[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

I can certainly understand your anger at how Arlington operated. But finding one flaw in a ocean of many more successful situations is never hard to do. Let me point out on the flip side from a positive stance -- thank heavens for the autocratic Robert Moses because without him there would never have been a Bethpage State Park and the lack of such a park would likely have meant that golf would forever remain the domain of only the elite. The inclusion of such facilities allowed countless people to play and what's even more positive is that many of these same people then moved up the golf ladder to populate any number of the private clubs you see today.

Yes, I am. I serve as a city councilman (Clifton, NJ -- population near 80,000). I also served previously as a member of our school board and for a year as its president. I only mentioned the aspect of my position given Steve L's post tied to the awarding of tax abatements and the like.

Awarding such plums for developers is not something any sane person could even remotely consider given the economic times we are in and with the major deficit the State of NJ is currently facing -- e.g. $8 billion deficit on a $30 billion budget.

Lou, in NJ public libraries are guaranteed a certain percentage of funds (clealy tax dollars) in order to operate. The formula was put into place to make sure that towns would not hold them out to dry. What's happened is that the fund balance allows many of them to operate more in the black than they need to given the other issues pressing communities throughout the state.

Just to clear up a bit of a misconception on your part -- muni golf is needed as a pipeline for players to enjoy the game and get started with it. Could public subsidies be provided to players so that they could play at the more upscale places ? Sure it's possible but unlikely to happen.

The better and more prudent way was / is to have taxpayer-jurisdictions provide the means to handle such citizen needs. Keep in mind that the expenditure of public dollars is not just done in a New York minute. In many cases municipalities served a valuable purpose in keeping facilities open to the public given what the other usages would be -- more strip malls, more congestion through overbuilding and the like. Hominy Hill in Colts Neck, NJ was at one time one of the most exclusive places to play. When it's owner died the estate sold the property to Monmouth County and the place has forever been open to the public at reasonable rates. A failure to see take advantage of that property would have been a major loss to all parties. 

Lou, given your assessment of what government is about -- let's siimply roll back to the pre-1930"s and return to those glory days of the past. 

Archie:

I salute the efforts of Hamilton Trails but finding one exception to anything is always possible. The general rule is that OTHER more important elements have served to undercut privately owned daily fee courses in NJ. You keep on harping about the role of government being limited to other things and frankly I have stated it over and over and over again -- muni golf allows people to get started in the game and does so at a rate far lower than what the privately owned daily fee courses would provide. It's two entirely different markets.

The privately owned daily fee courses have taken a major hit because of soaring land costs, being unable to gauge accurately the oversaturation of their own product (see AC market as case study #1), the escalation of costs - specifically property taxes and the inability of players to handle the escalating costs to play them. Whatever muni golf did played a very small role.

Let me address the library matter AGAIN -- the State of NJ created a mechanism for a percentage of funds to keep them whole. No doubt the funding process has skewed itself to a level far beyond their needs. I am not here to argue against a waste of valuable dollars because expansion plans may not be needed in the example you provided as far too often $$ accrued can and often does burn a hole in the pocket of the appropriate party controlling it. My issue which you completely hi-jacked to a non-related point -- is that libraries do in fact compete against private providers such as Blockbusters or any of the other leading publishing houses and including newspapers, etc, etc, etc. The need for public libraries is clear -- the issue of how they are funded in NJ is an entirely different matter. I would think you would know the difference. As a matter of fact in my hometown we have already sent a resolution to the appropriate state parties to get the formula changed so that the accrued $$ is brought back into the general fund.

Archie, you keep on saying that government should not be in the role to provide people the opportunity to play. Really? I see. I should simply hold out hope that a privately owned daily fee facility will provide competitive rates -- let's say green fees of $25 or less in order to attract them in the first place. You may know this but NJ has the 8th most expensive green fee costs in the USA according to the National Golf Foundation. That surge in rates escalated primarily because privately owned daily fee facilities were ONLY interested in cherry picking those with the fattest of wallets. If muni golf did not exist the likelihood that the other players below such income levels would be able to plau would only decline even faster than what the golf market is facing now.

[Bruce Katona]

Archie was our partner and to this day is a great friend of mine.  What the local government did to throw tank traps in the way of his project is terrible, but very real for the real estate development industry here in the great Garden State.

Outside of perhaps Archie and Lou, how many of those who opined on this topic have actually looked at operations budgets at Parks & Recreation Dept run golf facilities to see if the numbers actually work?  I for one have and where this operation type is balance sheet successful stemms from the following:
1. Cost of borrowing is substantially less than private developers as the cost of funds is predicated on the agency's bond rating.
2. Employee salaries benefits may or may not be on the facilities books as they are department employees, not just facility employees.  same holds tru for equipment leases and FF&E.  Sometimes these employees are union folks, driving hourly wages and benefits even higher.
3. The charge of Parks & Rec is not to make money, but to supply Recreation and be self-sustaining.  If you turn a profit, all the better.

Thre have been some successful management companies who have come into run public golf facilities.  Billy Casper Golf currently is very successful and operating public faciliites as they structure their deals properly.

I am now off my soap box.

[Matt_Ward]

Bruce:

I have studied the matter -- closely and been in touch with a range of people in the golf market -- both from the public and privately owned side of things when I reported for The Jersey Golfer.

There's no doubt taxpayer jurisdictions have advantages when it comes to a range of things. They also have disadvantages such as the public bidding laws and other elements tied to unions and work rules, etc, etc.

Let me point out that failure to turn a profit can mean the downfall of places that previously had little to worry about. See the situation of Oak Ridge in Union County. See the aborted try by the Freeholders in Passaic County (NJ) to sell their 36-hole facility in Wayne.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou:

I can certainly understand your anger at how Arlington operated. But finding one flaw in a ocean of many more successful situations is never hard to do.

I have long ceased being angry.  Given where the industry has headed since the early 1990s, my wife likes to remind of the old Garth Brooks song about thanking God for unanswered prayers.

As to your "one flaw in a ocean", certainly you jest.  Mine is more the rule than the exception.  If government applied the same laws and regulations to itself that it does the private citizen and the private sector, perhaps we would have half of the laws and regulations.  Even the reference you make to Blackpage is hardly a good one.
 

Just to clear up a bit of a misconception on your part -- muni golf is needed as a pipeline for players to enjoy the game and get started with it.

It is not a misconception just because you don't agree with my opinion.  I can take you to a dozen courses developed in Texas and elsewhere by government that are hardly places for new players to get started and impoverished citizens to still enjoy the game.

Lou, given your assessment of what government is about -- let's siimply roll back to the pre-1930"s and return to those glory days of the past. 

Exactly how long is a New York minute?

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

You need to realize something -- the NJ market and the nature of what shakes out in a densely populated area throughout the I-95 corridor between DC and Boston is far different than what happens in Texas. Night and day for sure.

Muni golf has come into its own existence in my neck of the woods for all the reasons I spelled out several times before. No doubt some of those reasons may have little or no reality to what you experience in Texas.

Lou, my inclusoin of Bethpage speaks for itself and if you asked the people of Nassau and Suffolk counties the inclusion of Bethpage State Park is a ciritical asset to their overall quality if life. Without the mere access to a range of different activities would not be on the scene. The gulf between what the private sector would provide and what the masses could afford would be too great. Like I said before -- hats off to Robert Moses for adding it then because trying to replicate something like that now could never be done.

Lou, final point -- I'm not suggesting a "one size fits all" answer -- I am saying that the marketplace I live in has evolved because of certain conditions -- but the original point Archie raised was that no new muni or courses converting to muni status should happen. I disagree with that and the points I explained demonstrate why that has happened and will likely continue to do so.

[Ron Csigo]

The latest on Colonia Country Club.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/woodbridge_gold_club_members_s.html

[Sean_A]

Its an interesting question of how to balance out the obvious (and unavoidable imo) advantages munis have over privately owned open for public play courses.  On the one hand, I would be dead set against just selling off munis if they are failing.  Surely they should be kept as green spaces.  On the other hand, I don't like the idea of more munis being built unless there is the rare case of long term development in the pipeline.  Even so, I would think the local/state government should ideally act as partner with private enterprise with the goal of eventually getting out of the deal with a tidy profit.  Additionally, we ave to remember that in many cases, munis previously existed where public have essentially tried to take some of the market share.  These developers knew full well the challenges and obstacles.  IMO, it would have been wiser to not build some of these courses and instead, the government should have been looking for ways unload the responsibility of these munis under some sort of lease agreement in which the local residents are still given favoured pricing structure.  Basically, I want the government to act as a facilitator for private enterprise rather than be directly in business.  I really dislike the idea of a Golf Manager (and the rest of the titles) employed by a city, but I understand that the local government has a duty to protect public assets and make them a full value asset.  Where it isn't possible/practical to lease out courses, there should be some sort of onus on the muni to offer favourable pricing to its direct tax payers be it city, county or state owned courses.  I don't think it is proper to have the pricing where an "outsider" is more or less given the same price as the local.  First, it unreasonable for local taxpayers not to receive a benefit and secondly, it casts a wide market net which can impact privately held courses. 

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

I don't disagree with you that gov't can "facilitate" relationships with outside groups -- in Union County, NJ that has happened as the county gov't there has signed a long term agreement w Kemper Sports to run two of its layouts there -- Galloping Hill and Ashbrook. Will the involvement of Kemper Sports turn things around -- I would hope so given how poorly the facilities were faring under the direct control of those in the gov't.

However, muni golf does provide a connection to those who are either just starting out or in need of simple basic golf. Those who cry from the private development side should realize that often times they are only interested in the deeper pocket crowd to start with and have little interest or desire in fanning the flames of growth among those with limited incomes.

What private development doesn't get or often admit -- muni golf is where the pipeline of players is created. In the long run how the pipeline goes from the beginning will greatly impact what eventually makes its way to those who provide the higher cost golf options from their side of the aisle.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()