First Phase $94.1 MILLION DOLLARS

[Steve_Lovett]

What do you mean by plagerized in this case...?

Unfortunately in GCA, just like all design disciplines, there is a perception of the value of "name".  In the golf world "name" often comes from winning major golf tournaments - which often has nothing to do with delivering quality golf courses.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman & W H Cosgrove,

I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods, but here in New Jersey, many courses are owned and successfully operated by the Counties or Municipalities without any negative impact on private facilities.

[Forrest Richardson]

All I know is that they did not choose Brauer or me. A good friend is on the job overseeing earthmoving and construction.

I hope to drop by and wave my arms a few times...then, in 30 years, I'll take my grandchildren there and claim it was my project. I may even give Jeff some credit.

[A_Clay_Man]

Steve- Plagerism in this case? I don't know. But, you're missing my point. It happens in every case that the "name" puts his name on works of art, that he/she did not create.

The practice has become so acceptable, is it any wonder most modern creations have the psychosis of multiple personalities?

Pat-How do you know they don't adversly effect the private enterprises?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

Because all of the private clubs in the adjacent areas have been prospering for 30 plus years, many of them full to capacity.

[Lou_Duran]

Pat Mucci,

Perhaps not in NJ, but in most places, an owner of a daily-fee course going against a subsidized government facility is hardly fair competition.  In the past, most government courses were rudimentary and fit a niche most often ignored by the private sector.  As this thread clearly shows, this is no longer the case.  If I was an owner of a course in a community which built a competitive product with public financing and no need to make a profit, I would be a little concerned.  That I would be paying taxes to my competitor to take business away from me, that'd really piss me off.  BTW, I think that Archie Struthers would take exception to your premise.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

How do you conclude that a public course, owned by a governmental authority has no need to make a profit ?

That is doesn't have to operate within the confines of its budget

[Jeff_Brauer]

Really, Forrest, no credit necessary.....Really!

My only contribution was to follow Arnie's guys in the presentation sequence, thereby making them look even better in the eyes of the committee.....

As to the public ownership of golf courses, private owners have filed lawsuits from the early 1900's to stop them and their "unfair" competition.  The right - and even the duty - of governement agencies to provide public recreation has been upheld every single time.  

Lou is right in the fact that originally, public golf was thought to be a non profit public good that the government should provide.  I expect we will continue to see lawsuits to that effect now that golf is more profitable.  On the other hand, since most public courses also now provide business opportunities to management groups, maybe not.

It can be a real advantage.  For example, my Giant's Ridge courses are state owned.  Their greens fee is based on cost, whereas the private sector was based on market.   The lower interest rate and break even in the name of generating jobs and tourist revenue mentality allows them to charge a $79 green fee when the Brainerd area courses tried to charge $135 and up while the market was hot.  

Of course, they are now at the same greens fees as GR, which has held steady.   However, GR continues to do well, mostly (I think) because there is an aura of "damaged goods" around a course that drops its fees too much.

While I think both are fine courses (as will be the Fortune Bay course, subsidized by casino money rather than government money) a comment from a hotel guest at Giants Ridge summed up the reallity of the situation.  He was a banker from St. Paul, and he told me he liked the courses as well as anything in Brainerd, but the biggest draw was that hotel and golf combined was equal to the golf alone in Brainerd.  When entertaining 4 to 12 clients, he can give them what they want for lower cost at Giants Ridge........

So, if the $94 Mil prices the La Quinta course well above the Desert Willow or other public courses in PS, then the project will fail, or need subsidy.  If that is not much above what others have spent, then it will do fine.  Sooner or later, money counts.  It doesn't always have to be the lowest cost, but the monies spent must provide the customer and management a greens fee that allows the customer to percieve real value.

Time will tell, as it always does.....

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- Timing is definitely everything and most of my speculation, this project will fail, is due to that, and the astronomical costs. (The lakes, suck too)

I'd be interested on how many annual rounds they are expecting to make this project viable? Will they close for two months for over-seeding?

