[George Pazin]

I don't have a big problem with the court structure, but I do have a big problem with the court staffing.

It's not a real surprise to see that someone within the system wouldn't have a problem with the current setup, but some of us outside of it have a problem with tyranny in any form.

 

[rgkeller]

Many of the most "exclusive" clubs in the USA regularly have outings, essentially renting the course to outsiders for the day.

These clubs have membership policies that do not discriminate against particular classes of citizens and, therefore, they do not fear the implications of public access.

[TEPaul]

Again, the rule or law is that nothing exceeding 15% of annual club income may be derived from a non-member source without bringing on private club tax status questions and possibly questions of the club abiding by the "privacy" statutes pertaining to other issues one can read about in that article JohnV posted. If a club does a number of social functions such as weddings and parties that may not leave much room for something like green fee income before reaching that 15% outside income limitation.

Rich and Paul Turner:

Are European private clubs saddled with this type of 15% outside income limitation. Do European clubs have these types of "privacy" statutes that a private club must abide by? If not must a European club's membership policies have to adhere to the types of anti-discrimination laws we have in this country if a club's membership policies are not protected by our type of "privacy" definition. And furthermore, Rich, what percentage of total annual income of the club or clubs you belong to or have ever belonged to over there are derived from visitor or tourist green fees? I'd like those numbers and percentages broken down by year for the last ten years----thank you very much.

I'm just wondering if my positions and statements on this thread's subject sound to most out there like they come from a broken down old New York liberal which I really am---or once was, since I really can't figure out what I am anymore?  

[TEPaul]

"These clubs have membership policies that do not discriminate against particular classes of citizens and, therefore, they do not fear the implications of public access."

rg;

As you can see from that explanatory article JohnV posted it sometimes is not quite that simple---not anymore. There're probably an absolute ton of "private" status golf clubs out there that might be seen to violate "private club" local, state or federal law, rules, regulations or statutes without even being aware of it. The most notable of those private clubs like a Pine Valley, for instance, have taken elaborate steps to protect themselves and their "private club" status if someone, anyone, like a Martha Burk sends them the kind of public letter or challenges them as she did ANGC. Many have taken large steps recently to protect themselves from the kinds of challenges you can read about in that article or you know about with the Burk situation. They don't want to be bothered going through such a challenge, even if they feel they could win hands down so their tendencies these days are to continue to shrink back. Even the very considerate 9/11 charity fund-raising Pine Valley offered some there believe may have backfired on them---and if it did from some governmental entity that is a sad or frankly tragic turn of events.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Many of the most "exclusive" clubs in the USA regularly have outings, essentially renting the course to outsiders for the day.

These clubs have membership policies that do not discriminate against particular classes of citizens and, therefore, they do not fear the implications of public access.

"limited non-members were permitted to use the club on Mondays, when the course was closed to members....in addition the club also permitted the golf teams of several high schools and to use the course, during limited, nonprime hours."

"..Club members testified that, on occasion, they brought guests to the club and that their businesses sometimes reimbursed them for expenses involved in such occasions...All members testified they joined the  club for social and recreational attributes, and not for business  purposes, and emphasized that they viewed the club as a refuge from, rather than an adjuct to, the business world".

"The Club regularily permits some nonmembers to use its facilities, for a fee...the club also obtains income, on a regular basis, from fees charged for the use of its facilities by nonmember invited guests."

"Because of the involvement of defendant's operations in the variety of business transactions with non-members discussed above, the club properly must be considered a business establishment within the meaning of Section 51"

Justice George, writing for the Court in the case of Warfield vs Penninsula Golf and Country Club, 10 Cal 4th 594

That sets the line in the state of California which you can not cross, by law, and remain a private club-- Hence the law is rather clear in this state--If you wish to remain a private club you can not, for a fee or not, invite outside play.

[rgkeller]

No, it IS pretty simple.

Clubs that wish to maintain discriminatory admission policies have the most to fear from being deemed public access facilities.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Again, the rule or law is that nothing exceeding 15% of annual club income may be derived from a non-member source without bringing on private club tax status questions and possibly questions of the club abiding by the "privacy" statutes pertaining to other issues one can read about in that article JohnV posted. If a club does a number of social functions such as weddings and parties that may not leave much room for something like green fee income before reaching that 15% outside income limitation.

