[Ian Larson]

Mike

This isnt an "anti golf course" thread, no need to get pissed off. My whole point to this thread is now is not the time. And while we are waiting for the right time the golf industry should focus on effective communications to the public about how important golf courses are. I can name you a handful of "Top 100" golf clubs that violate EPA requirements on a daily basis. The industry needs to become more responsible with what we have before we should get rewarded.

...and can we seriously mimic what we did in the 1930's? I know you guys are history buffs but that is taking it way too far. This is a completely different country than we were 70 - 80 years ago. Should we start manufacturing model T's to drive around in as well? Was Geoff really saying that we should consider the WPA program like we did then? I didnt see that, I took away that any money should be used on public practice type facilities. Unless it was a land reclamation project that a full size golf course can be built on.

Is renovating a multi million dollar clubhouse, maintenance facility or golf course a sustainable investment? Especially when it will provide limited jobs for the one year it takes to complete?

Priorities Priorities Priorities

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Sweeney,

No, I'm simply making the assumption that golf is the best and most civilized of games, and in places where the citizenry concerns themselves with golf the fact is that peace, prosperity, and even brotherhood generally reigns.   Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   I don't know but I'd err on the side of formenting peace and civilization.  

If we think of golf simply as another game, like chess, or a sport like perhaps roller derby , or more fairly tennis, than that's fine...it's all interchangeable, and if tomorrow's ruling class would rather do X-games or skateboarding on big chutes, or ride shopping carts down steep hills for style points, than it's no biggie.  

But, if we really do believe that golf mirrors life, and brings out and helps develop personal character, and integrity, and personal responsibility and personal acceptance, and that the wonderfully varied playing fields we create are merely mirroring the incredibly varied tapestries of our almost infinite number of settings and situations of where and how we live our lives, and we see golf as something that not only reflects personal character but also helps to shape it, and we see golf as something that reflects our different backgrounds yet helps to give us shared commonality, then I think we have a more important duty than to deal in raw statistics and simply submit and retreat in the face of a headwind that might require a club or two more in the way of additional creative optimism and hopeful realization of the enormous opportunities that these rapidly changing times hold immense promise to shape in ways we can only begin to imagine.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike

This isnt an "anti golf course" thread, no need to get pissed off. My whole point to this thread is now is not the time. And while we are waiting for the right time the golf industry should focus on effective communications to the public about how important golf courses are. I can name you a handful of "Top 100" golf clubs that violate EPA requirements on a daily basis. The industry needs to become more responsible with what we have before we should get rewarded.

...and can we seriously mimic what we did in the 1930's? I know you guys are history buffs but that is taking it way too far. This is a completely different country than we were 70 - 80 years ago. Should we start manufacturing model T's to drive around in as well? Was Geoff really saying that we should consider the WPA program like we did then? I didnt see that, I took away that any money should be used on public practice type facilities. Unless it was a land reclamation project that a full size golf course can be built on.

Is renovating a multi million dollar clubhouse, maintenance facility or golf course a sustainable investment? Especially when it will provide limited jobs for the one year it takes to complete?

Priorities Priorities Priorities

Ian,

"Pissed Off" was a poor choice of words.

Passionately inspired might be a better choice. 

To your points;

There is No question that the golf industry, the golf course maintenance industry, and the golf course architectural industry needs to change, and change BIG TIME.   The "green-lush" chemically-induced and over-architected, overly-expensive, and almost unmaintainable model that has been prevalent for the past half-century is dying, and we need to come up with a sustainable, affordable, and more attractive and intriguing model for the future if golf is to survive.

I believe you'd agree with me that we make golf too complex and too high-maintenance.   It's pretentious, and it's self-indulgent and it's ultimately exclusive.

I don't want to argue politics, and I certainly don't want to over-sell my points, but I'm not arguing that we start manufacturing Model_T's, and I'm certainly not looking backwards for anything but inspiration.

No, instead, I'm arguing for futuristic revolution.