The potential conflict of interest associated with hiring management companies is also part of the perception of improriety. It may all be above board, but there is that perception. ANd if it were a REAL business, where the only subsidy comes from the princple's pocket, it could not afford to have bad perceptions floating around.

Maybe that's an industry issue that needs focus?

Thanx Jeff, I hope I sound a little more rational.

[Lou_Duran]

Pat,

Public/private financing of golf courses is something that I've studied for some 15 years.  I have been personally affected negatively by the current trend of various government groups getting into the business.

To answer your question, yes, government owned golf courses do have budgets.  They may also be used to subsidize other Parks & Recreation programs, to the extent that revenues exceed capital costs and operating expenses.  I don't have any actual data, but I am unaware of government golf courses which contribute to the general fund of its owners.

So what happens when a municipal course which was pro-formaed and sold to the public as running 45,000 rounds at $50 plus actually has a problem doing 30,000 at under $40?  Well, yes, the operating budget is cut a bit, and some neighborhood park doesn't get its new jungle gym.  Depending on the type of bond financing, funds from other sources are diverted for debt service, or the debt is refinanced (the reason the bonds are so inexpensive is because of the low risk and tax advantage- not a situation enjoyed by the private sector developer in most straight-up deals).  The course then proceeds on a not so gradual decline which only compounds and accelarates the problem.

Anyways, Pat, I am not telling you anything that you don't already know.  On a micro-level, a community or an architect such as Jeff may get a project that's beneficial to either or both.  It could be argued that the golfer derives a benefit from lower-priced golf.  What we really don't know is how we would all be better off if government remained focused on what it was originally tasked to do- and that wasn't building CCFADs.  There may be an oversupply problem in golf today.  That and the very high cost of development might be in not a minor way a result of a well-meaning government getting involved in things it is ill-suited to do.

Palm Springs may be able to pull it off.  One of the advantages of heavy regulation is that it sets up some very strong barriers to entry.  In CA, those developers who are entreched probably love it- they know how to do it, who to do it with, the margins are much higher, and no hungry competitor is going to step in.  Who gets the short end of that stick?  The taxpayer and the consumer.

BTW, I would tell Jerry Jones that fine, Dallas County will finance the new Cowboys stadium for a pro-rata percentange of the team ownership including profits.  Just like I didn't resent Bush for getting the best of the deal in Arlington when the city built the very nice ballpark for the Rangers, I don't have a problem with Jerry asking.   Shame on the city officials for not negotiating more aggressively, and on the citizens for the low voter turnout which ratified an unbalanced deal (in terms of risk/reward/capital contribution).
   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not exactly on topic, but you have to realize that cities usually foot much of the bill for many other golf courses not publicly owned.  In any golf/housing development, the developer asks and gets most cities to extend their municipal utilities and roads at least too the project, if not for the project, gets tax rebates, etc.  

When golf is involved, they usually get some money for the land the sold the city for the golf course, free water, building of the parking lot and other things to make their privately owned golf course competitive.

You may not think its right, but that is the way its done.  This is just another example....

So, your public tax dollars probably have been "given away" to sports stadiums, developers, religious groups and golf courses.  Most governements do it.  Most must think the payback in terms of tourism, taxes, quality of life, or jobs is worthwhile.  While some could be on the take, leaving a bad perception, it is so prevalent that no one should assume that all are, and that public money going to quasi private projects is automatically a bad thing.

In fact, I would wager that most of the great engineering/architectural projects in this country probably did have a large public tax dollar component.  The private sector simply can rarely afford such things on their own, and the "good for the public" but not profitable portions have been paid by government agencies for as long as any of us can remember.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Jeff,
Was Giants Ridge a mine remediation project or simply an economic development plan for the iron range?  I assume the ski area is state owned as well?

As far as adding sewers et al....If you read my earlier post, they are the type of projects government should be undertaking.  Projects with no profit potential where a civilization makes a tacit agreement that for the greater good a sewer or water line should be brought into a growing part of the area.  Hopefully private contractors bid on the job at a competitive bid(we could discus prevailing wage and unions but we would muddy the water beyond any clarity) and complete the project.  The government then taxes the users and the society benefits.  

The Giants Ridge project was built in an area depressed economically after the iron and taconite mines closed. There were no jobs remaining on the Iron Range.  Tourism in the form of golf, fishing, canoeing and snowmobiling has in part rejuvenated Northern Minnesota.  The State of Minnesota apparently felt that this was a good use of public funds, and I think a good case can be made.  

However, LaQuinta California and $94 Million dollars?  No case can be made for the Coachella Valley to have yet one more over priced golf course built by the a government entity.  A good case could be made for a good low cost municipal golf facility.

[Patrick_Mucci]

W H Cosgrove,

Would it make any difference if they acquired the land to serve as a wildlife preserve, park, anti-sprawl buffer, or another form of recreational facility ?

The cost to acquire the land may not be the issue.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
Was Giants Ridge a mine remediation project or simply an economic development plan for the iron range?  I assume the ski area is state owned as well?

As far as adding sewers et al....If you read my earlier post, they are the type of projects government should be undertaking.  Projects with no profit potential where a civilization makes a tacit agreement that for the greater good a sewer or water line should be brought into a growing part of the area.  Hopefully private contractors bid on the job at a competitive bid(we could discus prevailing wage and unions but we would muddy the water beyond any clarity) and complete the project.  The government then taxes the users and the society benefits.  

The Giants Ridge project was built in an area depressed economically after the iron and taconite mines closed. There were no jobs remaining on the Iron Range.  Tourism in the form of golf, fishing, canoeing and snowmobiling has in part rejuvenated Northern Minnesota.  The State of Minnesota apparently felt that this was a good use of public funds, and I think a good case can be made.  

However, LaQuinta California and $94 Million dollars?  No case can be made for the Coachella Valley to have yet one more over priced golf course built by the a government entity.  A good case could be made for a good low cost municipal golf facility.

Believe me, there was plenty of discussion at the time whether that use of funds was a good one in the Iron Range, as there should be and always is.  Of course, the biggest detractors now claim to be fully on board with the project from the beginning.....

The state took over the ski hill from a struggling private operator, just like many municipal courses start out as private enterprises.  

The first course is not in a mine.  The second one is, mostly to avoid the political/evironmental fallout of tearing out virgin forest to make a golf course.  It also gives us a completely different look for the second course.  Both are intended to generate tourism and redevelop the area in a new economy, though.

La Quinta is making a similar decision.  Yes the price tag is much higher, as you would expect in California.  However, as I have mentioned, some of that is from tax money they would forfeit to the state, and some will be recouped by selling or leasing the land.  The rest is recouped in increased tax base.

No way the whole $94 Mil goes to golf. Most of it is in infrastructure for hotels and development, as well as the purchase price of a prime piece of real estate.  All in all, I am not defending La Quinta, just telling what I know, which is probably more than most, having interviewed for the project and read many documents.

All I am saying is that there is a lot of speculation here, biased perhaps by a desire for affordable golf, and minimalist architecture that just isn't possible in Palm Springs, California.  I just don't know that any of us here are qualified to dismiss the idea, or the economic report that fueled it.  As Giants Ridge (and others) shows, public - private partnerships have been successful in many cases.  To assume this won't isn't right, but may not be wrong, either.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Jeff, I am going to be in Ely in June.  I only wish I had time to stop and play GR.  There won't be time in between portaging that D!@#$%^&* Canoe and hauling in those lunkers.  

Northern Minnesota and Canada are simply stunning.  Good mosquito nets are a good idea as well!

Great discussion on the pros and cons of Public/private development

Pat: I have no problem with government protecting green space.  etc.  These kinds of projects fit in to  areas of public good.  I'm right of center not an anarchist.

[Lou_Duran]

The issue is the extent that government should step into functions that it cannot perform with any degree of efficiency, and for which the private sector normally does a much better job, notwithstanding the question of how the general public good is served by building hyper-expensive golf courses.  If a community is so blessed that it has satisfied all its public safety, education, transportation, parks and recreation needs, etc. and it still has some money left over which its residents don't consider to be over-taxation, perhaps it would then be appropriate for such a place to entertain this type of development so long as the private sector is unwilling and unable to do so.  Maybe Palm Springs is such a place.

For $120,000 per annum, a tenth of the cost for temporary improvements for ADA compliance, I'll organize a very personal service giving each crippled or disabled visitor to the clubhouse their own escort.  Don't you know that there is just a bit of pork in the $94.1MM?    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

I understand your point, but who makes the decision on whether this or that public agency can be as effective as the private sector?  Or what is the best and highest public good?

In all cases, the elected officials do it, usually after public debate.  Debate by non stakeholders such as ourselves is inevitable, as is second guessing, but we don't have a dog in this race.

As to your personal services gesture, that wouldn't be allowed by law, which requires that Clubhouses (among other things) be modified to allow the disabled to access things on their own, not with the kindness of strangers.  After much congressional debate, and much more public hearings (I attended some) the collective debate says that it is in the public good to spend "reasonable amounts" to make the clubhouses of our world wheelchair accessible.

In any event, I read that article as the $1.2 Million was for the entire renovation, and that ADA compliance would be part of the renovations as it should, not that it would cost $1.2M to build a few ramps.  I think most of it goes for kitchen, offices, etc.

[Rick Baril]

"And I thought the project in Tacoma Washington was outrageous.  Pierce County is ony spending $27 million including land costs. "

Question for Jeff B.  
My recollection regarding Chambers Creek is - the entity actually developing the golf course was a "private" or "psuedo private" corporation - providing exclusive service to Pierce County (sewage/water treatment).  This meant they could develop the golf course without adhering to the usual public works procedure and requirements.

Was this your recollection?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Rick,
The Pierce County wastewater treatment facility is a department of Pierce County Washington.  Nothin psuedo about it.  Land purchsaed in 1992 and development costs for the golf course without land costs are now estimated betweem $14.5 Million and $16.5 million.

Preliminary routing plans for the waterside property have a grand total of 2 1/2 holes on the water

[jimbob]

Where were all the critics when the City of Palm Desert using the same assumptioms in the 1990's developed Desert Willow
for $21 million excluding land costs? The project has been very successful and they are planning to enter into a DDA with a hotel developer this summer.

That project has been widely succesfull.

Fast forward to La QUinta, land costs were $42 million, golf course will cost $12 million, 1.2 million temo clubhouse(Desert Willow spent $350,000 in the 90's on two double wide trailers
set up plus the parking lot) So, we are at $55 million. Design fees, engineering 3 million, 2 million in street improvements, now we are at 60 million. Living in La Quinta and following the
process I have never heard of 94 million before.

Financial viability Adam? After the City has built the golf course, Intrawest or someone akin wil build time shares, Hilton
or someone akin will build a 25 million dollar hotel and the City will be getting 15 million dollars a year in TOT and sales tax.
Indian Wells rolled the same dice in the 1980's and now have a cash cow on their hands with the Indian Wells golf resort.

Are those of you with 401k's in Wall Street crying foul if Sunrise Colony happens to be in your porfolio and they are rolling the dice to build $750,000 homes on a $20 million
golf course up the street in INdian Wells?



 

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam Clayman,

Pat- Your bias is showing. Why don't you disclose your affiliation to this project or to those involved?

I have no BIAS.
I have no clue as to who is involved, other then the references others made regarding the Palmer Company.

While Wood Brothers, Inc. was gearing up to move over 30,000 cubic yards of dirt per day, the Redevelopment Agency authorized bidding the golf course construction to eight pre-qualified golf course contractors, including: American Civil Constructors, Duinick Brothers Inc. Golf, Heritage Links, Landscapes Unlimited, Oliphant Golf Construction, Sema Golf, Wadsworth Golf Construction, and Weitz Golf International.

I have no idea who any of these firms are, nor do I have any affiliation with them or anyone else connected to this project as you've irresponsibly and recklessly asserted.

La Quinta California, expensive real estate...I don't think so.

52nd st and Jefferson is right between La Quinta and PGA West, so it can't be that bad of a neighborhood.
The La Quinta Hotel and Resort is a very nice complex and it's right on the corner of 52nd and Jefferson, so how bad a neighborhood can it be, especially when PGA West is just south at Jefferson and 54th st.

It seems like a perfect site for another 36 hole complex
And, that is potentially expensive real estate that will only appreciate in value

Does Eric Larson work for Arnie?

He did a few years ago, I don't know where he is now

As an artist, how does he feel having his art shown-off to the world, with somome elses name on it ?

I would imagine no different then any young associate architect working for any number of firms.
That's part of the apprentice package.

And Patrick, on this point, That's an assumption on your part.  U R WRONG !

How so, and on what issue ?
You need to be descriptive when making a proclamation

I do Know who and what got the city that's the size of a VILLAGE, interested in the idea. It's the reality that's been bastardized and your inability to see through all the B.S., red tape, and hand holding (reads: ass grabbing influence) just accentuates your bias.

What BIAS ?
You haven't identified how or what I'm biased for or against.

Who cares who got them interested, if the project has merit, and benefits the residents, city and others, who cares whose idea it was

Pat Mucci- I know there has been a few years between these posts,  I wanted to know: Are these different viewpoints or just different premises?
 
This next quote is yours, in response to Jeff McDowell, from 2001.

think it may be bad for golf.

The process for creating Government owned public golf courses usually eliminates the entrepreneur in the area, because it is almost impossible to compete financially.

I was with a fellow last weekend whose family had built and has owned a public golf course for about 43 years.  The County takes his tax money and builds public courses that compete with him.  He can't compete on costs to build, and on costs to maintain.  And, he can't compete in the permiting area.

Where golf is hurt is as follows.  The entrepreneur will not take the leap to buy a piece of property, and to hire an exceptional architect who could turn the property into a very good golf course.
They will not risk the environmental approval process, and concessions that may be wrung out of them, that the Town, County or State would never face.  All this leads to the non-building of a superior golf course product.

I recently witnessed a County, build through wetlands.  Had you done the same as a private venture, you would be looking to this site for bail money.

Governments seem to be able to construct and compete on a more favorable basis, but, the final product will not be as good, unless private individuals were given equal treatment, including financing and immunity from environmental and permiting issues.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

Has your opinion changed? If so, what changed it?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Adam
Isn't this one of the new courses selected for The Hope? I think it will be named Silverstone. See my previous thread on the selection of these courses. I got the info from an article in The Desert Sun newspaper.

Steve

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I'd like to see the actual quote in its unaltered form and in its entirety, which is easy for you to do, just hit the quote button and it will be reproduced.

The focus of the response was in the area of permiting.
From my limited vantage point, government entities seem to enjoy "most favored nation" status when it comes to permiting and environmental issues.

And as such, when those issues are in play, what potential developer is going to roll the dice, pay for the land and hope that they get lucky with permiting and environmental issues, within a reasonable time frame ?

Governments can take that risk because they can afford to have the project fail..... and it will still benefit the community.

[A_Clay_Man]

That was the entirety, save for Jeff Mcdowell's name. The thread is still on or near the leader board, entitled "The next Big Thing" and your quote is on page 2

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

Why didn't you quote my next post in that same thread ?

Or does it provide a context that you want to avoid ?

As I indicated, governments seem to enjoy "most favored nation" status when it comes to permiting and environmental issues.

But, each issue is site specific.

How many public courses are there in LaQuinta ?
How many in a 25 mile radius ?
Are they any good ?
How many private courses are within a 25 mile radius ?
How have they done financially, historically ?
Do they cater to the same clientele ?

And, I can take either side of any issue, or both.

[Tags:]

Tags: