News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matt_Ward

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2005, 08:27:58 PM »
Kyle:

I stand corrected -- thanks !

By the way before people chime in about the high cost of the Black it's fair to match it up against other "public" US Open venues like Pebble and Pinehurst #2.

Until the US Open the costs to play the courses at Bethpage were very reasonable given the nature of what it costs to play golf throughout the greater New York metro region.

Don_Mahaffey

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #51 on: February 22, 2005, 09:32:20 PM »
I guess I don't mind muni golf competing against the private sector. I just wish we had muni restaurants so I could get an affordable lobster or steak and muni theaters so it wouldn't cost a C note to take the family to the movies. I mean if government wants to compete against their own taxpayers why stop at golf?


Kyle Harris

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2005, 09:40:20 PM »
Matt,

It came as quite a shock, I was expecting to pay $60 something like I did a year previous. But either way, I am still satisfied with the price.

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2005, 09:43:19 PM »
Much of the discussion seems to revolve around whether munis should only be entry level courses or whether a more up scale experience is acceptable.  I fail to understand why government can't build the best course possible so long as it does not lose money for taxpayers.  Whether someone takes clubs from my car I care not and prefer not, so if it's not a ccfad experience so much the better, but I would like to play a top notch course without having to pay a 3 digit greens fee.  For example, Witonbury Hills by Pete Dye could certainly be called up scale.  Should the city not have accepted Dye as the architect for $1 so as not to compete with private course owners?  Should Tom Doak not have designed the Texas Tech course becaues public monies were utilized?  Going back to an earlier era Hominy Hills in New Jersey is a fine design by Robert Trent Jones and certainly could be called up scale, except no one gets your clubs...So where is the line?  Do we just object to the extra amenities if done at a public venue or do we feel it is not acceptable to provide truly quality golf when public monies are used for development?

Cliff

Don_Mahaffey

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2005, 09:59:50 PM »
Cliff,
I object to the use of public monies to bail out poorly run govt businesses that are competing against private enterprise. If a muni can support itself and fill a niche, I'm all for it. But, that has not been my experience, which in fairness has been limited to the SW and 1 year in the NW.

Case in point. Redmond, Oregon is building a new muni, Jupiter Golf Club. The construction is quite a bit over budget and more money will need to be raised via bonds or some other device. In one way or another public funds will be used to develop a course in an area where there are already 20 or so courses in a county with a population of around 150K. Granted many of the courses are high end, but Juniper will directly compete with about 4-6 other courses on price. I don't care if they build the course, but how about some type of oversight to keep things in line?

In Tucson, AZ there are 5 munis. When I left in '02 they were hopeless money losers. Maybe that has changed, I don't know, but they competed directly with some other courses in the area on price.

Lastly, the muni developments in the Coachella Valley are prime examples that the governments are not trying to serve their citizens with affordable options, they are trying to raise funds by competing directly with their taxpayers.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2005, 10:01:08 PM by Don_Mahaffey »

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2005, 10:14:46 PM »
Don...little disagreement, I think.  As I said a government run golf course should not lose money for tax payers.  My experience in the northeast is different than yours.  Most make money and turn back the excess to the town.  In the case of Cape Cod they also draw residents to the community just as a good public school system draws people.  

As far as your last sentence "they are trying to raise funds by competing directly with their taxpayers" I am likely not in agreement.  If government can run a golf course, make a profit and provide an enjoyable experience I think that's great.  There is no reason the private sector can't do the same.  We hear much about the private sector being more efficient and peforming better than the public sector from schools to the privatization of services.  Why then is it not acceptable to turn the tables if the public sector is able to provide a quality product for a fair price that does not cost taxpayers over the long run?  I see that as only benefiting the consumer/golfer and am supportive of such efforts.

A_Clay_Man

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #56 on: February 23, 2005, 09:25:37 AM »
Cliff, That is the first I heard that public money was spent on the Rawls course. I was under the impression that Jerry Rawls donated the $10m that Doak spent. Can you set me straight?

I agree with Don, that bailing out repeatedly poorly run operations is not what government should be allowed to do.

Running a quality, ethical operation would go along way in teaching the next generations about how they should act. The signals young people get today form these types of abuses, will have a much longer term negative impact.

When I was in PG, I thought the golf should be free to residents. For one, it should provide an increase in value of every home, while increasaing the tax revenue proportionally. These increases would make the budgets at almost any golf course look like peanuts. Why charge? Get'em on the back end. Oh nevermind, charge'em and still get'm in the ass.