Those are the figures for the income tax laws to retain a "non-profit" status-- However there are lots of other laws, at least in California, that set lines between "private and non-private" and if you cross them the effect is devastating--Warfield has nothing to do with the 15% test, it just found some outside use of its facilities (which was very, very limited) was enough to be considered a non-private operation-

Note that non=private does not necessiarly mean public, it just means that some activites are conducted on its facilities that are not solely by its members.

The real estate assesement laws is one example-- Many times muni or resort or public access clubs, admittedly run for a profit, are developed either as open space lands (as a trade-off for park lands) or on enviromentally restricted parcels upon which other uses would be restricted-- Many private clubs have no such arrangement and hence, for assessment purposes, rely on an exemption in the taxing laws which permits golf courses to be appraised as golf courses, not at their highest and best use--

If you cross that line (and be consided a "non-private club") the real estate taxes could increase 10 to 20 fold per year and quickly doom your operation as a golf course.

[TEPaul]

"No, it IS pretty simple.
Clubs that wish to maintain discriminatory admission policies have the most to fear from being deemed public access facilities."

rg:

That's a fairly odd thing to say or an odd way to put it, but then a lot of the things you say on here appear odd.

In case you weren't aware of it our Constitution and Bill of Rights gives us and our private clubs the right to maintain discriminatory admission poliices! That's provided, of course, that those clubs abide by all their local, state, and the federal laws and rules and regulations and statutes that define what "private" club status is and means.

That remark of yours sounds a bit like someone saying to any club;

"Yes, you may have that right or think you do but don't try to practice it or someone will come after you and take you to court to prove you don't.

Personally, I'd like to see all private clubs in America offer as much public access as they reasonably can but if they don't choose to do that within the laws of our land I sure am inclined to defend their legal and Constitutional right to do so.

[Dennis_Harwood]

No, it IS pretty simple.

Clubs that wish to maintain discriminatory admission policies have the most to fear from being deemed public access facilities.

Its not about that--why when the word "private" arises does "discriminatory admission polices" follow?

I belong to club which I am proud to say has never been accused of discrimination in its member admission policies--and the membership bears that out (race, religion and sexual gender is not a factor)--

Being able to pay the 6+ figure initiation fee is an limitation, but for that  I relish never having to worry about a starting time, having unlimited access to a fine course and enjoying a diverse but great membership-

Our club did, once upon a time, make itself available for charitible events and occasional unaccompied but invited nonmember guests, however the "restriction" in the laws, which I guess was intended to open facilities, has had the opposite effect--

I suspect that most private clubs have gone in the same direction.

[TEPaul]

Dennis:

I'm more than aware of all that. But for any prudent "private Status" club interested in maintaining that status the first order of their business should logically be to ensure that they at least stay within that 15% for tax status purposes. Admittedly, it can require more than that, but if they, for whatever reason exceed that, they are asking for additional problems in maintaining their "private status".

[rgkeller]

Mr. Paul,

Once again you work hard to deduce a meaning that is not present.

It is a fact that clubs deemed to be public accomodations lose any Constitutional rights to discriminate.

[rgkeller]

Mr. Harwood,

Some clubs discriminate; some do not.

Only PRIVATE clubs may do so legally.

[TEPaul]

“No, it IS pretty simple.
Clubs that wish to maintain discriminatory admission policies have the most to fear from being deemed public access facilities.”

“Mr. Paul,
Once again you work hard to deduce a meaning that is not present.
It is a fact that clubs deemed to be public accomaoations lose any Constitutional rights to discriminate.”

Rg:

Those two statements from you aren’t even close to similar in the context of this subject!  But anyway, what’s new about that on your part?

[TEPaul]

"Some clubs discriminate; some do not.
Only PRIVATE clubs may do so legally."

BRAVO!

[rgkeller]

Mr. Paul,

Why would you expect me to make two similar statements?

Unlike yourself, I do not repeat myself endlessly.

[SPDB]

George -

I'm not "in the system." Tyranny? My god your delusion is far worse than I feared.  

You should just go back and correct your malaprop, instead of defending it.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I don't know the answer about any 15% law in the UK.  Rich likely does.  I doubt there is any law.

I'm flabbergasted that PVGC is getting into trouble with the 9/11 victims appeal.  That's nuts.   How would it be any different from other private club's charity events.  In fact I thought that might be a way around the 15% law.  Allow some limited outside play but give most of the cash to charity.

I don't actually think any of the major, established, private US clubs would open their doors, even if there were no tax laws.  It's not in their culture.

A quick browse in Barnes and Noble and the situation for Joe Public is readily apparent, with titles such as: "Top 100 Golf Courses You Can Play"  or "Top Donald Ross Courses You Can Play".   Rather than all those great courses they can play, eh

[SPDB]

Yeah, TEPaul, How is PV getting into trouble with the 9/11 benefit?

[ForkaB]

Tom

I don't know the answer about any 15% law in the UK.  Rich likely does.  I doubt there is any law.

I'm flabbergasted that PVGC is getting into trouble with the 9/11 victims appeal.  That's nuts.   How would it be any different from other private club's charity events.  In fact I thought that might be a way around the 15% law.  Allow some limited outside play but give most of the cash to charity.

I don't actually think any of the major, established, private US clubs would open their doors, even if there were no tax laws.  It's not in their culture.

A quick browse in Barnes and Noble and the situation for Joe Public is readily apparent, with titles such as: "Top 100 Golf Courses You Can Play"  or "Top Donald Ross Courses You Can Play".   Rather than all those great courses they can play, eh

Paul (and TEP)

There is something like a 15% rule in the UK (as I have said many times before, even (I think) onthis thread!).  All it does is subject your net income from non-members to Corporation Tax. It is a very modest levy, and more than covered by the net income received from visitors, obviously.

TEP

I do have access to all the data you have requested on another post, but I do not have the time to find it or compile it since I am now preoccupied with tracking down and prosecuting all the "people like Rich Goodale" that you have kindly pointed out to me are infesting this site.  Identity theft is a heinous crime and I'm not going stand for it!

John V

Thanks for that article. As others have said, it seems to be very Alice in Wonderlandish--the more you discriminate, the more likely you are to get "private" club status to allow you to discriminate even more.  In efect, the "law" seems to say that the "penalty" for not discriminating (i.e. allowing even llimited public access) is taking away your ability to discriminate!  So, if you try to conform more to socially acceptable behavior you will be punished by not being allowed to continue with the anti-socially acceptable behavior (i.e. discrimination) that you "enjoy" as a member of a private club!

I suspect the fact that the best lawyers in the US probably belong to the best private clubs, while the DA's have park in their cars at night outside Bethpage Black might have something to do with this absurd situation......

 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Further to Rich's information about Corporation Tax, the only constraint here in the UK seems to be to what extent visitor play interferes with member play.  As most of the clubs are owned and administrated by the members it is in the members' own hands, through election to office, AGMs, EGMs etc to regulate that.

[TEPaul]

"Mr. Paul,
Why would you expect me to make two similar statements?"

rg;
Uh, to avoid contradicting yourself might be one good reason?

"Unlike yourself, I do not repeat myself endlessly."

Touche.  

SPDB;

I didn't say they 'got into trouble'.

[TEPaul]

"John V
Thanks for that article. As others have said, it seems to be very Alice in Wonderlandish--the more you discriminate, the more likely you are to get "private" club status to allow you to discriminate even more.  In efect, the "law" seems to say that the "penalty" for not discriminating (i.e. allowing even llimited public access) is taking away your ability to discriminate!  So, if you try to conform more to socially acceptable behavior you will be punished by not being allowed to continue with the anti-socially acceptable behavior (i.e. discrimination) that you "enjoy" as a member of a private club!"

Rich:

It's probably true that the increasing federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and statutes on "private" club status has that effect. However, you seem to be assuming that this country should view (legally or otherwise) the American Constitutional right of "freedom of association" as socially unacceptable behavior. Obviously, a good number of people (apparently including the framers of the US Constitution) in this country do not look at that Constitutional right that way---although clearly some do---such as yourself.

[Craig Disher]

TEP-
I don't believe "freedom of association" is guaranteed explicitly anywhere in the Constitution except as it relates to getting together to petition the government. I'm don't doubt that courts have expanded that freedom to cover non-political activity in specific cases but I'm also sure it has been limited in casees that involve discrimination based on gender, religion, or race. That kind of discrimination has certainly become socially unacceptable behavior in the US - not least because it is constitutionally prohibited.

[SPDB]

TPaul - You said that some believe it has backfired on them. How do they think it has backfired?

[TEPaul]

"TPaul - You said that some believe it has backfired on them. How do they think it has backfired?"

Sean:

I'm sorry but I'm not going to get into that on here. How do you like them apples? If you don't I totally withdraw that remark from this board and just forget I said anything backfired on them!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()