Affordable Golf

[SB]

First Tee facilities are great uses of public recreational funds.  They provide a low cost (or free) activity to people that otherwise may not be able to enjoy it.  Getting young kids out early to learn golf is great for a multitude of reasons.  And, private enterprise is not going to pony up the money for a short course that is destined to lose money.  See, so government CAN provide services, even in golf, without killing private enterprise.

Matt, to your point about government having state parks that compete with resorts:  The problem is that the state is building a resort, not a state park.

I suppose the state can do whatever they want.  Resort developers will just build elsewhere.  However, the next time you wonder why private developers won't build a daily fee golf course, you'll know the answer.

[Matt_Ward]

SBusch:

You completely missed or ignored my previous point. There are upscale daily fee facilities here in Jersey that simply operated for much too long with these two erroneous theories ...

1). Just build the facility and they shall come. This may have worked for Kevin Costner in "Field of Dreams" but it doesn't fly in a market place that is shrinking and not growing. Few facilities have created loyalty programs (akin to frequent flyer) and few ever aggressively go after golfers as I described previously with the Heron Glen e-mail notice on tee time availability.

2). Don't do anything special for the customer. Simply charge the highest rate and assume they will continue to pay. I get a good laugh out of those who scream about competition -- it's like the idea that since they were the last ones to come to a given location the gates should be pulled up behind them. This is the same loony belief that suburbanites feel about sprawl and its impact on their lives. Everything is OK provided no one less lives in the suburbs with them.

Last point -- you don't know the Jersey golf market that well. The overwhelming bulk of muni golf in the Garden State is vastly inferior to what is offered on the other side of the aisle. I can name only three (3) counties that have solid course offerings that would be somewhere in line with the privately owned daily fees -- Somerset, Morris and Monmouth Counties. Please do yourself a favor and see how "grand" the palaces of muni golf are in such places as Bergen, Essex, Passaic and Union Counties, to name just four. There's no "resort" style muni golf operations that I am familiar with in NJ. That may be the case in certain other states but I don't see it in many locations throughout NJ and even in the Northeast.

George:

How do you propose that people learn the game if muni golf were not available? Do you not know the appeal of places like Van Cordlandt park in the Bronx?

Muni golf allowed countless millions the exposure to the game that only the elites had known. Muni golf for the most part is non-threatening to the heavy duty daily fees because most of the layouts associated with muni golf are quite ordinary -- many are simpy drab. Muni golf provides an outlet for people who previously had no idea on how much fun golf is. In time many of those who started out at the local muni graduated to other alternatives -- many of which are the CCFAD or private clubs.

There are plenty of state parks that contain muni golf courses -- NJ has one with Allaire State Park and the Spring Meadow Golf Course. Yes, I see recreation & parks as a noteworthy and notable contribution by government. If you left the private side of the ledger to provide for the masses you are really sniffing some serious glue. The private side simply cherry picks off those with the deepest pockets.

George -- when you say if there's a market for it then the private aide of the aisle should develop it is also erroneous. Do you think any developer wishes to get involved in muni golf when the fee structures are kept so low for obvious reasons. Hell no. These folks want to build daily fee courses with some connection to housing that can rake in a much bigger cash flow. This is the same theory on why no development takes place for middle income housing. Why do it when developers can simply buttonhole McMansion size housing which has a greater profit margin.

What has dampened the golf market is not the role of muni golf. That's the easy way out -- looking for the quick scape goat. It's the escalating costs of land in such tight places like New Jersey and with that the ever growing amont in property taxes. If privately owned daily fees would undertake some basic 101 understanding of branding and marketing it might be possible to keep their tee sheets full and to understand that the role of muni golf provides a window of opportunity for future players in the game and customers at their facilities.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

I've very familiar with muni golf - my home course is a muni course. It was built during the giant public works projects during the Depression. It's a great place to learn and a great place to play anytime. But there are also TONS of private daily fee places to play around here that are every bit as inexpensive. Some are even cheaper, some are slightly more expensive for better courses and/or playing conditions. You just live in a screwed up, overpopulated, over government-tized place. Everywhere else other than NY, NJ & Cali is capable of having low priced golf without government assistance.

[frank_D]

....Everywhere else other than NY, NJ & Cali is capable of having low priced golf without government assistance.

brother George Pazin

you forgot to add England, Ireland, Wales ......and of course........ Scotland.........and most of the courses in Europe and Asia  and South America as well.......which we know from history ALL had and continue to have PUBLIC TRUST's or quasi-governmental ownership (read municipal)

so you see NY, NJ and CA are not in such bad company (and not just a blue state ideology)

[by the way the course in the bronx brother Matt named may be the oldest MUNI in the US]

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Hear what you just said -- answer me this -- why are there TONS privately owned daily fee courses? I mean how smart were these people to come forward when the market is not growing.

If there's any "fault" it lies with the poor business planning of those who overbuilt when the market said otherwise. Now, that these privately owned daily fee courses are taking it on the chin how nice of them to blame the muni courses as the source of their problems. Beautiful thinking -- flawed of course.

I'm not buying it.

George -- you're the guy who said no muni golf -- let the private market take care of it.

Fair enough. In certain markets the competitive price points are there to be had -- in middle America that may apply. But, travel to places where large communities / metro areas are involved and the fee structures are skewed in many ways comparable to what is happening now in the Northeast.

George -- do yourself a favor -- fly out to Vegas and other well traveled places and see what options -- other than muni courses -- are available for the average person. Heck, if it wasn't for a place like Angel Park in Vegas I don't know how locals could play golf given the high price structures.

It's easy to say look at Pittsburgh and see what golf should be. The reality is a bit different when you look at the larger canvas and I mean more than just California, New York and New Jersey.

P.S. George -- do me a favor when the weather warms up this spring in Pennsy -- go to your local muni and have a sign strapped to your front and back that ADVOCATES the closure of the muni course because it should not compete with other layouts in the area and that taxpayers can save $$. Tell me how long the sign stays connected to your torso.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Those cheap courses in my area are the ones that are probably doing best. They were paid for a long time ago.

What you are describing is the result of decades of government mismanagement. You may prefer the socialist approach, but I don't. I don't feel any great need to "bring golf to the masses" if it means the rest of the non-golfing public has to foot the bill, while the government funded entity competes with private businesses. That's just wrong. Tough shit for those who choose to live in an area with poor governments. I myself suffer from living in the backward thinking area I chose - tough shit for me. Life's all about choices.

I would be all for privatizing the muni course in my area, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell it could actually happen, so I'm not going to waste my time fighting city hall. Heck, I can't even sway the clear thinking folks on this site away from big government "solutions" to problems the big governments created, so how could I hope to change others' minds?

Have a nice day.

[SB]

"Last point -- you don't know the Jersey golf market that well. "

Matt - I think I know the market pretty well.  I've bought, sold, owned or been involved in operations four different courses in NJ, and attempted many more.  I think it's you that doesn't understand the market very well.  There are only a couple daily fee golf courses charging $100, and only a few right below that.  For a state with the number of people in NJ, that's not too many.   Most are in the $50-$70 range, which ain't highway robbery.  Considering what private clubs in your state charge, how can you even consider $100 a ripoff?

[Matt_Ward]

SBusch:

Let's start from the top shall we.

You're the guy who "seriously doubted" that someone of leadership level of a golf course owners group would say that muni golf has no place in the golf course arena. The answer to that is simple -- it was said and it was meant to apply specifically to Emerald Links just outside of AC.

You're also the guy who spoke about public entities building "resort golf" places to compete against the privately owned daily fee places -- "The problem is that the state is building a resort, not a state park."
 
OK -- fair enough -- help me out since you know the Jersey market -- save for the three counties I mentioned as having above average golf offerings (Morris, Monmouth & Somerset) -- what counties / localities in New Jersey have facilities that have been paid and developed by taxpayer jurisdictions that can compete against the privately owned daily fee layouts. Please knock yourself out and give me the entire list.

I also mentioned to you how insufficient the efforts have been for a quite a few of the "top tier" daily fees in maintaining a 24/7 effort in communicating their programs and availability to golfers throughout the state. Only very recently did courses of the top dollar variety begin to put forward fee structures that vary depending upon time of year and time of day. Few embraced twilight rates -- more do today. Few provide for junior rates during holidays & weekends -- you simply pay the adult fare. The issue for many privately owned daily fee courses in NJ was the inability to understand the nature of the market and how to respond in a proactive -- rather than -- a restrictive posture.

Many daily fee courses simply came into existence when the glut was already present. Of course -- the owners don't want to say anything adverse to fellow privately owned daily fee courses so the muni golf course becomes the convenient punching bag. The Atlantic City area was already clogged with too much golf BEFORE Emerald Links happned upon the scene.

Regarding fees -- only now is the Jersey market beginning to understand the nature of how to "court" other players of different economic levels. The top tier privately owned daily fee courses simply overdosed on the mistaken belief that the top 5% of income producers / golfers would continually keep coming. Guess what? They've dropped off and the inability of many facilities to develop a coherent and consistent marketing effort with other income levels has only begun recently.  

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Nothing like the tap dance -- be sure to wear the sign that says ... END MUNI GOLF TODAY !!! at the local muni where you play. I'm sure your golf buddies who play there regularly will love to know your thoughts on big government and how to save their $$.

George -- nothing like borrowing the tactics of people like Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh with all the socialistic BS. How predictable.

You see George I approach muni golf with a progressive flavor. It is worthy of government to provide for recreational avenues like golf courses -- what's the alternative -- having more strip malls? I see nothing wrong in it and I'm glad that during the height of the Depression someone had the good sense in bringing forward the genesis that became Bethpage. The muni operation fills the pipeline with more players. Thank God there are such places like Rancho Park, Van Cordlandt, Tenison Park, etc, etc.

The other point you mentioned you also skirted -- all those TONS of daily fee courses that came forward in western Pennsy. How wise was it for them to build when the market was saying otherwise? You need to focus your angst on them before barking about the socialistic model of muni golf.

Adios for now -- comrade Ward !  

[George Pazin]

Sean -

The government created problem that I was referencing is not the decline in golf, it's the conditions that have been created in the large market areas. Complex regulations, difficult environmental regulations, open space type laws, etc., have all helped to create the high cost of real estate and real estate related businesses like golf. I forget the economic term they taught us back in school - high barriers to entry or something like that.

To put it into another form, the home that my wife & I purchased here in Pittsburgh is quite comparable to homes my friends have purchased in the NY metro area that cost 2-3 times as much, maybe more. Should the government subsidize home purchases in the NY metro area so my friends don't have to overpay (comparatively speaking)?

Viewed yet another way, I used to be a scumbag investment banker in NYC along with my former classmates from college, until I chose lifestyle over $$$, returned home to my family in Pittsburgh and started my own humble business. My peers from college (whom I routinely trounced in exams ) who chose to stay in NYC are earning maybe 10 times what I make, probably substantially more in some cases. Should the State of PA subsidize my income to "level the playing field" between my friends and little old me?

People make choices. If low cost golf is your priority, don't live in metropolitan NY. Or at least don't expect the other non-golf playing taxpayers in your area to subsidize your hobby and compete with private individuals who are attempting to serve your area.

Like I said, I don't expect anyone to follow my principles, any more than I expect cities to stop funding stadiums for enormously wealthy individuals. But if they would, we'd all be better off.

 

[George Pazin]

You see George I approach muni golf with a progressive flavor.

You say progressive, I say socialist - same thing.

As I said before, the cheapies in Pittsburgh that I referenced are doing quite well - they were built 20-40-60 years ago before it became fashionable to make golf development so difficult and therefore expensive. It's your enemies the robber barrons that are struggling in today's climate. You should be happy.

I'm glad you feel comfortable making the decision for everyone that we should spend government tax dollars on your chosen profession and passion. I ask no such thing of my fellow citizens - I'm more than willing to spend my hard earned dollars on my own pursuits.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I feel no pain for people who fly against the tide of business realities and still decide to build golf under the inane belief that if built they (the masses) will come marching forward with their Visa and Master Cards in hand -- talk about not understanding the economics of the times. These are the same people who said the market just had to go up and up and convinced everyone that the game of business was
"fair" -- circa October 1929.

If you want to know the culprit in overplaying golf courses it's the private side of the ledger. The amount of players has not grown -- it's shrinking because of the zeal of such pro-course advocates like the National Golf Foundation which provided skewed info that flew in the face of the real economics.

It's amazing George you frequent a muni course but want to condemn others in the bizarre hope that those who remain among the privately owned daily fee category will be "concerned" about their plight. Sure. When hell freezes over.

You see George -- the fat cats could frankly care less about growing the game. They have all their toys -- the multiple country clubs -- the McMansion size homes, yada, yada, yada. Why soil themselves in interacting with the riff raff?

Excuse me -- my chosen profession is in media. I don't get paid by the masses -- I have to sell a product George -- you see I understand the publication business -- something as a former investment type you may be unfamiliar with. I work in the private sector -- I don't get a paycheck from the government.

I see muni golf as a progressive statement that people can receive the benefits of  what golf provides and not have to spend a king's ransome to do it. Once introduced to the game they then possess the aptitude to learn more about it and likely gravitate to other more amenity oriented facilities which will then charge appropriate market rates. I laugh when you say your hard earned dollars -- like mine or anyone else's is less so. Hello?

[George Pazin]

Sean -

You make many interesting and thought provoking points, and I generally agree with your statement that prices are more market driven.

A couple of quick points:

1) It is my understanding (and I certainly could be wrong on this) that the differences in land prices, housing, etc. were much less prior to the wonderful experimentation we've had the last 30-40 years with the types of government overregulation that we've had. I believe the government subsidies you refer to  exacerbate the problem, not help to solve it. But I certainly could be wrong on that, I'm no real estate expert.

2) During my tenure as said scumbag banker, one of my coworkers whom I was friends with mentioned that his family owned 3 buildings in NYC that were largely vacant at that time (89-91) that they could not afford to sell due to the myriad of taxes that would be imposed upon selling. That's a wonderful impediment to low cost housing that is government created.

If I were King (and I think we can all agree I would be a wonderful and beneficent king ) I would destroy the monopoly that has been created in the financial system that has entrenched wealth and power in the NYC area. Then we'd see how desirable a place it would be.

 

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Another entertaining reply - thanks for the laughs.

- Those "fat cats" don't want to grow the game because they want to sit around in their McMansions? That's pretty funny.

- You don't see the desire for muni golf as subsidizing your preferences? That's pretty funny, too.

- You don't get paid by the masses? Everyone gets paid by the masses in one form or another. What do you think supports the golf industry that provides you with your livelihood?

I make no value judgements on how hard people work for their money. Calling my money hard earned makes no value judgement whatsoever on the value of others' earnings. You, on the other hand, feel free to label people as fat cats/ robber barrons/people sitting around in McMansions. And you imply that I'm the one making judgments? That's pretty funny stuff, too.

There are a lot of investment types that make a lot of money valuing all types of businesses, not just the publication business that you somehow feel is different from everyone else's. You may wish to think twice before criticizing others' views so deftly.

Thanks again for the laughs - have a good night, I'm heading home to my McMansion early! 6:00! I must be screwing some poor people somewhere!

 

[George Pazin]

Sean -

I didn't think you were being harsh - I really do find your views interesting and love jousting over this stuff. I usually litter my posts with smileys so people can see I'm just having fun.

Even my omnipresent battles with Matt are fun for me - I hope they are for him, too. We each think the other is silly at times but share a passion for the game and for debating life on this site. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

Have a good one -

George

[Matt_Ward]

George:

You need to direct your angt at your fellow colleagues -- not Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass who simply wants to play golf at a very low rate -- ergo -- muni golf.

George you label people no less with "socialism" tags -- please help me hold on to the table before I fall with laughter when you say you don't label people. It's akin to the pot calling the kettle black. George you say, "I make no value judgements on how hard people work for their money" but you clearly make it a point to state how hard you work for yours. Nothing like a little self promotion on your work habits versus the rest of us.

Yes, as a media guy who watches the golf market -- especially the Jersey side of it -- I can see how all those "fat cats" simply thought that if they built another grandiose palace of golf the masses would simply be running like the clowns on the Capital One credit card commercials with their desire to plunk down their dollars. The issue for their failure rests with them -- not the dissolution of the muni golf framework that you have touted as some sort of cure-all.

I love it when rich people simply turn the tide around and proclaim that the failure of things is never what they've done or failed to do (hint, hint -- it's called due diligence) but what the little guy has failed to do. It's easy for those with the disposable dollars to pick up their ball and go elsewhere. That option isn't likely for those on the lower level of income who may become full time golfers.

I'm returning with my comrades George knowing I can sleep so well knowing the free market forces you embrace are so ever watchful over ignorant slobs like me.

P.S. George, I get paid for a product that is produced to talk about golf in New Jersey. It sells because people believe it has some sort of credibility. Maybe you need to read more enlightened periodicals.

[Cliff Hamm]

Matt

Thank you for upholding the place for muni/government golf.  You have articulated the reasons why admirably.  I will not add much except that I learned golf in the 60's on Union county courses.  Nothing like hitting off of mats at Galloping Hill.  Maybe that's why my driving is what it is.  Anyway, seems to me that at that time there were many county courses in New Jersey but few privately run public courses.  Then along comes privately owned daily fee courses and they want to complain about government competition!  Give me a break!  Anyway, you have done a wonderful job of articulating the place and necessity of government run golf courses.

Cliff

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
How's the knee?

There are some cities, like Danbury, Ct., who run needed and profitable courses. The monies that come in to their course(Richter Park) stay in, and there are no levies on taxpayers as the course pays for itself and all necessary improvements. It works in Danbury because, as I said, it's needed. It allows the townfolks a chance to play a really good quality course and sets a higher fee structure for non-residents, one that is higher than most other public access courses in the state.  

Additionally, towns have found that real estate prices of surrounding properties increase, raising tax revenues. Having a good muni helps attract residents and businesses to an area, as do other municipal recreational facilities like outdoor concert areas, ballfields, swimming pools or ponds, running tracks, fitness trails, skating rinks, cross country ski trails, sledding areas, etc., that would probably go begging for a lack of private operators. There is also the added benefits of greenspace that these courses supply, one that won't be subjected to loss from development pressure. A good supply of recreational amenities not only adds to the quality of life, it helps communities flourish which aids in their prosperity and adds revenue to the tax rolls.

There has been a long history of municipal involvement with golf and from what I've read many early ones were merely functional.  It's easy for me to see how a town, over time, would want their course to measure up, leading them to make the improvements that would attract additional players. And yes, they may have had what some consider an unfair advantage in the marketplace for some time although this wasn't a pressing issue until the modern glut of courses, flat participation rates and several years of bad weather came to be.

Many municipal courses in the US have been turned over to private companies through leases or management contracts. Towns have seen the down side of running them in the last few seasons and I would imagine this shift will continue. Also, public/private partnerships are happening between towns, land developers and course operators for new construction.

There are merits to privatization of municipal courses but I  think the townspeople who voted for them by referendum should be the ones to decide their fates in the future.
Heck, if you want to start privatizing something start with the federal government which employs 150,000 engineers and architects, 40,000 warehouse stockhandlers, 31,000 supply clerks, 30,000 computer specialists, 25,000 metalworkers, 23,000 mail/ file clerks, 10,000 paperhangers, and runs the largest print shop in the USofA, some 33 acres of building with
6,200 in their employ. That ain't all but I'll stop there.        

[JeffTodd]

If I may offer an opinion that is consistent with a few themes here; like NJ golf and affordability. I find a course like Riverwinds to be relevant to this thread. It's sub $70 in the mornings, and under $40 in the afternoons. At those rates I find it to be far superior to other area courses in the same price range. However, I think it presents a problem for the course operators. The lower, more affordable, greens fee is inviting to players whose skill level is better suited for previously mentioned courses like Ramblewood or Rancocas. Rather than being chased away by the high fees that usually accompany high slope/7000 yard courses, I have found a great number of "hacks" at Riverwinds that I would not usually see at Scotland Run or Pine Hill for example. The truth is, the course is too punishing for these players and there are far too many chances for them to get into trouble. The result is extremely slow play which scares away the better player while the less skilled players may not return because the course is above their ability. I fear that Riverwinds at the moment is a course without a solid customer base, although a review of their finances might not confirm that suspicion.

When you make an affordable golf course that is challenging and/or penal, I think you run the risk of alienating both the high and low handicap player.
 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jeff

I just played Riverwinds on New Years Day when it was a springlike 60 and sunny for $49, the off season weekend/holiday rate. I was surprised that construction has not started on the clubhouse. The last time I played there everyone was saying that it would be done by spring 2005 as they were already booking weddings,etc.Obviously, there are financing problems here. As you know, a hotel/conference center on the river was planned. This may not ever happen. Riverwinds has zero facilities-no clubhouse, no driving range,no restrooms on the course,no snack cart, etc. It's a fun course but may never reach its potential to compete with Scotland Run which seems to be doing quite well. Perhaps this is another example of private developers overestimating the market.

The problems that you speak about concerning pace of play exist at many courses where play is not monitored. I try to avoid those places on weekends in season. By the way, we played in 4 hours 15 minutes on New Years.

Steve

[George Pazin]

Hi Matt -

I decided to think about your last post overnight before responding.

2 things:

1) I can't for the life of me figure out why you think my referencing my own hard earned dollars makes any sort of value judgement whatsoever on others' money. As a journalist, you surely know that this is a very common expression. Furthermore, if anything, the fact that I am not asking others for their money to support golf shows a greater respect for how hard they work to make their money. Anyone who infers that I am comparing my own efforts to anyone else's is simply reading meaning into the statement that isn't there. So on this point I must respectfully disagree.

2) When I first thought about you saying that I was the pot calling the kettle black by labelling your views as socialist, I thought that was again reading a value judgement into my words. I view taking tax dollars from people to support some other cause that someone else has decided is worthy as income redistribution, pure and simple, which to me smacks of socialism. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm simply calling a spade a spade. There are plenty of folks who proudly call themselves socialists, and I don't think of it as a perjorative term, merely a descriptive one; heck, there are lots of people on this site who would commend you for your more enlightened approach. By contrast, I do think there is a great deal of value judgement involved when you label folks as lazy fat cats who sit around in McMansions. Call me crazy, but this isn't merely descriptive.

Then I started thinking about how I'd feel if someone called me a socialist. My first reaction would be to laugh, because it's so patently ridiculous. Then I thought about how I'd feel if someone called me a capitalist. I'd be damn proud if "labelled" as such, so I guess there is more value judgement to these terms than I previously thought.

So upon further review, your challenge on this point is upheld & I apologize for labelling your efforts as socialism.

I still think the efforts you describe are best handled by the private market and I do think it is wrong for government to use funds in this manner, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.


Jim K -

I'm not really as militant on this as I appear. Muni golf is WAY down on my list of perceived transgressions by the government. I would be more than happy to start with privatizing the elements of the federal government that you reference. If you tell me how to get this across to the folks in DC, I'd be much appreciated.

As I said to Matt, I do think the efforts you describe, such as the example of Danbury, is best handled privately, but I have less of a problem with it if a referendum is held on a local level. I still think there is an insurmountable conflict when the government is competing with private industry.

The knee is doing great - thanks for asking. If I could fix my swing as easily, I would gladly go under the knife for that.

[Matt_Ward]

Hey George:

When openings take place on "crossfire" I'm sure you and I would make for "interesting" discussion on the values from the "left & right."

To the task being discussed ...

Let me start by saying you were the person who interjected the statement that you work hard for your money. You may not realize or think much about it but there's tendency when people say such a thing -- even without stating it directly -- that others don't work hard for theirs. There's an undertone and you may not see it or simply dismiss it out of hand.

George -- let's talk about the private market. When Van Cordlandt park came into existence over a century ago in the Bronx, NY there was NO PRIVATE EFFORT for public golf in the USA. Those who played the game had mega bucks and simply started their own clubs -- yes, those folks lived int heir equivalent McMansion homes and quite a few of them were their days' robber barons. Clearly, there was no interest on their part to play with the masses or even provide for them an outlet to enjoy the game through a muni layout.

Now, there's no doubt that some laudatory efforts have been made since that time -- Joe Jimsek in the Chicago area comes quickly to mind for what he provided public players in that part of the country. However, Joe was light years ahead in terms of being a progressive warrior for the common man and woman who he knew would enjoy golf.

George -- I didn't read a "value judgement" when you said my views were "socialistic." You said it -- "You say progressive, I say socialist - same thing." There's a certain spin when certain words are said -- if I say affordable housing it means one thing to many -- say lower income housing and it means something else. The very fact that I support people at lower economic levels having tax-supported recreation is progressive in my mind. Let me also mention that SBusch went on to say that taxpayer jurisdictions were creating their own "resorts" to compete against private efforts. That may be happening in a number of few insatnces from my many travels across the USA, but the sheer overwhelming bulk of muni courses are simply nothing more than basic low level designs geared towards introducing people to the game. As their appetite and interest for the game grows they likely move up the ladder to other alternatives -- some to private clubs others to more noted daily fee courses with CCFAD linkages. Those who support privately owned daily fee courses should be thanking their lucky stars that a future base of players is being created for them.

George -- I see the idea of muni golf as a progressive feature. It allows people to stay in the game -- ask a ton of seniors on fixed incomes -- and it also introduces people to the game -- particularly minorities. The privately owned daily fee is set up to make a profit nothing wrong with that at all -- the muni doesn't have that anchor hanging on its head.

I view recreation & parks as efforts by the government to provide a base minimal opportunity for the average Joe & Jane to be outdoors. Nothing more -- nothing less.

[JohnV]

Having tried to read most of this in one sitting I thought I'd inject a few of my own comments.

One of the great benefits of muni golf is that courses that are built will tend to stay in existance.  Given the rise in land prices these days does anyone think that Van Courtland Park in NYC, Easmoreland in Portland or Schenley Park in Pittsburgh would still exist if they were privately held?  Centrally located golf courses in major cities would be sold by private operators because the land would be worth too much to just let it generate the meager revenue that a golf course does.

In my mind, another agument for low-priced munis is that they do provide competition for privately held courses and make those courses keep their prices more competitive.  They have no incentive to maximize profits like the private courses.  I would be curious to see the difference in the cost of low-end courses in areas where there were munis vs where there were none.  My own hunch is that it would cheaper to play where there are munis.

I sat in a meeting between the Pennsylvania Golf Owners and a state legislator two years ago where the PGO was scared to death by the legislator who started making noise about creating some kind of golf course/resorts in state parks like Maryland and West Virginia have both done.  Even though these facilities were being considered in order to bring golfers to the state where they would probably stay and play some other courses, the owners looked at it strictly as competition.

Then there is the question of regional golf associations building courses.  The NCGA, SCGA, OGA and others have their own courses and I know the OGA's course was very scary to the private owners in the area, but I haven't heard of any of them closing up shop since it was built.  The associations are forced to try to break even which is something that munis aren't, but they still can undercut the local competition.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Glad to hear that, as for the swing, I know a guy........

In 1958 munis represented 15%(855) of total courses, privates were at 52%(2,986) and daily fees hovered around 33%(1,904).  

In 1990 daily fee courses were 46.6%(6,497) of the total followed by privates at 37.5%(5,232) with munis trailing at 15.9%(2,222).

In 2000 daily fees were 56.3%(9,637) of the total, privates were at 27.9%(4,773) with munis stuck at 15.8%(2,698).  

That's some amazing growth in the daily fee sector. I think these numbers tend to reveal that munis are not that much of a threat to daily fee courses, their own quantity does them more harm, although there will surely be some instances where munis could hurt a daily fee course.
It may be that some of the older, well established daily-fee courses, the ones with small mortgages, should look at going private. With the right plan in place they could avail themselves of 501(c)7 status, sit back and collect some nice tax exempt checks every season.
That deal sounds almost as good as a muni.                

[Matt_Ward]

John VB:

You are 1000% percent correct. If the land Van Cordlandt or Eastmoreland or any other centrally located muni were held by private hands the land would have been sold shortly after the Indians were pushed out.

The muni doesn't compete with privately owned daily fees anymore than McDonald's competes with Tavern on the Green in Manhattan. Yes, they both involve food -- but different expectations and orientations.

Jim K:

You raise an interesting point -- much of the move in the "muni" area is for privately owned companies to come in and completely manage the facilities held on public land. I know from first hand experience that many publicly held courses with their own staffs can often disintegrate into political dumping grounds for the favored party and its cronies.

The States of West Virginia and Kentucky, to name just two, have a very solid state park system that provides golf as one of many recreational opportunities. For many people in these states the state park system is a wonderful way to expose people to the game. That has not stopped the movement for golf being developed by privately owned groups.

The notion that the poor muni is ripping off the privately owned daily fee courses is laughable. Many of the muni's provide generic golf -- nothing more. Yes, I don't doubt there may be selected instances in which the "muni" has a number of bells and whistles features, but the overwhelming bulk of them from my visits across the USA are purely functional at a 101 design level. It's nothing more than creating a wading pool for people to get used to the water. The Olympic size pools with all the diving boards and water slides still reside without question on the privately owned daily fee side as well they should.

For every privately owned daily fee operator who screams about government being involved in golf -- I urge them to understand the muni plays a key role in cultivating future generations of customers.