Buck Wolter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #57 on: February 23, 2005, 09:48:37 AM »
Let's not forget that private courses contribute to the schools, libraries, parks and even to the municipal courses by paying property taxes and local sales taxes. They also pay state and federal taxes that I doubt municipal courses pay.

Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience -- CS Lewis

Buck Wolter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #58 on: February 23, 2005, 10:07:16 AM »
Make par not war.

Besides ending tyranny, stopping genocide, removing ruthless dictators that gas their own people, freeing women from slavery, giving oppressed minorities rights --- what has war ever accomplished?

I see Baghdad National as a great Muni project, we bring in Fazio and turn an old palace/rape chamber into the clubhouse and put in on the banks of the Euphrates. With all that oil money we went to war for we could keep the rates down to where even Sean could play.
Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience -- CS Lewis

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2005, 10:10:46 AM »
Yes, private courses pay all kinds of taxes. Muni's pay taxes as well, though generally limited to payroll taxes, and utilities.

Speaking of utilities, in my community the water system is not owned by the city. The fire department's largest expenditure (after labor costs) is for water.
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2005, 10:12:01 AM »
Buck.

"Besides ending tyranny, stopping genocide, removing ruthless dictators that gas their own people, freeing women from slavery, giving oppressed minorities rights --- what has war ever accomplished?"

Regime change begins at home!
 ;)
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Brent Hutto

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2005, 10:28:46 AM »
Personally, I'd feel safer with half a trillion dollars still in the bank, our army at full force, our reserves still home where they belong and Sadaam Hussein roaming around free as a bird. But then again I have a very simple mind so I probably can't understand the President's subtle reasoning that makes it all perfectly sensible.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2005, 10:32:43 AM »
It is completely bizarre to me that people don't see a problem with forcibly taking other people's money - and that's what taxation is, don't kid yourself - taking a risk like starting a golf course - it might not be a big risk, but it's a risk - and competing with the very folks that are paying the taxes. Completely bizarre.

Maybe it's time to admit that the relativists won - no more right or wrong left in the world.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Brent Hutto

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2005, 10:38:20 AM »
George,

I think it's not a question of right or wrong. It's that logrolling has become the only expectation we have of our elected officials. It's like "Hey, the system's not perfect but at least we get a good, cheap golf course out of it". Then when the next guy comes along and wants bike paths we might think it's a waste of money but "Hey, let him have his turn at the trough. It's no big deal" and so on until we lose any connection between necessary functions of government and the stuff that each of us wants for our own selfish reasons.

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2005, 11:14:22 AM »
Adam..you are correct.  Texas Tech was a poor example although I do not know if the donation covered every cost involved with the golf course.  My only point is that public monies are used for quality golf courses, not just entry tracks, and I believe that is fine altho others do not.  Colleges/universities are to me a prime example.  I believe Pete Dye designed a course at Purdue for a very small fee but I suspect Indiana taxpayer money was used.  The University of North Carolina renovated their course not too long ago and again I suspect taxpayer money was utilized. The list could go on. This does not bother me one iota as long as the course does not lose money and offers the public a quality product for the price.  

I find it somewhat ironic that the private sector wants to compete with government in many facets - schools, priviatization of services, etc., but when an example of government offering a quality product at a reasonable price is given there is an outcry that government is being unfair.  And again let's not lose sight that public government run golf existed well before the current trend of upscale public fee courses.

Cliff


Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2005, 12:03:53 PM »
I've been criticized a number of times for my tendency to inject politics into this site.  Perhaps I see tangents of politics to golf like Don Quijote saw windmills as castles and dragons, though I think not.

This thread is a great example of how pervasive government is in our everyday lives.  Don M.'s satire on municipal lobster is really not that far fetched.

Upscale municipal courses give the hard-working government employees the opportunity to act as private developers with public money.  It is very sexy to get out of the office and rub shoulders with David Graham, Pete Dye, D.A. Weibring, and other celebrity players and designers.   How many of us would not want to do that instead of listening to citizen complaints about strewn garbage, bumpy roads, noisy neighbors, bully policeman, and ineffective code enforcement?

To top it all, you can be a hero in city hall and among those hoodwinked in the community.  You can demonstrate, at least on paper, that the cash flows from your proposed project will fund much if not all of the parks and recreation budget.  Then you preach to the choir what an economic engine the course can be, and, Hallelujah, instant support (and a blind eye to all the counter arguments).

No longer do cities have to justify building a course because the private sector won't do it.  They can now point to any number of other municipalities who have done so, and that by itself is sufficient reason (a form of keeping up with the Joneses).

Arlington, Texas where I live built an $8MM CCFAD on land that I and a partner had tried to acquire for a more modest $5 to $5.5MM daily fee facility.  I won't bother this group with the details (my experience and that of Archie Struthers (sp) on another project with government and golf is in the archives).

Suffice it to say, that my home city of nearly 20 years at that time undermined my efforts to acquire the land by telling the owner that I would not be able to complete the purchase nearly as fast as the city could.  Further, than even if the money had been raised to acquire the land (it was), that my group would not get through due dilligence because the zoning would not be granted.

Somehow the city's Park & Recreation Department had no difficulty navigating through the Planning & Zoning Department's regulatory labyrinth and secured the needed zoning and permits without incident.  Amazing how that works.

Arlington now has a wonderful course, Tierra Verde (TV), (http://www.arlingtongolf.com/default.aspx).  The original intention was to hire a name chef to prepare fine cuisine for quaint senior managment corporate outings with their top customers.  Unfortunately, the location and demographics didn't quite match the city's private developer with public money ambitions, so it is having difficulty making debt payments out of the course's revenues.

I played there yesterday and it really is quite nice.  Couple of my acquaintances who are members at Colonial and at Horseshoe Bay play TV 20+ times each year because of its quality and relatively low price (under $40 including carts during the week; under $30 with coupons).

In a way, I should be thankful to the non-golfing taxpayers for subsidizing my pleasures.  Then, I think about the multitude of things I am paying for through taxes that have little to do with what government was intended to do.

Anyways, TV was envisioned as doing 42,000+ rounds annualy at well over $50 per round.  Some seven to eight years after it was built, it is doing 32,000 rounds at a rate that probably doesn't average much more than $35.

The manager there tells me that my model would not have worked.  My wife is thankful for unanswered prayers.  I still believe that my group's plans for a more modest, less expensive, but every bit as enjoyable and challenging facility, would have performed.  I'll never know, but it does hurt a tad every time I go out there to see what could have been.

Isn't it a bit ironinc that as citizens and taxpayers in a community we are at times put in situations where we are competing against ourselves?   Few really bother to ponder the issue.  In the meantime, more land is being taken out of the tax base, "improved" under highly ineffective regulations, and managed to perform financially at very marginal levels.

My apologies for the rant and for whatever generalities I might have used that riles those who seek only facts, numbers, and statistics.    



 

A_Clay_Man

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2005, 12:20:09 PM »
Great account Lou. I suppose it's one thing to compete with existing facilities, but, you bring up a new kettle of fish when the competition is at the planning stages.

I suppose your group could come in as white knights, for less than you originally planned when the globlal bubble bursts?  ;)

Rob_Waldron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #67 on: February 23, 2005, 12:49:09 PM »
Matt

I live in Montgomery County Maryland. The municipal golf courses in the area are owned and operated by two authorities. One is the Montgomery County REVENUE Authorty...with an emphasis on the word REVENUE. The Revenue Authority is also the only County Authority in the Country who controls all liquor and beer sales within the County. Ny control I meean every retailer in the entire County must purchase through the Revenue Authority (Similar to the LCB in PA). The other authority is Maryland National Capital Park and Planning. MNCPP by the way is also the authority that approves all master plans in the area. Any new golf course has to be approved by MNCPP. Can you say conflict of interest???

Montgomery County has placed a moritorium on the construction of any new golf courses public or private. The Maryland Revenue Authority also recently completed a master plan project upgrading all of their municipal golf courses in an effort to compete with the better daily fee courses in the market. Park and Planning has built 2 new courses in the past 10 years...both upscale courses!

Yes Municipalities are building upscale courses with the intent of generating income in direct competition with their taxpaying constituents.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #68 on: February 23, 2005, 01:35:06 PM »
Adam,

As you know, partners, investors, and money are often deal and time specific.  We missed our time.  I am unlikely to risk substantial capital at this stage of my life, specially in the current state of the golf industry.

It is doubtful that Tierra Verde will be sold by the city.  Arlington remains a fairly prosperous community.  With the Dallas Cowboys building their new stadium here, the city could not allow a smudge on its civic pride.

After being told by a city councilman who was also a valued acquaintance that I had no recourse regarding my competing offer for the land, I didn't spend more time duing the financing and development process.   I don't recall if revenue bonds were used, or if they had another funding source.

Regardless, the city has much to loose and little to gain by defaulting on its debt.  I suspect that they have ways of accounting for or reallocating expenses that would allow them to show enough "profit" to service debt.  They've cut back on capital items and are deferring some maintenance.

Let's just say that our government has many more ways to finance its needs than most of its citizens.  It can tax ad infinitum and claim noble purposes.  If you and I try to tax our neighbor to support our needs, it is called theft and we are thrown in jail.

And yes, we can vote some of these rascals out of office and replace them with new ones.  Unfortunately, the bureaucracy remains largely intact.  Survival is  hard-wired into all species.  The danger of government is that it has phenomenal means and no predators higher on the food chain.

If government can justify building CCFADs, why couldn't it aspire to higher objectives, say, building commercial airplanes?  Oops, I think it already is in Europe.  With the Chrysler example a number of years ago, are we really that far behind?

How about a fat-free, 0 cholesterol, multi-vitamined veggie burger distributed by a nationwide chain franchised under the auspices of the departments of Health and Agriculture?  They could do a joint-venture with the departments of Education and Defense and give FedMcVeggie, 100%LLC. exclusive rights to all public schools and military facilities.  Of course, our Congress would be exempted from any such arrangement as certain of our comrades are more equal than others.  It is only fair that our betters receive just a bit more courtesy for their noble intentions and extraordinary efforts on our behalf.

Fascinating topic, golf, government, and individual freedoms.  Those who believe that they are not related or tangential at all, please explain why golf has been prohibited in most communist countries until just recently?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2005, 01:36:09 PM by Lou_Duran »

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #69 on: February 23, 2005, 02:02:54 PM »
Lou

I do believe you need to keep in mind that recreation has been a historical function of government - beaches, marinas, athletic fields, golf courses, tennis courts, parks, etc.  It is nothing new for government to be involved in the building of golf courses.  When one begins to stretch - you may disagree - the future function of government (the food industry) you begin to lose the focus of this discussion, which is simply should government be involved in recreation - in this case the building of golf courses?  That is the question plain and simple.  Again, it seems to me this has been historically an area that government has been involved in, although you of course have every right to feel that this should not continue.  It is not a new area, however, just as colleges/universities have historically been both public and private in this country.

Cliff

Matt_Ward

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #70 on: February 23, 2005, 02:04:28 PM »
Rob:

I never said muni's aren't developing CCFAD's or their equivalent today.

You simply did not outline the totality of what is happening throughout the country or if this movement is as dramatic as you seem to be implying. You referenced only Montgomery County in Maryland. From my many travels throughout the USA I can name plenty of examples where the governing jurisdiction has created quality layouts that are very affordable and far from competing against the likes of the upscale $75 or more type courses.

There are countless numbers of muni's that operate nothing more than low level golf options that provide an introduction to the game for those just starting or looking for some basic recreation. Frankly, the folks at the very high end should be grateful that someone is priming the pump for their future benefit.

I get a huge chuckle out of people who say government should not be doing anything on the muni golf front. I mean does anyone really believe that the private daily fee developers would actually build courses with little in terms of significant profits just for the sake of "affordability?"

Rob -- c'mon let's stop all the tapdancing -- the reality is that plenty of CCFAD owners / developers don't want ANY COMPETITION -- even if it's just the low level stuff I have spoken about.

The reality is that many high-end people / clubs simply thought that they could continue without any drop in business if they simple replicated more and more of the same courses. The market though has not cooperated. If any entity deserves some sort of blame it should be the NGF in pushing forward such flawed analysis.

Rob, if you listened carefully to Peter Hill from Billy Casper I believe is outline for success makes sense. It's time to motivate the core player to play more because the side issues of First Tee and the like are nothing more than "feel good" remedies that are based more on PR than they are business reality.

A_Clay_Man

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #71 on: February 23, 2005, 02:38:15 PM »
Lou, It is interesting stuff.

I suppose the underlying justification for MY being against people entering the golf course market, for bottomline justifications, are as well spoken in this thread as any I have read.

Costs just seem to high for entry, and revenue streams are at best fickle, or severly weather related. Throw in the muni model, and you'd better have low costs to survive.

But what I really believe is that those who love this sport, for more than just the game, should be able to acheive a reasonable idea of a facsimile of a golf course, that's built primarily for golfers, not customers. The Rawls course fits all these ideals, and is in my opinion much the better for it.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2005, 01:10:06 PM »
Cliff,

We do seem to come to this issue from a very different perspective.  Of course, mine is right, and yours is wrong! ;)

Even if I agreed with your assertion that recreation is historically a function of the government, that by itself would not make it right.  Our nation's ill-treatment of the indigenous minorities from the 1700s to present day is historical, but certainly not supportable.  Ditto for our history as it relates to slavery and civil rights.

Our country was founded on freedom, individual rights, property, and a market-oriented economic system.  The prevailing thought regarding government was not to make it expansive and the master of the people, but to protect the people by limiting through statute and practice what the government could do.  In other words, protecting the individual from the collective.  Government's function, particularly at the federal level, was to be in only those areas where the private sector could not or would not provide solutions.

With very few exceptions up until the 1980s, most government forays into golf were at the very rudimentary level.  Though there were some departures from this during the Depression through the WPA, the objectives were not to build country clubs for the masses but to provide work for the unemployed.  I don't have major philosophical problems with this, as it appears to me that the market economy was not achieving sufficient levels of employment at that time.

Along the way in the 80s, perhaps beginning near the time when the City of Industry built its well publicised golf complex on a retired dump site, it seems that cities, counties and states were no longer just interested in providing unevenly maintained fields for beginning and recreational golfers at nominal prices.

Whereas most munis "historically' would probably rank toward the bottom third of the country's 17 - 18,000 courses, what appears to now attract most government entities is the CCFAD operation.  These are most generally in direct competition with the private sector, receive "unfair" subsidies and treatment, and do not serve the common interest of the citizens who back the bonds to build them.

Given the oversupply of these type of courses relative to the demand, it is clear to me at least that government has no role in this segment.  A possible exception is the RTJ Trail in Alabama where the courses for the most part were built in remote areas where private sectors developers would not have gone in at that scale.  These courses were built with the state's teacher's pension money to spur economic development in several depressed areas and earn a good return.  I understand that the results have been very good for the affected communities, but rather dismal for the teacher's pension fund.

Curiously, the only segment which seems to be underserved is the very affordable, entry level, the one where governments once played an important role in.  This is not a market conducive to adequate financial returns at acceptable risk levels.

I guess that if I was given the choice as a P & R director, I would probably rather develop at the $8MM level than at a measely $3-$4MM.  People probably bitch more about a plain, indifferently conditioned course.  It is also much more impressive in the resume to claim responsibility for an $8MM David Graham/Gary Panks signature course than it would be for a $3MM job by Harvey Schwartz and the low-cost minority contractor.

Anyways, as a rule, having worked for both, I think that the private sector does a much superior job on most things than government.  In my opinion, it would be best if government stayed out of the golf course business in most instances, and stream-lined the regulatory process for the private sector as it does for itself (funny how a thoroughfare master plan can be changed without great difficulty when the city wants to build a golf course or school in the area, but a private developer asking for a similar change is like amending the U.S. constitution).  This probably runs counter to current trends and prevailing thought, and it will likely continue to hurt the same people who government purports to protect-the less affluent, less able among us.      

Matt_Ward

Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2005, 02:24:02 PM »
Lou:

I need to point out that this idea that municipalities / counties are running hard and fast for the CCFAD model sounds good but has not been supported by any hard data.

Let me illustrate a desire by my home state a few years ago to build a "public" course in the shadows of Manhattan Island at Liberty State Park.

There were drawings prepared by Brian Silva and the idea of a golf course "open to the masses" appealed to certain developmental forces until it became apparent that such a facility would be nothing more than a play toy for the Wall Street boys who would hop on a short ferry and play their golf on "public" property.

The project was dropped for a host of reasons -- bad publicity being one of them.

What's ironic is that no less than two (2) courses -- are being created through private dollars -- one by Eric Bergstol / Empire Golf (Bayonne GC) and the other by WA Golf Company, LLC through Rowland B. Bates, called Liberty National and designed by the tandem of Bob Cupp / Tom Kite.

From my many travels the overwhelming number of public courses supported by tax dollars are merely for the recreation component previously articulated by me. Yes, there are those who opt to move up the food chain in terms of using the CCFAD model. But, I have no hard data that says such a minor incursion is becoming more and more of an issue.