I'm arguing that instead of Model-T's we build cars that run with self-sustaining, renewable resources, or better yet, cars that simply use and then replace natural resources in a cyclical process, such as some of the new Hydrogen-based technologies.

In terms of golf courses, I'm not arguing that we create self-contained courses that act as limited recreational islands of pleasure and relaxation for a few, but instead arguing that we create courses that are  integrally and functionally linked into land planning, flood prevention, fire control, environmentally enhancing, and jobs producing part of our overall strategies to create sustainable, and even life-affirming population centers of the future.

[Eric Pevoto]

On Geoff's blog he's added water usage to the mix.  Changes to the infrastructure of golf courses are significant outside the course itself.  It could go a long way toward changing perceptions.

I'm interested in the thought that these same arguments over priorities must have been made 75 years ago.  How different would the sport be without the addition of govt. funded golf? 

[PThomas]

i just dont see this happening

with golf demand down, why should the government invest in golf courses??

the amount of money needed for roads, bridges , etc., is so high anyway ...

[Ian Larson]

as an ohio boy from 1959-1991 I can't give them any grief.. i applaud their initiative!  its people that make a difference and if one thinks a group's agenda doesn't represent their views or needs, why should they "properly" have to be associated??

as i said on the other thread about Schackleford's article.. never up never in!

is the Wright Pat course involved?

You look at all the golf courses in and around the Dayton area and the only one that has an Audobon Certification is the one on the air force base. It takes alot of nerve for the city to request $500,000 for "Enviornmentaly Sound" golf courses when these same golf courses havent even attempted to get certified!!!

You may ask yourself whats the big deal about being certified by the Audobon Society? Its a big deal because its the one thing that the golf course has that proves they have put their best foot forward towards being enviornmentaly sound.

Ive personally taken on working with the Audobon Society to get 2 courses Ive worked at certified. It didnt cost thousands of dollars....



Mike,

Why should the feds approve a $500,000 to the Dayton, Ohio area golf courses on the premise of being enviornmentaly sound when they havent even tried to get certified by Audobon?

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike Sweeney,

No, I'm simply making the assumption that golf is the best and most civilized of games, and in places where the citizenry concerns themselves with golf the fact is that peace, prosperity, and even brotherhood generally reigns.   Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   I don't know but I'd err on the side of formenting peace and civilization.  

MC,

We are the XGames in the view of the Cricket guys:  

The origins of the game of cricket are lost in the mists of time. There is a reference in the household accounts of King Edward I in 1300 of a game much like cricket being played in Kent.

[Mike_Cirba]

On Geoff's blog he's added water usage to the mix.  Changes to the infrastructure of golf courses are significant outside the course itself.  It could go a long way toward changing perceptions.

I'm interested in the thought that these same arguments over priorities must have been made 75 years ago.  How different would the sport be without the addition of govt. funded golf? 

Eric,

Bingo.

I think it's very easy to dismiss "golf" as a fluffy, nonsensical, irrelevant past-time of the rich.

In our historical research, there are plenty of short-sighted examples, because if you think about it, was there ever a time in the history of man where it was deemed a priorty that golf should get some kind of public funding and priority attention except for those of us who consider golf a form of religion pushing for such, arguing that it serves the greater good?

Yes, we should build bridges, and roads, and serve our most utilitarian purposes, but unless we can also serve our more romantic, idyllic, pastoral dreams by bringing them more into alignment with greater public good we all risk becoming extinct dinosaurs, and our game will die.

Unless we can find a way to align the game we love with the increasing demands on future populations in a way that serves both masters of personal recreational enjoyment and public general economic and environmental benefit, then I think we risk becoming irrelevant, and ultimately extinct.

We take up too much room, we absorb too much cost, and we are much too personally smug to exist in the future unless we reinvent ourselves and find ways to become not only valuable, but indispensable, to the greater communities in which we exist.

[PThomas]

and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean??  good luck trying to reach consensus on that!

[Kyle Harris]

and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean??  good luck trying to reach consensus on that!

Precisely.

Good luck telling someone that artificially introducing random pits of sand into the Ohio countryside is, in any way, natural.

