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

Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« on: December 09, 2010, 01:34:05 PM »
INTERESTING ARTICLE -- SHOULD GOV'T GET OUT OF THE GOLF BUSINESS ?

Where I live -- I'd say no but other locations may be in a far different position.

Comments ?

*****

Government's role in owning golf courses a hot topic as industry struggle
 
They were Jackson County’s first 18-hole public golf courses and remained the only ones for decades.
They are the places where generations of Jackson residents have learned the game that has remained a lifelong recreation.
They are the sites of many of the most memorable moments in Jackson golf history.

But the City of Jackson and Jackson County’s merger of oversight of their Sharp Park and Cascades golf courses this year in the midst of industry-wide struggles has raised again the question:
Should government be in the golf business?

Officials managing the county-owned Cascades and city-owned Sharp Park courses say the tradition of their facilities and their importance to the growth of the game mean they should continue to operate under municipal control.

Those opposed to courses operated by governmental units generally fall into two camps. Golf course owners contend that municipal courses provide unfair and unnecessary competition that adversely affects the industry. Government watchdogs say they divert tax dollars to the benefit of a small portion of the population.

“It’s something that needs to be debated: What do you want your government to do?” said Rich Karasek, owner of Lakeland Hills Golf Course near Michigan Center for nine years. “There’s no reason for the government to be involved in golf. Stick to what you’re supposed to be doing.”

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research institute in Midland, calls it the Yellow Pages Test, and it applies to more than golf: If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, it might not be a necessary function of government.

“When governments subsidize or run businesses that provide below-cost governmental competition to American businesses, they are taxing us in order to undermine our own private businesses,” said Michael D. LaFaive, the Mackinac Center’s director of fiscal policy.
‘We were here first’

The issue might be more cloudy in Jackson County than in some other locales where municipal golf courses have drained taxpayer money at the same time they have hurt privately owned courses.

The golf courses at Cascades and Sharp Park have in most years produced profits for their respective parks systems. Even with the downturn in golf during the past decade, figures show the courses to be at least revenue-neutral.

That, coupled with the fact that both courses were built on donated land, makes Jackson’s situation “less troubling,” LaFaive said.
Sharp Park Golf Course opened in 1923, when golf was gaining a foothold in the U.S., and Cascades opened in 1932. They were among the municipal courses that were built throughout the country as a way to expose the masses to a game that was largely the province of the well-to-do at private country clubs.

“This was the foundation, the starting point for Jackson golf,” said Eric Terrian, who began as Sharp Park’s golf pro before becoming the park’s superintendent and this summer adding the duties of director of the golf operation at Cascades.
Terrian said there is a difference between government courses opened decades ago, such as the ones here, and those built more recently.
“We were here first. I think that’s part of it,” Terrian said. “If the government at this point in time (built a course), I could understand people having a problem with that.”

Karasek said circumstances, not history, should dictate the necessity of government-owned courses.
“They were here first,” Karasek acknowledged. “But that doesn’t mean they have kept their end of the bargain as responsible citizens in the industry. Industries change, and needs change. It’s not unreasonable to say they should re-evaluate their position.”

‘Stealing customers’ Government-owned courses here and elsewhere have long viewed themselves as a means to provide recreation to residents at a low cost and introduce them to the game.
“We take pride in the growth of the game,” said Brandon Ransom, director of county and city parks under the reorganization this summer. “That’s a real niche for us.”

Terrian said it is a regular occurrence for him to be thanked by one of the senior-citizen golfers Sharp Park caters to with its low prices.
“They’ll say, ‘If I wasn’t doing this, I would be sitting home,’ ” Terrian said. “We try to make it affordable.”
That is where they run afoul of the privately owned courses. Those course owners maintain they are fighting on an unbalanced playing field when it comes to pricing.

“When they charge minimal fees, they’re stealing customers,” said Tony Spink, manager and in the ownership group of Calderone Golf Club, which opened in 2001. “It doesn’t make sense. It’s hard to convince people of that. They like the lower rates. But a businessman might understand if he had a gas station and was competing against the government.”
LaFaive offers another way of looking at the argument.

“When America wanted to help low-income people obtain more and better food,” he said, “we didn’t start government grocery stores; we developed food stamps.”

Steve Shotwell, chairman of the Jackson County Board of Commissioners and owner of Miller Shoe Parlor, said the government provides competition to his store.

“They have five or six shoe stores — Medicare, the state of Michigan provides shoes to youth,” Shotwell said. “I’m not afraid of competition. I welcome more of it.”

A primary advantage government courses enjoy is they do not pay property taxes.
“That changes everything,” said Karasek, who said his course pays some $30,000 a year in property taxes.

“Property taxes and capital investment — those two things represent the difference between survival and failure,” said Bill Schott, who pays $60,000 a year in property taxes on the 36-hole Hickory Hills Golf Course he has owned since 1982.

Private course owners contend that Sharp Park and Cascades benefit from the lack of a necessity to make a return on investment and the ability to handle debt with public money. The county parks received a $600,000 loan from the county’s delinquent tax revolving loan fund in 1999 for capital improvements to the course. The county allowed a delay in payments on that loan until 2005. It is being repaid through golf course revenue, Ransom said.

A renovation to Sharp Park Golf Course in 2000 cost $600,000. The city sold bonds that are being repaid through the city’s public improvement fund.

Such loans are virtually impossible for privately owned golf courses to obtain these days, Schott said, because of the industry-wide lack of profits.

“A golf course is considered a toxic asset,” he said.‘A stand-alone operation’

On the issue of using public money to sustain the golf courses, the two sides agree.
“If a single penny of taxpayer money goes to subsidize a golf course, it’s one penny too many,” LaFaive said. “This is the least necessary of least necessary government services.”

“They don’t subsidize it, and they shouldn’t,” Ransom agreed. “An activity like golf should be a stand-alone operation.”

That is what the county did with the Cascades course (including the short course and learning center) beginning in 2006. The course that at its peak generated more than $200,000 in annual profits for the county parks became a separate entity.
“We can’t post a red number,” Ransom said. “It’s not going to happen.”

The city handles Sharp Park in a different fashion that makes it more difficult to track exactly how well the golf operation fares financially.
The revenue from the golf course is added to the profit from the park’s miniature golf course and the learning center along with interest from the Sharp Park Endowment Fund, and that total goes toward expenses to operate the golf course and the rest of Sharp Park.

(The miniature golf course has been a financial bonanza with annual profits of $75,000 to $85,000 the past five years.)
Any shortfall is covered by a transfer from the city’s general fund. That amount has ranged from $67,000 to $142,000 the past five years, a figure that city officials say would be considerably higher without the golf operation. No money was needed from the general fund for many years before that.

While the cost of maintaining just Sharp Park cannot be determined, by way of comparison, the budget for maintaining Sparks County Park — separate from the Cascades Golf Course — is about $100,000 annually.
“People have gotten Sharp Park basically for free, based on golf,” Terrian said. “It’s been a plus for the community.”

LaFaive sounds a note of skepticism about government accounting practices.
“The ways that counties can make their courses appear cost-effective when they are not are endless,” he said, referring to golf course costs that can be charged to different departments.

LaFaive is among those calling for municipalities to sell or privatize/lease their golf courses.
Jackson’s city charter would require voters’ approval to sell any Sharp Park property. Property in Sparks County Park could be sold or leased by a vote of the County Commission — the head of which is a staunch supporter of the municipal courses.
“They’re a draw to the community, and they’re important,” Shotwell said. “They are prides and jewels of Jackson County.”

Matt_Ward

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2010, 03:09:54 PM »
What's interesting is that in certain locations the taxpayer-owned layouts are needed because existing land uses for other purposes -- including golf -- are so expensive that whatever privately-owned daily fee operations there are likely have much higher fees associated with them.

In other locales that's not the case.

Interestingly, the "right" answer will vary depending upon the circumstances tied to that area.

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2010, 05:11:14 PM »
This is as simply as i can put it:

If golf is going to survive and thrive, there are currently too damned many CCFADs and not enought munis.

That said, I don't think that golf has the standing it needs in most communities to get a tax subsidy.  Sadly, golf has an image problem that keeps it from getting the love that parks, softball complexes, soccer fields, etc. get.

K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Matt_Ward

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2010, 05:23:08 PM »
Ken:

Fair point -- but realize this -- even the CCFAD's need to develop fee-sensitive pricing in order to keep their tee sheets going. In the past they thumbed their noses -- I see more of a sensitivity to add various fee levels and loyalty programs with that in mind.

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2010, 08:25:18 PM »

If golf is going to survive and thrive, there are currently too damned many CCFADs and not enought munis.


Ken,

Just so I'm understanding you here.  Are you saying we need more munis or more affordable courses?  There is a huge difference between the two....

Ken

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2010, 12:59:21 AM »

If golf is going to survive and thrive, there are currently too damned many CCFADs and not enought munis.


Ken,

Just so I'm understanding you here.  Are you saying we need more munis or more affordable courses?  There is a huge difference between the two....

Ken

In my experience, the probability if getting muni-level affordability in a daily fee course approaches zero.... And if you insist that the course allows walkers at an even lower rate, the probabilty is lower than that.

I just spent 6 weeks in Arizona and one of the most enjoyable rounds I played was walking at Dobson Ranch--a Mesa City muni.

Yes, I might have been ablt to walk a couple of the other courses I played, but I assure you that as a walk-on single at a cartball course, I would have been treated like a leper by the guys I played with.

K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2010, 02:16:06 AM »
A few issues.  I find it difficult to be terribly sympathetic with golf course owners when they went into the business knowing some of their competition are government courses.  Second, I don't like the idea of public assets being dumped because folks don't like competition.  Umm, the competition is still there, but in a different name.  I would be in favour of munis leasing the operations of courses to private companies so long as the lease is not based on profit margins and folks living in the tax base area are given a break on fees. 

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2010, 02:58:57 AM »
If a government was to compete against your business on an unfair playing field, how would you respond?  Can a privately owned course compete against competition that doesn't have to pay property taxes, unemployment tax, income tax and can better utilize equipment?  Further in most states the taxation methods are the same for privately owned public course as they are for private ones.  In Michigan that method is broken, but I've vented on that before.  The only chance a new public course has is to have enough equity to be debt free post construction especially in seasonal settings.


Yes the government should be out of the entertainment and recreation business, but no one seems to remember how free bread at the Colliseum worked out for the Romans anymore...

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2010, 03:09:06 AM »
Slim

Thats a harsh line to take.  No public parks, national parks, state forests, swimming pools, ice rinks, ball diamonds, soccer fields, public school sports/recreation...?  I spose next it would be publicly owned cultural items to be privatized.  Most anything can be of a competitive nature if there is a buck to be made.  No, I would hate to see this kind of thinking ever prevail.  However, I am not against public assets being privately operated and managed. 

Ciao

New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2010, 03:27:30 AM »
Sean,
I think there is a pretty big difference between free parks / facilities and FEE facilities.  It is pretty unrealistic for a private party to compete in the fee arena.  Public parks, state parks, national parks make sense to me as a preservation of a community asset.  But a theater, a stadium, a radio station should be supported by those who utilize them.  To create a facility that exceeds the willingness of its users to carry its costs is the equivalent of stealing from those who don't.  I think the next time you get back in MI you should keep your eyes open for the number of High Schools with football stadiums with costs in excess of $5 million dollars.  Its wasteful.  I also think a number of the facilities you'd reference are a result of the WPA or similar projects of the past. Supporting all of these facilities is just another burden placed on those that don't use them.  I sit on three theater boards, I get it, believe me.


When I grew up, we made the ice rink ourselves, we played ball in a field and basketball in a barn.  Having seen the experience my sons get in organized youth athletics... I think I had it better.  I would also point out that policy for urban areas and vs rural policy rarely coincide.  Another fact lost on our government.  An urban center that has muni-courses due to population density is a done deal, but those sins should not be repeated just because somebody else did it.  I'm spending my weekdays in Chicago these days and my weekends at home here in the sticks of MI.  The same policies will not serve both constituencies, nor should they.

JT
« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 03:33:38 AM by Jim Thompson »
Jim Thompson

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2010, 05:10:36 AM »
Jim,

There's no such thing as a free park.  There's an opportunity cost associated with its land, let alone the maintenance costs to upkeep trails, shelters, boat ramps, or whatever it offers.  If you think a public service should only be paid for by its users, shouldn't the city calculate how much it costs to maintain the city park each year, along with the amortized value of the park as sold to the highest bidder (to be used for housing, commercial space, warehouses, whatever use will result in the highest bid)  OK, they might have to estimate its value, but they could ballpark it, and then figure out how much to charge people for a daily or season pass to access it.  My city has several dog walking parks.  I have no dog, so those damn dog owners are stealing from me!  Someone who has trouble walking is subsidizing all the sidewalks, why should they pay for them?  Maybe I should pay more, since I run regularly and get more use of them than most people?  Perhaps toll sidewalks are the answer!

Imagine how much NYC should sell Central Park for.  Of course they shouldn't, many New Yorkers enjoy it, but according to you those who use it are stealing from those who do not.  Thus the solution would seem to be to ask Donald Trump and other big NYC developers how much Central Park would be worth as real estate, amortize that into a yearly cost, add in all the maintenance to the park itself, and charge people for access.  It might see less use, but its terrible that all those years Greta Garbo lived there and didn't use the park, and those evil Manhattanites were stealing from her!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2010, 05:41:40 AM »
Long Island has a great number of private golf clubs, many pay-as-you go courses, county-owned and state-owned. There is such demand that only a Bernie Madoff scandal even in this economy could reduce the private club numbers.

This is where the government owned and operated courses have both the greatest impact and the greatest benefit for without it there would simply not be enough courses for the poubl;ic golfer who can't afford either private club membership or high-end daily fee courses to play.

What is the net result? Bethpage State Park PAYS for the majority of the budgets for the rest of trhe New York state PARK system. Not other golf courses, the entire park system! Those who want to spend a day climbing Bear mountain can thank those who play golf at Bethpage for covering the deficits that park runs up.

The problem in a discussion like this is that it IGNORES the success stories where EVERYONE in a state, county or community benefits. There are a number of them.

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2010, 08:31:18 AM »
THEY PAVED PARADISE AND PUT UP A PARKING LOT

Don't get Publicly-Owned and Publicly-Owned & Operated mixed up.  I see publicly-owned golf courses as much as 'open-space in perpetuity' as a recreational venue.  In Chicagoland, we have large chunks of land set aside in Forest Preserves.  Some of these have golf courses, same with the Chicago Park District.  They were operated in-house as part of the Forest Preserve and Park Districts and lost tons of money.  They leased out the course and guess what? Private Mgmt Cos came in, cleaned house and turned a profit in yr 1.

Coming from the camp of "there's nothing the Government can run more efficently than private industry", in a perfect world, we would have the government own the underlying asset but not operate it.  To level the playing field, lease out the facility on a long-term basis (long enough to allow the leasee to depreciate any capital improvements) and make a minimum annaul capital investment part of the lease along with a fees tied to some known escalator (CPI, max percentage/yr, etc.) in exchange for not having to ever had to pay for the underlying land or improvements.  They should also have to pay Real Estate tax (as a percentage of income) to level the playing field with privately owned facilities.
Coasting is a downhill process

Rob_Waldron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2010, 10:22:05 AM »
Tim

Thank you for pointing out the success of the privatization of the Cook County Forest Preserve and Chicago Park District courses in Chicago. These are great examples of affordable public owned courses being operated by professional managment as opposed to government. There are numerous municipally owned golf courses throughout the Country in need of professional management. The government mismanagement often leads to higher fees and declining product. These two portfolios are proof that municipal golf can provide an enjoyable experiience on well maintained courses at affordable prices and should serve as examples for other municipalities.     

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2010, 12:20:43 PM »
I've been to Central Park... I don't remember having to pay a fee to get in. That is what I meant in my usage of free.  Also, like I said, population density changes policy needs. The point being the New York Solution is not the same as the Montauk solution...

I'm pretty sure your opinion would change if you got to drive by your life's dream, seven years of your hard work and life savings, every Sunday on the way to church and saw that it was now owned by a municipality.  A municipality that used the tax fund you paid for as collateral for the loan they used to buy it from the bank who could have given you the same work-out plan, but wouldn't because you would still have to pay over 12% of your gross revenues in annual property taxes, whereas the municipality pays none.  The taxation issues for golf are the issue when it comes to the survival of privately owned golf.  Especially if you ever want to see golf course ownership and new course construction have a chance of not being an elite club.  The model for assessment on golf doesn't work and will continue to force close courses through out Michigan over the next ten years. I built a great product, was told by the local municipality that they would work with me because they wanted the public amenity to improve the local appeal.  They wanted it alright... and now they have it.

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2010, 12:33:49 PM »
I can see both sides. The argument that all these courses are drains on the general funds of the individual G'ments seems highly unlikely, and probably untrue. I know in the case of Sharp park in SF, it feeds the fund, not drain.  I'm sure there are plenty of other profitable muni's.

It boils down to managing them properly , but in many cases they are treated like any other graft and kickback related opportunities. Sad indeed!

I believe and agree with Jim There should be large tax allowances, as incentives for entrepreneurs, to entice them into entering the market. In that small way, leveling the playing field and removing the perception of "unfairness".

The CCFAD fad of the past, seemed focused on the wrong things, cart revenue, not the golf. Also, building unsustainable liabilities, in the form of a large clubhouse they shot themselves in the foot. But if they had a tax credit, maybe they could've prospered?

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2010, 12:34:43 PM »
Our muni pays unemployment taxes...etc etc....certainly not property taxes, but all taxes associated with having employees....and employees are a huge chunk of the budget.  And our local muni contributes something like $120k back into the general fund each year.....in other words it makes money for the county.

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2010, 01:09:30 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2010, 03:59:29 PM by Don_Mahaffey »

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2010, 01:15:36 PM »
Would this debate change if folks subsituted "public library" for "muni golf course," and "Barnes and Nobles" for "daily fee course"? Just asking....

Matt_Ward

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2010, 01:43:24 PM »
Phil Young:

Let's take the Long Island story shall we.

Years ago the privately owned daily fee course could expect a situation whereby with plenty of hard work and effort they could reasonably succeed.

Do yourself a favor and check the figures of just how many privately-owned daily fee courses still exist on LI. From what I know of the area that number has come down dramatically -- much of it due to escalating property taxes and other associated costs that private owners have to absorb in such a high expense territory. It has not helped that other muni's have been built -- I mentioned two of them previously -- Oyster Bay in Woodbury and Harbor Links in of all places Port Washington.

What you don't say is that many of these privately-owned facilties are far from the CCFAD models. Check out places like Middle Island, Pine Hollow and Spring Lake, to name just three. They do offer very reasonable price packages but I don't see how much longer they can hang on when they have to ABSORB costs that taxpayer-owned facilities do not have even bother with.

You mentioned private golf and frankly that segment of the marketplace has nothing to do with this discussion. Taxpayer supported layouts have played a role in further LIMITING the choices available to golfers -- the privately-owned layouts are disappearing rather quickly -- not just on LI but throughout the metro NYC area.

Phil, I don't doubt what Bethpage does but the concept of taxpayer-owned facilities is what provides for a split system -- the sheer array of golf course choices is limited because th etaxpayer-owned facilities have effecetively squeezed out all other competitiors -- save for the very private courses. In LI - you have two clear choices -- the private side or the taxpayer-owned side. In the former you have well designed top tier layouts for the most part -- the taxpayer-owned layouts have a range of benefits which have simply pushed the other public course options out of the picture.

Matt_Ward

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2010, 02:24:40 PM »
Phil McDade:

I can't speak to other jurisdictions -- but here in NJ public libraries are set-aside differently in terms of their funding streams from taxpayers. That means a public policy decision was made -- likely long ago -- that public libraries are a crucial item because of their tie to education and literacy for all people. The library argument is a nice try at providing some linkage to the golf debate but it's far from apples-to-apples in my mind.

Craig Sweet:

Where you live determines the cost of living issues faced. Someone living in the hinterlands doesn't have the same issues that someone in a very urbanized congested area faces. Taxpayer-owned courses in certain places of the USA make plenty of sense because privately-owned public layouts may either not exist or those that do are not hampered by the availability of such an alternative.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2010, 03:40:17 PM »
Phil McDade:

I can't speak to other jurisdictions -- but here in NJ public libraries are set-aside differently in terms of their funding streams from taxpayers. That means a public policy decision was made -- likely long ago -- that public libraries are a crucial item because of their tie to education and literacy for all people. The library argument is a nice try at providing some linkage to the golf debate but it's far from apples-to-apples in my mind.


Matt:

As both you and I know -- since we have both spent time as public officials distributing tax dollars -- what one constituency views as crucial is another's extravagence. I happen to think our local fire department has a few too many toys, especially given that I live in a decently sized metropolitan area with many fire departments that own similarly sized toys. The job of the local tax distributer -- sometimes known as an elected official -- is to spend the money in a way that is fair and equitable, it seems, and both meets the needs of the community and is viewed as prudent and wise by the taxpayer.

Matt_Ward

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2010, 04:11:37 PM »
Phil:

I agree.

Consolidations are needed given the public's quite rightful alarm at escalating costs.

In NJ it's shocking to see 610 school districts -- 300 of which have 500 or fewer students.

The same holds true for having 567 municipalities in a area than is roughly 8,000 square miles.

Phil, I served previously as President of my local board of education and now city council -- the simple fact is that public bodies resist change.

The library argument is a different one than the golf course debate. Libraries form the underpinnings of education and literacy -- for all ages and types. The golf side is more recreational. No doubt certain jurisdictions can have all the bells and whistles -- I marvel at Palm Desert in having a 36-hole muni complex at Desert Willow. Just really well done and quite nicely designed by the tandem of Hurdzan, Fry and Cook.

Unfortunately, there are other jurisdictions that should they move forward with a golf option need to keep that option for those who are just starting out -- provide a feeder to the better designed layouts. Too many jurisdictions have looked upn tax dollars as the wherewithal to create their own Olumpian golf village.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2010, 04:47:57 PM »
Matt:

I threw out public libraries as a sort of litmus test for those debating this issue. Public libraries offer "competition" to a private market, arguably a more egregious example than golf courses, as much of what you get in public libraries is free and of comparable value to what you get at a bookstore, vs. the muni golf course, where at least a green fee is paid. Yet all but the John Birchers among us would argue on behalf of the value of public libraries (and I say that as someone who lives two hours from the international John Birch Society headquarters!)

The real debate it seems is not just an issue of what's essential (fire and police protection, water and sewer), but also those things that provide some measure of public good that's available to all that provides opportunities for community betterment and enrichment. Few who regularly read my comments would be surprised that I like the idea of municipal pools; properly run, they can generate money to offset their expenses (and provide worthwhile summer employment for teenagers, something I wouldn't sneeze at these days). I also think muni golf has its place, but I think you're right (if I read between the lines correctly) that it's best done in moderation, and not overdone. I happen to live in a state -- Wisconsin -- that I think actually does muni golf the right way, with very few extravagent courses.

Matt_Ward

Re: Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2010, 05:03:22 PM »
Phil:

When we live in a world of cutting expenses -- the new determinaton of "public good" needs to be carefull calibrated. In certain jurisdictions the "public good" can have thriving myriad of services -- Palm Desert, CA is a good example of that. A community's overall income level in tandem with its property values can allow for such things.

Golf, at the end of the day, for the vast preponderance of USA communities, is still a frill.

Especially when weighed up against critical areas as public safety, refuse collection, etc, etc.

Phil, when you say 'community enrichment" -- that's fine. The private providers can do that -- and more than likely given the dearth of customers will now have to have a price point / loyalty program in which to keep them coming. The public realm for many communities will offer your fast food services that are essential. The tonier towns can and will provide more. Clearly, in many communities the idea of a golf course(s) is a wonderful addition but when weighed against other needs -- community arts center, expanded recreational center, new soccer fields, it will need to compete against a range of other highly pushed for "community enrichment" topics.

I believe golf design can follow what Common Ground did in the Aurora, CO area. Ditto what some of the better county-owned faciltiies have done in NJ with the likes of Monmouth, Morris and Somerset Counties. The best bet for golf is to have facilities that are geared towards the beginner and those that will attract players. Unfortunately, there are elected officials who believe the Chambers Bay situaton can easily be duplicated in their neck of the woods. Nothing like sipping strong kool-aid.  ;D