The likely concern is more attuned to those in the business who are quite upset WITH ANY competition.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:What is the Role of Municipal Golf????
« Reply #74 on: February 24, 2005, 04:56:30 PM »
Matt,

I don't know what the hard facts are in your part of the world.  Maybe others can pipe in based on their own experiences.

Some 10 years ago, In my neck of the woods, Jeff Brauer built an excellent course for the city of Grand Prairie called  Tangle Ridge.  It is better than a number of the private clubs in the D/FW area and the budget was substantial for a municipal operation (Jeff can tell us if he would like).  I was privy to the feasibility study and, as I remember, it showed that the south corridor of D/FW from I-35E to I-35W could support four upscale golf courses.

Well, some 30 or so miles west of Tangle Ridge, the city of Burleson built a nice upscale course designed by one of the guys from Brauer's stable after he went solo.  It has large bent greens, numerous hazards, and a significant amount of dirt was moved in the process.

Not to be outdone, the city of Arlington, built Tierra Verde, an $8MM project between the two.  Designed by Gary Stephenson but credited to Graham/Panks, if it was a private club, I am not sure that I wouldn't rather be a member there than at Colonial.  In fact, I know a couple of Colonial members who play it quite regularly and just love the place.

In the meantime, some private developers also got into the action.  Mark Brooks built Southern Oaks not far from Burleson's course.   Brauer built a high-end daily fee in the city of Benbrook (though I think that it is privately owned) in southwest Fort Worth.  Another developer built a course with bent greens in Crandall, not that far from south of Dallas.

Though with a more modest budget, $5MM plus the land,  the city of Mansfield also jumped into the fray doing a J-V with an acquaintance of mine.  The course, Mansfield National, is a highly competitive, enjoyable track.  It is more affordable than the others, but it is still a huge step-up from what has been a traditional muni course.

Its designer, a former Brauer protege, also did a $3MM+ redo of the former Carswell AFB in NW Fort Worth.  Its ownership structure involves the public and private sectors, and it is good enough that Colonial considered it for purchase as a second course for its members.

Dallas had Weibring totally redesign its Tennison West 18 holes, and it is now a premium priced daily fee course.  D.A. also finished a multi-million dollar redo of the city's historic Tillie course, Cedar Crest.

Plano did a JV with another private developer and built a very nice Brauer course.  Grapevine redid its muni with the help of D.A. and it now handles some of the overflow of the adjacent Cowboys GC ($140).

Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee have their "Trails".  I could go on and on and on and on.   Of course, these are not hard facts; purely anecdotal, but I have not seen a cow pasture built in the last 10-15 years by any municipality.  Perhaps the average customer now has higher expectations.  Maybe modern architecture and machinery allows for a better course at lower prices.  It could also be a local or regional phenomena, but I sort of doubt it.

BTW, you are damned right that those in the business are upset about this type of competition.  Most of us don't like contributing to an enterprise which competes against us.  When I worked for Frito-Lay, a Pepsi company, the restaurant segment of Pepsi (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, etc.) did not serve Coke.  Unfortunately, as taxpayers, we don't have the opportunity to pull our support from our competitors.

On top of that, most government entities have tremendous advantages with the acquisition of land, zoning, permitting, and financing.  Depending on the financing structure, government also has the opportunity to divert funds from other sources, and in the case of general obligation bonds, to raise taxes to make debt service.

To end this story on the south corridor of Dallas and Tarrant Counties, all of the courses with the possible exception of Mansfield National are under heavy financial stress.  Mark Brooks's Southern Oaks is being offered by its beleaguered investor (not Mark) for 50 cents on the dollar (a deal is supposedly in the works).  The city of Crandall bought the previously privately owned course after years of it struggling.

As in the past when cities often bought or took over courses which could not make it, I would rather that government served as a vulture buyer than a developer.  Ideally, it would stay out of the business all together or just provide entry level courses and ranges.

Ironically, in Arlington, many of the parks prohibit golf practice, in part for safety reasons.  The city has access to hundreds if not thousands of acres of flood plain where it could keep the weeds down by mowing a couple of times a month during the growing season.  It would allow potentially interested golfers to go out with a bag of 10 cent balls purchased through eBay and see if they have any interest in the game.  Nah, these would compete with the driving ranges at its city golf courses!

 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2005, 05:06:05 PM by Lou_Duran »