[PThomas]

another fun fact:  i wonder how many people know that the group that awards those "Audobon (sp?) certifications" has nothing at all to do with the well-known environemntal group of the same name?

[Mike_Cirba]

and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean??  good luck trying to reach consensus on that!

Precisely.

Good luck telling someone that artificially introducing random pits of sand into the Ohio countryside is, in any way, natural.

Fellows,

What precisely is unnatural about creating water-filtering hollows filled with sand filtration systems?

If you're going to argue that the creation of sand bunkers can have no higher purpose than simply a recreational folly, and instead can't act as water-flow filters, or part of a flood or fire control strategy, or erosion protection, or even part of helping to reflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere, then I'm disappointed that you're still thinking in such restrictive, narrowly-focused, and backward-thinking terms.   

[Ian Larson]

another fun fact:  i wonder how many people know that the group that awards those "Audobon (sp?) certifications" has nothing at all to do with the well-known environemntal group of the same name?

Thats completely irrelevant and not sure of the point youre trying to make. Anyone in the business knows what "enviornmentally sound" means.

Is it "enviornmentally sound" when a superintendent tells his staff to dump 50 gallons of unused pesticide in the same area when they go to clean the sprayer out? "Enviornmentally Sound" is mostly common sense. If you dont know what that might mean I would suggest looking in to it.

By the way that is just one example from a "Top 100" club that everyone on here salivates over....

[Mike_Cirba]

I think we need to move past the Democratic idea of large, encompassing federalistic ideas where a single solution can best be applied to everyone in a beneficial way, as well as past the Republican idea that any funding beyond a private localized source is not only suspect, but inherently corrupt and wasteful.

I think this is a perfect example.

How about federal dollars allocated to locally prescribed, individualistic  solutions where the goals are economic stimuation, infrastructure improvements, environmental benefits, and the creation of hundreds of sustainable, renewable, and economically prosperous communities where our children can find a better life and living conditions than our current  structure?

I'm not trying to criticize what we've done as much as suggest we have more work to do...

Is there anyone here who thinks that this is unattainable or otherwise undesirable?

[PThomas]

Mike and Ian:  pls lighten up with your personal criticisms...i said nothing negative about your personal thoughts so i'd appreciate the same courtesy

i am not going to debate this back and forth, but, for ex, just because people in the golf industry think a practice is environemntally sound does not mean that all others would agree with that...and I have looked into this Ian, thank you very much

and sure Mike, golf courses can provide some positive environmental benefits, but there are practices that some of them engage in that are can cause problems too

[Ian Larson]

and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean??  good luck trying to reach consensus on that!

Precisely.

Good luck telling someone that artificially introducing random pits of sand into the Ohio countryside is, in any way, natural.

This is also completely irrelevant and off-point.



Mike,

Beautifully stated, it is attainable, it is desireable and we are on the same page. I think that should also include an extensive checks and balances system with scrutinous committees marshalling the use of the money granted.

A few posts up I asked the question of whether or not you think Dayton Ohio should be granted $500,000 for its golf courses that have no past record of proving they are "enviornmentally sound". What do you think?  



Paul,

If you knew what "enviornmentally sound" meant you wouldnt have posed your statement the way you did. With people in the business, enviornmental concerns are always a part of the job, because well, the golf course is an enviornment which can effect others.

And its not "the golf industry" that thinks their practices are "enviornmentally sound", its the EPA and several other beaurocratic agencies that develop the laws and make sure they are followed on a county, state and national level.

Could you cite some examples of what practices the golf courses engage in that "cause the problems"?

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul,

I'm not sure any of my posts were in direct, specific reaction to your points except in a generalized way, but if I came off that way in passionate defense of my ideas and I offended you then I most sincerely apologize as it surely wasn't anything I intended.   I think you know I value your opinions, always.

I do recognize that definitions on some of these things are relatively new to us, and nothing our fathers had to understand and deal with, and are therefore still fluid and even contested from the standpoint of existence, but that doesn't mean I don't think generalities can still apply at this point.

