What is the Role of Municipal Golf????

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Or the fact that most of the hardship experienced by owners is due to overbuilding, not specifically to munis.  

Beside, munis are generally filling a market void at the low end of the market that daily-fees have created because of their historically aggressive pricing structure.


There are all sorts of different models by which munis operate. Some are Park & Rec facilities where revenues are raided for the public cofers. The best operated ones function within an enterprise zone whereby all net revenues are poured back into the golf course.

Brad-

  This is all really good.  Municipal Golf, is, like Malone stated, affordable golf.  
  I personally think the preponderance of CCFAD's and these "upscale daily-fees"--they overbuilt and did it to themselves, and want to push the blame on the muni courses.  
  I personally don't see the value in the CCFAD concept.  I've been to Architects, Whiskey Creek, Colts Neck, and a couple others where I actually asked the attendants to "leave me alone, I'll carry my bag over there".  

I'm 27 and in great health (apart from cigarettes).  I can carry my own damn bag, and I don't need somebody to clean my clubs for me, take them out of my trunk, etc--I have two functioning arms and opposable thumbs, I can do it myself.  

  Architects had a guy with a brush to clean your clubs as you walked off 18--this is very nice of them, and I'm sure the attendant was very nice, but again, I don't see the true value in this.  Beechtree, same thing.  Athough, I wanted to bury my clubs after that day!  

I understand this works two ways--it makes the perception of the course above that of a bare-bones muni, but is it really necessary?  It all just seems a little overdone to me.  

What goes on at munis/public courses in Scotland, Ireland, and England?  Do they have this excess as well?  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Matt-

  How about a GCA outing this summer at Hominy Hill, Flanders, or Neshanic Valley?

-DRB

[Matt_Ward]

Brent:

Help me understand something -- where are the so-called "cheap" privately owned daily fees that you and others keep yapping about ? I'd love to see how they stay in business with green fees below $25 at peak times and then have to pay all the other associated expenses like insurance, property taxes and the like.

Brent -- let me explain this again -- the folks who follow the CCFAD model are doing it for one reason -- to CHERRY PICK the fat cats out there. They are not in the business in having Joe Sixpack bring his horde of "like-minded" rebels to their facilities. Yes, they may play one or two times during the season but the vast preponderance of rounds played at CCFAD's are by those capable in handling the dollars charged.

I agree with Eric Bergstol -- a successful businessman operating Empire Golf in the greater NYC metro area -- muni golf is about opening doors to new golfers and in providing accessable and affordable golf. Charging a max of $50 is not that expensive when compared to all other forms of recreation known to people today. The CCFAD is beyond that price point in nearly all jurisdictions that I am aware of from my many travels throughout America.

[Brent Hutto]

So Matt, your position is basically that there are too few $25 golf courses and too many $75 ones in your neck of the woods. Therefore, you favor the local governments building more $25 courses but are against them building more $75 ones. That's a well thought out and valid position to take and I'm sure your reading of the situation is substantially correct.

The area where I live is overbuilt with $25 courses, overbuilt with $50 courses and there really aren't any $75+ courses which is probably a good thing because you wn't sell many rounds at that price around here. Therefore I am against any governmental unit building any sort of golf courses around here.

My point being that you are couching as a general principal an opinion that is in fact contingent on the local situation as you perceive it. It's a valid opinion but not universal.

Now to be perfectly honest, I'm not in favor of any governmental involvement in golf course building or operation whatsoever. That's a philosophical position that doesn't really depend on the details of price or availability. Absolute attitudes such as this one pretty much are universal by definition but I don't expect everyone to agree.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

As we discuss this issue, yet another municipality is considering building a golf course-see below article. Historically, munis were created as recreation for working persons who could not join a private club. In older cities such as Philadelphia where I live, the munis were all built or acquired many years ago:
Cobbs Creek-1916
Juniata-1930
Walnut Lane-1940
FDR-1940
JF Byrne-1960
All of these courses serve the constituents well.See www.golfphilly.com If only Cobbs Creek could be restored.

Today, the trend is for governments to seek additional revenue and/or keep land from development. Sometimes, it's to keep up with the Jones's.

Here's the article:

Source: The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Mass.)

The town, in conjunction with the Golf Course Committee, will hire a consultant to draw up a request for proposals for a cost estimate for the construction and maintenance of an 18-hole municipal golf course.

However, a petition has been circulating calling for a referendum on the project. Responding to those residents' concerns, town officials yesterday insisted that development of the facility would not proceed without extensive town input.

