial pics. Ok. That means someone has to look up the platt to find the borders of your property and match it to the pics. For each and every property. Not likely. The cost for manpower to do that far outweighs the return.

And are sheds and gazebos and decks considered non-permeable? I'm sure they are.

I have two parcels. One with the house and .5 acres, another with 4.5 acres of woods. How do they bill that one? 4.5 acres of natural, undisturbed woods with 0 non-permeable surfaces. they going to charge me for property that has no non-permeable surface? I think not....

 

[RoseRed]

BCP did mention that what he quoted may not apply to our area. I was thinking MD, not county.

So, in order to calculate the area, they use satellite or aerial pics. Ok. That means someone has to look up the platt to find the borders of your property and match it to the pics. For each and every property. Not likely. The cost for manpower to do that far outweighs the return.

And are sheds and gazebos and decks considered non-permeable? I'm sure they are.

I have two parcels. One with the house and .5 acres, another with 4.5 acres of woods. How do they bill that one? 4.5 acres of natural, undisturbed woods with 0 non-permeable surfaces. they going to charge me for property that has no non-permeable surface? I think not....

I have a shed and the deck off the back of my house and then pool, too.

This is all too confusing!

 

[bcp]

I have a shed and the deck off the back of my house and then pool, too.

This is all too confusing!

Look, when they come to do door, just give the nice man a blank check and maybe some cookies or something.
everything will work out to the best interest of the state. (because you know this money will never make it to a bay fund)

 

[tommyjo]

It actually has nothing to do with rain, or the amount. It has to do with the impervious areas on a given piece of property. They claim they will compute the rate by doing fly overs and taking pictures, then look at the pictures to determine the amount of impervious coverage on a given lot.

but it still comes down to the fact that those people that have large lots are actually doing less damage than those that chose to live in neighborhoods.

Do you bother to read what you post?

Under Ulman's new proposal owners of townhouses and condominiums would be charged $15 annually. Owners of single-family homes on lots up to one-quarter acre in size would pay $45. Owners of homes on lots more than one-quarter acre would pay $90 annually.

The fee on commercial properties of $15 per 500 square feet of paved surfaces would remain

The rate is based on the size of the lot or type of structure (townhome/condo). No one needs to fly over or use satellites...the information is readily available from your tax assessment.

 

[Lurk]

Look, when they come to do door, just give the nice man a blank check and maybe some cookies or something.
everything will work out to the best interest of the state. (because you know this money will never make it to a bay fund)

The money will be spent in Baltimore and Montgomery County to stanch the flow of pollutants into the bay. Things like, new drapes for the mayor's office, a couple big SUVs for the county administrator and his spouse. Stuff like that.

 

[bcp]

actually, Anne Arundel county proposed this.

The Anne Arundel County Council voted 4-3 this month to approve fees of $85 for most single-family homes, $34 for townhouses and condominiums and $170 for rural houses. Businesses would be charged based on the square footage of impervious surfaces, such as rooftops and parking lots, on their properties.

 

[Lurk]

actually, Anne Arundel county proposed this.

The Anne Arundel County Council voted 4-3 this month to approve fees of $85 for most single-family homes, $34 for townhouses and condominiums and $170 for rural houses. Businesses would be charged based on the square footage of impervious surfaces, such as rooftops and parking lots, on their properties.

Each county selected its own mechanism for complying with the regulation. One county raised each property's environmental bill by $1 per year. Chuck county just raised the property environmental bill by $45 per year. Don't know if the townhouses and condos will pay that much but it's somewhat better than the previous plan which would have charged the landed-gentry twice as much per square foot of impervious cover as city dwellers.

 

[bcp]

Each county selected its own mechanism for complying with the regulation. One county raised each property's environmental bill by $1 per year. Chuck county just raised the property environmental bill by $45 per year. Don't know if the townhouses and condos will pay that much but it's somewhat better than the previous plan which would have charged the landed-gentry twice as much per square foot of impervious cover as city dwellers.

it still comes down to the fact that the people that have properties that actually are good for the bay, are the ones being charged the most, while those that have properties that have no value to the bay are being charged the least.
townhomes should be paying the 170, larger parcels should pay less and for some really large parcels that are not farmed and fertilized, they should have a reduction in tax due to their property being a watershed.