Our neighborhood is not the place for state horse park
Posted 9/04/08
It is disappointing that the county task force was given free rein to overlook impacts on neighboring communities in developing recommendations. No potentially impacted communities were contacted during the course of their discussions. So much for open government.
The proposal would result in substantial cut-through traffic. The roads in this area cannot sustain large horse vans. The roads are narrow, with no shoulders, and have intense rush-hour traffic.
Benson Branch Park was purchased for flood control. Increased compaction of the existing, random trails along the stream, as well as manure, will negatively impact the quality of the stream and reduce the flood-control value of this property.
Schooley Mill Park, dedicated to horse use and activities, is the appropriate site to expand. The state has much better options for a large state equestrian facility.
Joyce and Chris Kelly
Mark Rothstein
Ellicott City
user comments (10)
user 32pines says...
The co-authors of the editorial "Our neighborhood is not the place for state horse park" are unaware of the extent to which our community was open to provide input to the Horse Park Task Force during the four month period it met from December, 2007 through March, 2008. I had the personal honor of serving as a member of the task force, invited to participate, I believe, for the sole reason that I reside with my wife and three children in our home located on Folly Quarter Road, directly between two of the properties being considered as proposed locations for the Maryland Horse Park.
All meetings of the task force were open to the public and press. In addition, the task force held a well-attended evening hearing on January 10, 2008, at which the public offered recorded testimony. The minutes of each meeting and an audio file of the public hearing were promptly placed on the County Council's website and made available to the public. Each meeting was also publicized on the County's web site. Each newspaper in general circulation in the County was notified, both of the meetings and the public hearing as far in advance as was possible to do so. I was particularly impressed by the dedication of county employees to ensure the openness of the task force's work. There may be plenty of deserved opportunities to criticize the work of government, but this was not one.
I apologize for not being more pro-active about reaching out to residents of surrounding neighborhoods regarding the task force's meetings. I regularly emailed and solicited input from roughly twenty neighbors whose email addresses I happened to have, several of whom shared either their support for the horse park, their concerns, or both. All who provided input, either through email, by attending meetings, or by direct participation on the task force had a voice in the process and I believe the report the task force delivered to the county council captured all concerns expressed.
I recommend to anyone interested in the mission and work of the Horse Park Task Force to read up before commenting. http://www.co.ho.md.us/CountyCouncil/CC_HorseParkTaskForce.htm
Michael Potts
Posted 12:20 PM, 09.06.08
user milton says...
Many in the community voiced their concern over the prospect of a $114 million horse park to the task force. In addition to traffic concerns similar to those noted in this letter, residents expressed concern that the park was too expensive, it would do nothing for the economy and it was a clear subsidy to wealthy horse owners. Also, one has to wonder what sort of "preservation" benefit there is to building the park on the proposed U of MD site, which is already used for agriculture and is essentially controlled by the State of Maryland.
The minutes of task force meetings hardly acknowledged any public opposition to the park at all. The final report issued by the task force briefly noted, but summarily dismissed, these valid objections from local residents leading many to believe that the task force was too biased in favor of the horse industry.
Posted 2:36 PM, 09.07.08
user says...
Those who took the time to attend one of the task force meetings or speak at the public hearing were vastly in support of the project. By my count, among individual testimonies recorded at the public hearing, only four individuals expressed concerns.
http://www.co.ho.md.us/CountyCouncil/CCdocs/cc-hptf011008minutes.pdf
Not being a 'horse person' myself, I too had preconceptions about horse ownership. Its not necessary to be wealthy to own one. Some horses can be had for no cost other than the promise of a good home...... and a daily supply of around 2% their total body weight in hay.
Regarding the UofMd property, neighboring residents should not only consider the current use of the land, but how the land may be used in the future. Will the demand for agricultural research land increase in the years to come, or decrease? How else may the university make future use of this property, centrally located as it is in our beautiful state?
Did a larger number of residents take time to attend the Open House the University held this summer to present their plans for the new Green Building at the research center? What are the University's 10, 20 year plans for this land?
Posted 1:13 PM, 09.08.08
user milton says...
The problem is that everyone who supported the horse park came out to testify for it, whereas those opposed to it were more likely to stay home, or simply send an e-mail in opposition. I hope that the County Council realizes this.
Equestrian activities are a very expensive hobby. It costs about $600-$800 per month to board a horse, even if the horse itself was free. To avoid the boarding fees, you need to have additional land, a barn, fences, etc. Not a cheap hobby, and certainly not a hobby worthy of a subsidy.
Posted 5:34 PM, 09.08.08
user says...
Raising horses is not an inexpensive hobby, but, just as one doesn't need to be wealthy to raise a child, you needn't be wealthy to keep a horse. If you pay $600-$800 a month to board a horse, you are paying too much and should shop around.
http://www.mdhorsecouncil.org/resources/ownership.html
The argument that a horse park somehow subsidizes horse owners is difficult to follow. Is this by saving local horse owners the gas and lodging expenses they currently spend to participate in equestrian events hosted in neighboring states? It would certainly help local businesses to have that taxable tourism revenue entering our state rather than leaving it.
