In sponsoring a bill that would change the way property taxes for golf courses are calculated, are nine Grand Strand legislators proposing to grant golf courses a tax break that other property owners would have to absorb? Or do the nine see the bill as a way to tax golf courses more fairly without harm to other county taxpayers?

These are tough questions. And those who speak for the parties whom the bill would affect aren't much help in providing answers.

The state's top golf-course lobbyist, Terry Sedalik, insists that the Uniform and Fair Golf Course Valuation Act of 2004 isn't about providing tax breaks for his clients. Its intent, he says, is to make property tax collections better for golf course owners and for counties - without reducing the total revenue that counties collect from golf courses.

Horry County Council Chairwoman Liz Gilland, in contrast, says the bill would cost the county - which has more golf courses than any other county - $1.5 million per year. That would force the county to cut costs to compensate or to tap other taxpayers to make up the loss.

Our first take on the legislation was that the nine legislators, in sponsoring companion bills in the House and Senate, proposed to sell the home folks out to a special-interest group. They are Sens. Dick Elliott, D-North Myrtle Beach, Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, and Yancey McGill, D-Kingstree; and Reps. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach, Liston Barfield, R-Aynor, Tracy Edge, R-North Myrtle Beach, Tom Keegan, R-Surfside Beach, Billy Witherspoon, R-Conway, and Vida Miller, D-Pawleys Island.

The property tax system works best when every property owner pays his proportional share of the tax burden based on the market value of his real estate. Tinkering with property valuation formulas inevitably shifts greater tax burden onto the shoulders of property owners who don't necessarily deserve the weight.

Then we remembered that the present Horry County property tax valuation system doesn't treat golf courses equally. To the standard valuations for a given golf course's acreage and buildings, the county adds a golf-course "quality" factor. The result: A golf course judged to be of higher quality than another course with comparable acreage and buildings would receive a higher tax bill.

The formula in the bill would value every golf course at $500 per acre plus a small percentage of its gross income - which would make tax collections easier for counties and golf courses alike, just as Sedalik says. Such a change could reduce tax appeals grounded in the innately subjective nature of the "quality" portion of golf-course appraisals.

So which take on the legislation is correct? Are there other factors that readers should consider in making up their minds about how golf courses should be taxed?

It's up to the Horry County legislators who are sponsoring the legislation to answer these questions. Golf courses are, after all, an important part of the county's economy - as well as an important part of the county's tax base. Our folks in Columbia owe it to the public to speak out on the issue before the bill gets farther along the legislative pipeline.

We stand ready to help them do this. Legislators?