In either case, I think we do agree that economic and environmental progress and even significant change in those areas are going to be required to sustain our game in the future, and while we might disagree with details, I do think we share many of the same overall concerns as well as agree on general frameworks through which we can mutually arrive at viable solutions.

btw, Paul...have we ever even remotely disagreed here before?  I think perhaps we are both deserving of some kind of GCA medal for valorous debate!  

[Steve Lang]

Mike

.. I can name you a handful of "Top 100" golf clubs that violate EPA requirements on a daily basis. The industry needs to become more responsible with what we have before we should get rewarded.

PLEASE NAME THESE COURSES IN THE FURTHERANCE OF TRANSPARENCY..

are these people violating FIFRA by using soapy water to kill bugs or misusing herbicides or rinse waters on weeds in the ditch.. non-label uses?


p.s. Paul.. have to laugh when people question whether you know what environmentally sound might be!

[Ian Larson]

and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean??  good luck trying to reach consensus on that!

"p.s. Paul.. have to laugh when people question whether you know what environmentally sound might be!"


Steve,

If your smug laugh is at the less intelligent for even thinking of questioning if Paul knows what "enviornmentally sound" means and the definition is SO simple then why even post the question. Is posting his question and statement a slap at the others knowledge on here if its silly to even question Pauls knowledge of it? How about instead of posting hollow statements, enlighten us with what you do know about the subject so you can truly add to the discussion.

And do you really think I am going to name names and malpractices on a public forum? You've got to be smarter than that.




Back to the topic.....


Posted by Jim Kennedy-

-Bessemer, Ala., wants $7,000,0000 to replace the greens and landscape the Frank House Golf Course;
-Lake Havasu City, Ariz., wants $14,800,000 for the clubhouse, maintenance building, and grading and another $10,200,000 part of which will go to a 320-acre golf course;
-Des Moines, Iowa, wants $1,300,000 for a clubhouse at the Grandview Golf Course;
-Louisville, Kent., wants $2,100,000 to energy retrofit golf clubhouses;
-Brockton, Mass., wants $1,500,000 for their field park and golf course restoration project;
-Roseville, Minn., wants $1,500,000 to replace the club house and maintenance shop a the golf course;
-Florissant, Mo., wants $1,100,000 for a golf course water reclamation project and another $1,100,000 for a new maintenance building;
-St. Louis, Mo., wants $2,100,000 for their Forest Park Urban Golf Course renovation;
-Dayton, Ohio, wants $500,000 for environmentally friendly golf courses;
-Arlington, Tex., wants $6,000,000 for the CW Ditto Golf Course renovation;
-Austin Tex., wants $4,000,000 for the Walter Morris Williams Golf Course renovation and $1,300,000 for the Hancock Golf Course




Before this thread goes way off topic still nobody has answered anything........


Should the federal government grant millions of dollars to golf courses for clubhouse, maintenance shed and golf course renovations right now?


As a specific example-

Should the federal government grant $500,000 to Dayton, Ohio golf courses? The tag line is for "enviornmentally sound" golf courses. There is only one course in Dayton that has attempted to show it is enviornmentally conscious in the past by getting certified as an Audobon Sanctuary. Isnt Ohio (and that whole section of the country) one of the states that is getting hit relatively harder than the rest of the country?
If a golf course in Dayton receives a check for $100,000 to go towards becoming more "enviornmentally sound" do they use it for what its really intended for or do they use it for the utterly needed equipment repairs that couldnt be done because of membership loss and budget cuts? Also, who monitors how the money is spent and spent accordingly?


Could someone PLEASE discuss this?

[Craig Sweet]

A stab at "environmentally sound"...replacing a leaky, inefficient irrigation system with a state of the are system will save water and energy...replacing an old, heat leaking maintenance shop and wash area with a modern shop and wash area will save energy and protect ground water.

[Craig Sweet]

By the way...my experience with grant writing etc. tells me you hit all the hot buttons you can think of...the criteria for stimulus money might have a huge clause relating to environmental soundness....so you find something.

[Mike Sweeney]

As a specific example-

Should the federal government grant $500,000 to Dayton, Ohio golf courses? The tag line is for "enviornmentally sound" golf courses. There is only one course in Dayton that has attempted to show it is enviornmentally conscious in the past by getting certified as an Audobon Sanctuary. Isnt Ohio (and that whole section of the country) one of the states that is getting hit relatively harder than the rest of the country?
If a golf course in Dayton receives a check for $100,000 to go towards becoming more "enviornmentally sound" do they use it for what its really intended for or do they use it for the utterly needed equipment repairs that couldnt be done because of membership loss and budget cuts? Also, who monitors how the money is spent and spent accordingly?

Could someone PLEASE discuss this?

No.

In a simplistic nutshell. The federal, state and local governments should all have a significant number of priorities ahead of golf courses.

Education and safety of its citizens should be way ahead of leisure activities of its citizens. Who would argue today with putting $500,000 into a study that examines how birds can shut down jet engines? We all have individual stories in education, but I would rather a few kids get grants to attend the University of Dayton than those kids get to play cheap golf in Dayton.

[Kyle Harris]

and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean??  good luck trying to reach consensus on that!

Precisely.

Good luck telling someone that artificially introducing random pits of sand into the Ohio countryside is, in any way, natural.

This is also completely irrelevant and off-point.

Ian,

It's hardly irrelevant. The problem is you're preaching to the choir. You don't need to sell me on the benefits of golf. What you need to do is sell the benefits of golf to someone on the outside looking in. Someone who will look at a bunker and not see a golf feature but see something that would not occur at that spot naturally.

Whether or not we want to admit that, golf has that stigma and it's a deep one. In fact, I was just speaking the other day to a relation to a very active contributor to this board, and even she wasn't aware of the some of the more basic soundness of golf courses environmentally. I can assure you she would have been very turned off by a lot of the self-aggrandizing rhetoric found on this thread.

[Ian Larson]

Kyle,

This thread is about everybody going after the government for the free bailout or stimulus money. This includes golf courses wanting to rebuild, renovate and landscape clubhouses, maintenance buildings and the courses.

It's about golf courses wanting this money for enviornmental reasons and have not demonstrated enviornmental consciesness in the past. And if they do get the money are they going to use it for creating better habitats for native plants and wildlife. Being safer and more efficient with fuels and pesticides.

It's about whether or not the government has the appropriate committees and bureaus in place to monitor if the money is being spent for what it was approved for, not just a check that can be used as pleased. Because I'm afraid that clubs will falsify what they are requesting for and use it as they wish to.

Ultimately this is about the golf industry putting it's best foot forward and not involving itself in a trillion dollar deficit if it doesn't have to. The industry needs to realize their is much more important things to be invested in AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Take a look at the mayors report posted and take a look at the things requested by Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Those are some great things that are important to the cities and the communities. LA and Philly don't have a single golf related line item. That's not because they don't value golf and their golf courses it's because they have their priorities straight.

So where does sand traps being natural in Ohio come into play with this?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

This thread is about everybody going after the government for the free bailout or stimulus money. This includes golf courses wanting to rebuild, renovate and landscape clubhouses, maintenance buildings and the courses.

It's about golf courses wanting this money for enviornmental reasons and have not demonstrated enviornmental consciesness in the past. And if they do get the money are they going to use it for creating better habitats for native plants and wildlife. Being safer and more efficient with fuels and pesticides.

Ultimately this is about the golf industry putting it's best foot forward and not involving itself in a trillion dollar deficit if it doesn't have to. The industry needs to realize their is much more important things to be invested in AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Take a look at the mayors report posted and take a look at the things requested by Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Those are some great things that are important to the cities and the communities. LA and Philly don't have a single golf related line item. That's not because they don't value golf and their golf courses it's because they have their priorities straight.

So where does sand traps being natural in Ohio come into play with this?

I guess I misinterpreted your position. Sounds like we're on the same page in terms of opinion.

Philadelphia supporting its libraries (liberries) is actually supporting golf, just ask Joe Bausch! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()