Posted 3:56 PM, 09.09.08
user milton says...
The Columbia Horse Center, which is subsidized by the Columbia Association, charges $600/month for full board. For the cost of boarding a horse you could purchase a BMW so don't tell me that owning a horse is an affordable hobby for most.
The proposed horse park would NEVER generate revenue to cover the $114 million cost to build it. The revenue generated by the park would only cover the cost of its daily operations. User fees would never pay for the cost to build the park. Translation: the park was a $114 million subsidy to horse owners. You should read the economic analysis done by KPMG for Anne Arundel County before they realized that this park was a bad idea.
Suggesting that we should spend $114 million to boost tourism is the argument that I find hard to follow.
Posted 4:29 PM, 09.09.08
user 32pines says...
As I said, anyone paying $600/month to board a horse is paying too much and should shop around.
A state's ability to draw tourists significantly impacts its tax revenue. Consider the home of the Baltimore Ravens, currently named M&T Stadium. Built in 1998 and owned by the Maryland Stadium Authority, the stadium cost $220M to build. When visitors come to Baltimore to see a game, they spend money in local businesses and our state takes in revenue, in part though the collection of sales tax. Was the stadium built to subsidize the owner of the Baltimore Ravens and other teams who compete there? In time, the tax revenues collected by the state alone will have paid for the cost to build the stadium. The stadium was a long term investment that will have tremendous financial returns for the state, not to mention the importance of the stadium to generations of Raven's fans who have a stadium to call home.
Identifying the number of years it will take to recapture the original cost to build the horse park was not a mission of the task force, but it will certainly be less than "never". The mission of the task force was to identify suitable locations and types of uses for a horse park within Howard County.
Howard County IS a suitable location for a horse park. Howard County is centrally located in a state with more horses per square mile than other states well known for their successful horse parks, including Virginia and Kentucky. Equestrian events, though not an attraction for some of us, have a significant fan base in Howard County. Local support will arguably be the most important factor to the park's success and many Howard County residents have hungered for years for a location to participate with their horses in equestrian events.
Posted 12:27 PM, 09.10.08
user milton says...
32Pines, you are very naïve. M&T stadium was, in fact, built to subsidize the Ravens team owners. Otherwise, it would have been built by private investors.
You seem to be of the very strange opinion that the government should tax its citizens and then invest the tax money in business projects with the hope of generating more revenue. Do you think that Ken Ulman should start a restaurant with our tax dollars? Do you think that Martin O'Malley should invest our tax dollars in the stock market?
Shouldn't they stick to providing very basic services and stay out of the casinos of the business world?
If you would take the time to read the economic analysis done by KPMG, you would see that horse parks throughout the country, such as the ones in Kentucky and Georgia, lose more than $1 million per year.
If a horse park should be built, it should not be built with tax dollars. I don't see you or any of your cohorts on the task force offering to put your own money on the table to finance this horse park.
Posted 12:53 PM, 09.10.08
user says...
I don't for a minute think that the state would tax citizens to build a horse park. Financing for the construction of projects such as Raven's Stadium is most frequently through the issuance of bonds. http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/25ind/html/66stadf.html
These bonds pay interest to investors and are low-risk investments, tax-exempt because of the benefit the project provides the public. It would take very deep pockets for a single or small group of private investors to build a horse park and I don't think the park would get quite as much public support if a private entity were to own it.
I agree that you need to consider the macroeconomics to appreciate the significant economic profitability of the horse parks in Kentucky, Virginia, and ultimately here in Maryland.
Yes, the government needs to provide public services to it's citizens. Providing public service is costly. The more revenue the state generates from tourism, the less it must tax its own citizens to pay for the cost of services.
Incidentally, the one use the task force specifically stated as off limits in a horse park within Howard County is betting. I'm saying this because of the earlier reference to "casinos of the business world".
Posted 4:17 PM, 09.10.08
user milton says...
First of all, my "casinos of the business world" comment was related to the risky nature of business enterprises, not to actual betting casinos like you might in Vegas.
Secondly, you have no understanding at all of how bonds work. The state issues bonds and gets money from purchasers of the bonds, but those people who purchased the bonds want to get their money paid back in full, plus interest. Therefore TAXES are charged by the state to pay the bond holders off. Use your head- if you could simply issue bonds and never worry about paying them back, you could issue your own bonds and you wouldn't need to go to work everyday to get money. The bottom line is that government spending is taxation.
Answer my question- would it be acceptable, in your view, for the government to invest tax money in a restaurant or to invest tax dollars in the stock market in an effort to generate higher tax revenues. That question was not rhetorical.
Posted 5:33 PM, 09.10.08
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement