Pacific Grove Digs

[A_Clay_Man]

That's new digs! As in, the brand new 3 milll milllll  millllionnnn dollar clubhouse.

Anything wrong with that?

[Mike Benham]

Golf Clubhouse Opponents in Pacific Grove, Calif., Propose New Ballot Measure[/i]
 By Jonathan Segal, The Monterey County Herald, Calif.

Apr. 10--Foes of the $3.5 million Pacific Grove golf clubhouse project are taking another swing at a ballot measure to vote it down.

After city officials process the proposal next week, the group, called Residents for a Reasonable Remodel, will begin collecting signatures. But the City Council may move forward on the project at its meeting later this month, when it will consider whether to request bids for its construction.

The city could have a contract to build the project as early as June, said City Manager Ross Hubbard, while November would be the earliest possible date for a ballot measure. If construction on the project begins before a vote, the vote would be moot.

If passed, the ballot measure would limit development on the Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Links to buildings that already exist, dashing plans to build a new golf clubhouse, cart storage barn and starter's shack. However, the proposed measure would allow structures currently on golf course property to be expanded by as much as 40 percent.

"I think that they should allow the people to vote," said Lorna Torkos, a founder of the anti-clubhouse group. "The people own the golf clubhouse and the people own the golf course, so it's really for the people to decide."

Clubhouse booster Bruce Obbink, chairman of the city's Golf Course Advisory Committee and a candidate for City Council, had a different opinion.

"I think it's way too late to do that," said Obbink. "The process is moving forward."

To get the measure on the general election ballot, the group has to collect 10,000 signatures, about 10 percent of the city's registered voters.

The group tried to get a measure on the ballot earlier this year, collecting more than 1,500 signatures. But it was thwarted when the city found a legal defect in the petition's language, causing the City Council to throw out the ballot measure.

Some Pacific Grove residents oppose the new clubhouse because they believe it is a poor use of resources as the city faces a financial crisis. Others object to its size, design or possible environmental effects, worrying that the project's larger dining facilities might attract crowds to the quiet oceanside neighborhood.

Clubhouse backers say a new facility is necessary to accommodate tourists and locals with better restrooms and dining facilities. They say that only golf revenue will be used to pay for the 1,000-square-foot facility.


-----To see more of the Monterey County Herald, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.montereyherald.com.

(c) 2004, Monterey County Herald, Calif. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
 

[Mike Benham]

Posted on Thu, Apr. 22, 2004
 
P.G. moves forward on clubhouse project

Controversial plan would expand existing golf facility[/i]

By ALEX FRIEDRICH, Herald Staff Writer

Dismissing demands for a public vote on whether to build a new clubhouse on the city golf course, the Pacific Grove City Council on Wednesday decided instead to go forward on the $3.5 million project.

By a vote of 5 to 1, council members decided to find a builder and secure the financing for the project. Mayor Morrie Fisher also advised residents not to support calls for a November ballot initiative that would toughen city regulations on all development in areas zoned as open space.

The council's vote may have dashed opponents' hopes to halt construction of the clubhouse. Even if a ballot initiative passes in November, city officials say, it would be too late to stop construction of the clubhouse, which could start this summer.

"By enhancing our biggest and most famous asset, we will bring much needed tax revenue to the city," said Fisher.

The project would replace the city's old clubhouse with a 7,000-square-foot facility that would include expanded dining areas and bathrooms, as well as a new cart barn, starter's shed and pro shop.

Clubhouse backers say a new facility is necessary to accommodate tourists and locals alike. They say that only golf revenue will be used to pay for the facility.

But some Pacific Grove residents oppose the new clubhouse because they believe it is a poor use of resources as the city faces a financial crisis. They say the city would better serve the public by investing golf revenues in the city's aging sewer system.

Others object to its size, location or possible environmental effects, worrying that the project's larger dining facilities might attract crowds to the quiet oceanside neighborhood. They also say it will be inappropriately near a crematorium, and is on land that could contain Native American relics.

About 15 to 20 people gathered in front of City Hall before the meeting to demonstrate against the clubhouse. They held signs with slogans such as "Another City Council Bogey," "It's all about money," and "Protect Open Space."

One of the protesters, 50-year-old chiropractor Susan Nilmeier, said, "It's ridiculous that all that money is going into golf instead of into sewers. Our sewers are in... desperate need of being fixed."

In her hands was a sign: "Good old boys golf. Grandchildren pay."

At least eight people who spoke at the meeting asked the council to put off the project until the public voted on it in November.

But city officials said the public has been misinformed. A survey shows the land contains no relics, Fisher said. Golf funds are for the golf course projects, and no money will come from other city projects, council members said. And investors -- not the city -- assume the risk, they said.

And Fisher said citizens must not micromanage, but instead allow their city leaders to make decisions. All City Council members except one supported the new clubhouse during their election campaigns, he said.

"If we want to buy four new police cars and you don't like it, do we put it to the vote of the people?" he asked. "No."

Still, Lorna Torkos, head of the anti-clubhouse group Residents For Reasonable Remodel, said "We'll keep fighting."

The group has been collecting signatures for a ballot measure that would allow the old clubhouse to expand by 40 percent. And it would allow the Meals on Wheels building near the links to expand as well. It would curb development on the city's open spaces. It would also limit development by changing the zoning in the city's designated open spaces.

The group collected about 350 signatures in three days. To get the measure on the general election ballot, the group has to collect about 1,000 signatures, 10 percent of the city's registered voters.

"It may be too late (for the clubhouse)," Torkos said, "but the (ballot initiative) would protect all open spaces from development."

Fisher, however, warned that the petition may "stifle" popular developments such expansion of the city library, construction of recreation facilities and Meals on Wheels.

Although councilman Jim Costello said he favored the clubhouse project, he voted against approval Wednesday, saying he preferred to get the public's vote on the matter. Councilwoman Susan Goldbeck was not at the meeting due to illness.

montereyherald.com.

 

[Steve_Lovett]

Based upon the program described, and its location - $3.5 million doesn't seem to be too bad a deal...

A properly designed facility can create operational efficiencies and revenue opportunities which can offset some of the differences between it and a "band aid" approach.  Assuming, of course, that the new facility would be properly designed.

[A_Clay_Man]

Steve L, The course doesn't need operational efficencies. It has that in spades. To the tune of being able to scrape and save that 3.5, while simutaneously buying the best equiptment money can buy.

A little history perhaps?

The enterprise fund began saving money just in-case the feds were gonna demand an enviornmental overhaul when they transfered the land from the interior dept. It started at half a million, then one, then two million, then some bullshit projects, and it still grew. Raising the green fees was the entire source. Heck, they gave away the consession for the carts and were only getting a dollar a rider. Yet still they have this windfall. It is clearly a typical political issue and with a man like Morry at the helm. They are sure to do the wrong thing. The guy actually thinks the golf course is it's best known asset. That is clue one, to how clueless.

[Mike Benham]

A little history perhaps?

I feel like the straight man in a comedic duo ... I posted the article specifically so that Adam could give us the background as his cryptic topic and opening line was, well, cryptic ...

[Bob_Huntley]

Adam,  

I concur. For a place to call itself "America's Last Hometown" is really a bit of a joke.

It probably has the most dysfunctional city goverence in the State. The sewer system is a mess and the Feds are up in arms over raw sewage floating into the Bay. The citizens want a vote on the new Taj Mahal Golf Course Clubhouse and can't get it. The Police Department has some rather tough guys in the station, hence the suits alleging getting roughed up for not signing a ticket. The alleged traffic violations of residents from Pebble Beach, driving to shop in Pacific Grove had a novel twist. The merchants in town went to City Hall and requested an easing off of the issuing of traffic citations, the Pebble Beachers started an economic boycott.... to the detriment of everyone's bottom line.

The back nine at the Pacific Grove Links is as close to heaven as you can get, it's a pity the City can't get its act together and make the whole place as attractive.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Bob- I was at the meeting when the Company, mind you, requested to assist building a pipeline, so Pebble Beach could irrigate the golf course with fresh water. The request was, as I recall, an initial inquiry. Even with the little bit I knew, about the origins, I found the negative attitude to be quite dis-respectful, in a neighborly kind of fashion. Especially a neighbor who not only put them on the map but sold them their windfall in the first place.

Perhaps there's some room in there for a deal to get the pipeline and fix the sewer? But with what you've described, it sounds like real bad blood. I just pity the rest of us, because from what we're hearing on other municipal fronts, the future is only bright, if you're in, with in crowd. (insert heavy piano solo)

[RJ_Daley]

If they can show a reasonably projected pro forma that indicates the new clubhouse can and will be financed from reasonably projected sales of F&B and club house equipment and cart rental sales; then what is the big deal?  If it doesn't increase the cost of the golf rounds, then it ought to be a winner.  The only losers in this seem to be the NIMBY crowd.  They'd be obstructive if the Mayo Clinic wanted to build in their back yard...  Yet, I also don't understand the Mayor talking about increasing "tax" revenue by increasing their "biggest most famous asset".   It may increase sales profits that are folded back into the city treasury, but I wouldn't think it can be called a tax generated asset.

They tore down our old county course clubhouse two years ago and replaced it with what sounds like very similar, nice facility.  They leased the F&B out to a local restaurantuer, and it didn't raise the cost of green fees. It gave the golfers a far better facility, and the risk is only on the leasee.  The pro has a bigger sales floor, and it is a win-win for everyone.  I'm not aware that any course neighbor property owners are inconvenienced either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

That's new digs! As in, the brand new 3 milll milllll  millllionnnn dollar clubhouse.

Anything wrong with that?

It depends upon what you get for the money.

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike, Sorry to be so cryptic. Funny how I can read those newspaper accounts and consider them cryptic, since they don't capture any of the real news, just a false image. Be it corporate, city or tree hugging-three legged black lizard mama.

If you followed any of that Ross thread and someones questioning of the articles written, as gospel history. I know exactly what they mean, just from these two articles. Thanx for posting them.

[A_Clay_Man]

PAt- Could it also be what you don't get?

You don't get, for the last ten years, excess revenue going back into the golf course. Turf issues, in particular. You don't get a magnificiant 18th hole, you get a driving range who's balls intrudes on others holes, on the course.

Pat- If the good citizens of Pacific Grove were given mahagony decked locker rooms, complete with showers and plasma screen tv's, it would be deserved. More so than what they will get. An Increased dining room (worthless) and some parking and I gaurantee no shower facilities.
It's a lesson in total abuse of power. A monument to a man not even mentioned in either article which who's goal this has all been.

Is that good enough for 3.5m?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

Don't take this the wrong way, BUT,

I find it interesting that you're a brand new member and you're already determining what's right, or wrong, for the members and users who have been there for 10, 20 and 30 years or more.

You're but one voice.

Perhaps the other 200, 300 or 500 members/users have their own ideas on what they'd like to see the clubhouse provide for their use and comfort.

As a "Johnny come lately" perhaps it would be best to sit back and drink in the golf and political lay of the land before determining what's best for everyone.

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

[A_Clay_Man]

Is it any wonder I even reply to that? Pat, you are wrong. I am long gone from PG, after inspecting the political landscape for 6 years.

Here's some REAL history about the old clubhouse.

Some of the players who still golf there, backed the 1960 project with their own homes, as collateral.
Pat- DO you think they should have any say in the process? Do you even know who you are talking about when you say

the other 200, 300 or 500 members/users

?

Pat, Pg does over 100k rounds /yr. Their revenue is generated thusly. 80% from outside play, taking 20% of the tee times. The other 20% of Revenue is generated by the 80% of play, from the locals. They are mostly blue collar and the desire of all this is to crowd-out that local.

 Do you advocate that Pat ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

You respond to me because you enjoy it  

If 100,000 golfers play the golf course every year, I would think a highly functional clubhouse would be an important facility to serve the diverse needs of all of these golfers.

As 100,000 golfers pass through the gates, some may want dining facilities, others may want a TV room, others may want a decent locker room, others may want an adequate pro shop.
Some may want air conditioning, others may want fans.
Some may want a bar, others may want a soda machine.

Even small clubs, with limited membership have functional clubhouses to serve their member's needs, be they spartan or lavish.

You may have friends or acquaintances who feel one way, while 5,000 other golfers feel another way.

It's difficult to satisfy the whims and needs of every faction of a golf club, it may also be elitist to ignore the needs of other factions.

You have your persepctive and I have mine, but I ask you, as someone six (6) years removed from the club, do you think that your position is representative of the current needs of all of the factions of all of the golfers ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- I do not enjoy replying to post that make reference to misquoted facts and a general twisting of words. Who said 100k golfers or that I was removed 6 years.

The powers that be are of the ilk to ensure all of this many years ago. Perhaps I just hate them because they are so organized in a conspiriorial way? The gentleman mentioned in the article was brought in as their heavy hitter. He ingratiated the mens club then, IMO stabbed them in the back.

Patrick, Do you think one of the blue collar contractors could construct a new "adequate" clubhouse for $100 sg/ft, $200 sq/ft, $300 ? Do you?

Oh yes and Pat, The council woman Brubeck, told me herself her faction. She wanted a nice place for her and her husband to sit and have sunday brunch. Isn't that special? Is that who, and how, the golfers who spent their money, their time, their lives, at this GC be treated, and respected?

Is that how things are done in the cold cruel world of pinseeking?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

Pat- I do not enjoy replying to post that make reference to misquoted facts and a general twisting of words. Who said 100k golfers

You said that PG does over 100,000 rounds a year in post
# 13, therefore, over 100,000 golfers traipse over the golf course and potentially use the clubhouse each year.

or that I was removed 6 years.

You also said that you were LONG gone from PG.
I thought that 1-5 years would be fairly recent and that 6 or more years would equate to LONG gone.  That's not an unreasonable estimate, based on your own words.

The powers that be are of the ilk to ensure all of this many years ago. Perhaps I just hate them because they are so organized in a conspiriorial way?

Both sentences call for qualitative and quantatative analysis that may be beyond your ability to prove.
But, to use the term/word "hate" indicates that you're emotionally involved and perhaps not able, or willing, to perceive all of the facts or viewpoints.


The gentleman mentioned in the article was brought in as their heavy hitter. He ingratiated the mens club then, IMO stabbed them in the back.

Patrick, Do you think one of the blue collar contractors could construct a new "adequate" clubhouse for $100 sg/ft, $200 sq/ft, $300 ? Do you?

It would depend on the definition of the word "adequate"
That's a rather vague and subjective term.
"Adequate" to you might not be "adequate" to others.

But, to provide you with general answers to your questions

$ 100 sq/ft   NO
$ 200 sq/ft   NO
$ 300 sq/ft   MAYBE  

Oh yes and Pat, The council woman Brubeck, told me herself her faction. She wanted a nice place for her and her husband to sit and have sunday brunch. Isn't that special?

I find nothing wrong with that request/position, especially with over 100,000 golfers playing and using the facility during a year.  The caveat I would make is that I wouldn't want it to become the focal point or a deficit pit, diverting attention and funds away from the reason people come to Pacific Grove, for the golf


Is that who, and how, the golfers who spent their money, their time, their lives, at this GC be treated, and respected?

Again, with over 100,000 golfers using the facilities over a year, I don't think that you can accurately speak for them, as a whole, or for the various factions that comprise the whole.

My belief is that the golf course should come first and foremost, but that doesn't mean that you can't have the tangential amenities to provide additional benefits for the 100,000 plus golfers that use the facility.

Is that how things are done in the cold cruel world of pinseeking?

I have no idea what you mean by the above statement

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Oh I know better than to post near a Mucci moment. Notwithstanding, I love the back nine at Pacific Grove and know Adam treasures the memories of his time there. I will always trust Bob and Adam's view of the interelationship of local government and the golf course over 99% of us on here. Muni's and local government is an area that needs focus and education for much waste and poor utilization of resources is the norm today. It is an area where a little improvement will impact the golfing lives of a great many people.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tiger,

No need to get nervous.

In general, I would agree that governmental owned facilities have ownership and management too far removed from operations, and that if possible, an entepreneur as the owner would be the better solution.

But, sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt.
Sometimes you have to understand that certain things may be beyond your influence and control.

Play your golf and enjoy your round and don't worry about the accomodations and facilities that you may never use.

By the way, I can easily take the other side of this debate, or both sides, simultaneously.

Sometimes, I'm merely trying to get people to view all sides.