"If we do a study like this, and we find it makes sense, there's no question that we would have a public forum, probably more than one," said Patricia Carlino, the selectman who has been the most ardent supporter of the project. "I can promise you, we don't intend to support a project that would not be financially viable for the town. If that were the case, I would not be in favor of it.

"Believe me, I'd like to see this happen, but I'm not doing this so I can have my own private golf course. I think this can be financially advantageous to the community."

"We would not move forward if a study showed that this would not benefit the town financially," agreed Town Administrator Robert Nason.

Last July, a report by real estate consulting firm Wellspeak, Dugas and Kane of Connecticut indicated that a municipal course could generate up to $1.2 million in annual gross revenue solely from greens fees.

However, consultant Jeffrey Dugas explained that the course's success would depend on its size and how it were designed.

The consultants were reluctant to offer a firm number for construction costs, but last June estimated that the cost for building a golf course without a clubhouse would be in the $5 million range.

A clubhouse would be a considerable wild card, they said, because the building could be as simple or as elaborate as the town wanted.

At the same meeting, representatives from the Golf Course Committee said the consultants' revenue estimates were extremely conservative and that a modern, well-laid-out golf course would be a considerable enhancement to the town.

The next step for the town is to hire an engineer to assess the property and come up with estimates for designing and building the course.

Once these numbers are known, said Carlino, then the town can begin a dialogue with the town representatives and voters as to whether or not to go any further.

The course would be located on a 127.5-acre parcel off Stockbridge Road. The acreage has been accumulated by the town over the course of several years.

Nason said the preliminary study completed by Wellspeak, Dugas and Kane indicated that there "is clearly a strata of people who would use this facility. What we have to do is figure out if it can make sense for the town, if there is a way to make it work financially. If not, then we would have no interest in doing it."

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

When the weather breaks for good I'm game for some golf at the places you mentioned.

Brent:

No Brent -- my position is that all the bitching and moaning from those in the CCFAD world is really about their desire not to have ANY COMPETITION period. Eric Bergstol -- a successful operator of CCFAD courses doesn't fear muni's that operate to bring new players into the game at moest rates of payment. When muni's cross into the upper income amounts I agree with Eric position that competition of that type is not fair or equal given the charges borne by those on the private side of the aisle.

Now, that you have finally exposed your particular take on the subject it becomes clear where you are coming from.

My opinions are shaped Brent by my numerous visits across the USA on a steady basis. It is not just derived from being in the greater NYC metro area. I believe I can make such an opinion because of this -- again -- it's my opinion but I believe it's a more well informed one than others who have opined on this matter thus far.

The CCFAD folks are not interested in building affordable
golf -- they want to max out their profits which is their right to do so. But, please enough of the carping about the poor guy running the public "country clubs" today. If anything you folks should be screaming at the NGF which advocated no less than a new course per day not that long ago.

Brent -- I see a role for muni golf -- you don't.

End of story.

[George Pazin]

There are numerous private courses in western PA that are less than $25 to walk, and many more that are less than $50.

Sounds like NY/NJ is just a tough place to have low priced golf.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Do yourself a favor -- go to Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Kansas City, Miami, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc, etc, etc. You will likely find what I mentioned previously taking place there and in other jurisdictions of size and note.

It's very E-Z to say my analysis is NY centric but that's far from the case.

P.S. Low priced golf does exist in my area -- I can name countless examples of such.

[George Pazin]

It wasn't a criticism, Matt, just an observation. Every time someone complains about low priced golf, Jim Kennedy pulls data from some report that refutes their statements - he did it relatively recently to refute Shivas re: low priced golf in Chicago - but I think he's down in Florida now, so we're left to fend for ourselves.

If there is a lot of low priced options in your area, why is there a need for muni golf? Are all the low priced options munis?

[Brent Hutto]

I have no particular sympathy for CCFAD operators or any other business persons. I'm not surprised that some of them do everything they can to eliminate competition, in our culture that's considered part of the game (another result of the same line of thinking that leads golfers to think the government should build golf courses).

I don't think a golf course operator has any obligation to "grow the game". Further, I don't think that its a valid function of local governments to provide facilities to encourage people to take up some particular recreational activity. If there's money to be made selling cheap golf, someone will go into the cheap golf business. If not, they won't.

The only reason a municipality would build a cheap golf course in a place no private developer will is that the municipality doesn't have to earn or borrow the money to pay for it. That's not a good enough reason. If cheap golf is something can only be done with tax money then it doesn't need to be done, IMO. If it can be done without tax money, then the entry of government is by definition competition with some real or potential private business.

[George Pazin]

Brent -

Such simple common sense has no place here!

[Ken Fry]

Steve,

I was born and raised in Pittsfield, MA.  There are numerous, low cost options available and none are municipal courses.  (Golf Digest also has the area ranked in the top 25 areas in the country for golf courses per capita.  It doesn't sound like they need more options.)

The article you eluded to makes the point many on here are shooting for:  the concept of the project is to bring in tourists and generate revenue.

Not far from Taconic Golf Club in Williamstown sits Waubeeka Links.  Privately owned, reasonably priced.  The Berkshires are full of these kinds of courses, no municipal involvment.

Where I currently live, there are 5-7 courses nearby under the $25 rate (non-municipal).  They won't make any "best" list, but that's not the point, right?

[Matt_Ward]

George

The answer is yes -- the muni options are the only golf options that are affordable for the masses on a continual basis in my greater "neck of the woods."

George -- keep this in mind -- until the late '80s the dominant golf groups in the greater NY metro area were the private and muni golf courses. There was really nothing in the middle grouping. Once CCFAD's took off starting in the Atlantic City area and in the northwest portion of the state with Crystal Springs Resort there was rapid involvement by a host of players.

Few privately owned daily fees have any shot in being profitably if they are within 60 miles of Times Square today.

Peter Hill / President of Billy Casper golf said as much when he spoke at the Winter Conference -- see what you missed.

Let me also mention that many of the planned muni's usually take on the difficult remaining land tracks that few private developers would even consier for golf development because of the unique issues attached to them and the likelihood that housing may not be possible on those respective sites. A good example of this is the development of golf in the Meadowlands area which will take in a good portion of land formerly used as landfill.

George -- the issue is a simple one. Should muni golf play a role and if so what is it? Some take the hard line that nothing should be carried forward by any taxpayer jurisdiction -- the "leave it" to the private sector argument. I agree with Eric Bergstol's take at the Winter Conference -- again, see what you missed -- that muni golf should be a door opener for players. The CFFAD model never was intended for these players -- it is simply there to capture the "country club" crowd and those who are wannabees. The CCFAD's were pushed to capture those with the deepest pockets and frankly the examples people give of those courses that still charge a low green fee (less than $25) are more of the aberation than today's reality.

I've got a few golfing friends who still speak fondly of the $10 green fee -- sort of like the nickel ride on the Staten Island ferry.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I've got a few golfing friends who still speak fondly of the $10 green fee -- sort of like the nickel ride on the Staten Island ferry.

Uh Matt,

The Staten Island Ferry is now $0.00.

http://www.siferry.com/Fares.htm

[Buck Wolter]

I'll go out on a limb and say that the majority of owner/operators in the United States charge less than $30 for 18 holes and there's a huge number of 9 holers that are less than $15. These aren't courses many on this board would ever stoop to play but these people are out there trying to make a living doing what they love and in many cases they are competing against Munis. I'm not sure why CCFAD owners are treated like drug dealers in this post but they saw a need and if you don't like waterfalls, getting your clubs cleaned and fighting off help at every turn don't give them your business but why the anger? I don't like over the top service at some Hotels but that's what affluent Ameicans expect -- don't blame the guy trying to turn a buck. Joe Sixpack is watching Nascar on Saturday afternoon, not bitching about containment mounding not fitting the natural contours of the land and the high cost of Pro V-1's.

[Cliff Hamm]

While I hate to interject politics more than is necessary into this discussion it is inevitable.  It really boils down to what does one see as the role of and responsibility of government.  If one believes in absolutely minimal government than I would assume you are against government being involved in golf.  But you must be consistent and where do you draw the line?  Does government belong at all in recreation?  When I go to the beach it is typically a public beach.  When I go camping it is typically a public campground.  When I played tennis it was a public tennis court.  When I played softball it was on a public owned field.  When I hike it is on public property and trails.  When I kayak the kayak is put in through a public boat ramp and the water is public property.  The list goes on and on.  If government was not to provide these opportunities I would not be able to participate.  Oh yes, I could pay more at the private beach and have a nice towel handed to me.  Why don't the private beach owners raise heck and ask government to please close all public beaches?  The same could be said for all of the examples given.

Yes, government has a long history of being involved in recreation.  To say that government should not be in the business of introducing people to golf is to miss the point.  Government has a long history of providing recreational opportunities for its citizens and this goes well beyond golf.

What if the ccfad phenomena did not exist.  As has been pointed out it is relatively new.  Would we be having this discussion.  Obviously not.  So it comes down to the private sector having decided to build golf courses and now wants government out feeling that the competition is unfair.  I thought competition was at the heart of capitalism.  Oh that's right the government has an unfair advantage.  Of course private golf course owners would never gouge the typical golfer if given the opportunity.

As stated previously I am highly in favor of increasing accessibility to golf and keeping costs under control as long as taxpayer dollars are not wasted.  

[Joe Hancock]

I think you guys would learn something if you actually were involved in a golf operation. Of course, you'd have to take a pay cut to have the priviledge of doing so.

Joe

p.s. Can a gov't run, competeing enterprise be considered "capitalism"? I't's too late for me to look up definitions

[Joe Hancock]

 Of course private golf course owners would never gouge the typical golfer if given the opportunity.

And Mike Keiser isn't even here to defend himself.

[Lou_Duran]

Put me with the minimalists when it comes to government, and, for the most part, to golf.  But even I am not advocating that state and local governments get out of the golf business.  Just keep it in its traditional entry level segment and make sure the fees cover the costs of construction and operation.

I would also add that government should only venture into the upscale market when the private sector can't or won't. Of course, this should be subject to the taxpayers having a fair chance of receiving accurate information, to oppose in a public forum, and to vote on the project.

Clint,

I applaud your very active and athletic lifestyle.  Many of us have much narrower advocations.  But why do you believe that others should be subsidizing your adventures?

Remember, it is not an abstract "government" who has to pay for these diversions.  It is a bunch of real people like my son who works 90+ hours per week and goes days without seeing the sun who pays for government services.

Getting a bit of the subject, it is often a matter of making good choices, perseverance, and developing a positive attitude that determines income.  Perhaps if some people would be willing to work a little harder and/or smarter they could afford to pay the true cost of these niceties.  Not to say that being a free rider is a necessarily terrible thing, but most of us know that we appreciate things that we earn much more than those that we take or are given.

BTW, the golf participation rate in the U.S. is what, 8 - 10%.  Should government be interested in what's good for golf?  Or should it focus on those things more important to 90%+ of the people?  

[Cliff Hamm]

Lou - again the question is simple - does government have a role in providing recreational opportunities for citizens?  Should we abandon all of our parks and recreation departments?  Should government subsidize recreation or abandon all of our campgrounds, beaches, marinas, tennis courts, national parks, hiking trails, etc? Should government subsidize the arts?  Few go to the opera, museums, classical concerts and yet they are subsidized.  This all gets to the role of government.  Yes, I believe that government has a role to play in recreation and that includes golf.  It is that simple.

[Ken Fry]

I think you guys would learn something if you actually were involved in a golf operation. Of course, you'd have to take a pay cut to have the priviledge of doing so.

Joe

Hear, hear Joe!

 

[Mike_Young]

This is an interesting thread.
I have designed for both munucipalities and small private owners competing against them.  I don't think I will ever do another municipality.      

Three years ago I did one for a town in a Southeastern State.  The person that was pushing to have this done for the city was a big golfer and on the mayor's staff.  He was also heavily involved with one of the private clubs in town and had some issues with the other private club in town.  We built a 4.5 mill golf course with a $800,000 maintenance building and a 3.5 million clubhouse plus the latest and greatest in maintenance equipment.  Green fee $25.  Today the other private clubs are gone.  The municipal course expects and prepares for a huge annual loss.  And the new political regime has a different agenda which could eliminate the huge budget the municipal track receives.  Tell me where any of this helped golf.  I happened to know the politics for this deal but I often ask myself how many others have we done where we did not know yet we helped to put a small town operator out.  There is no level playing field with municipalities.  If one wishes to compete with them he has to accept that and operate accordingly.

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike, In the case you site, Has anyone considered it a violation of the Sherman anti-trust act of 1890?
Bid-rigging, price fixing, you name it, this situation smacks of it.

As a bidding professional, is it up to you to report the abuse to the DOJ?

[Mike_Young]

Adam,
Come on......you know how this stuff works...no different than a politician having a road go in front of his or his buddy's property etc.  There was no bidd rigging nothing anti-trust.  Just the everyday political machine at work.  
As I read the discussion between Cliff and Shivas above......it reminds me of one very important thing regarding government and this country.  VOTE.

[Kyle Harris]

Since we're arguing about Federal Government...

Where are all these federally subsidized or operated golf courses?

........

Exactly.