[archie_struthers]

 

Yo Matt , I wasn't even thinking of Emerald LInks but rather the NJ OPen Space Preservation Fund ....which has been used for anything but that for many years ...but let's move on , as past history only shows us what mistakes we should't repeat.

Why are you so hung up on the price gouging of the CCFAD , of which i was never a fan or part of.  They jumped on the NGF train and now are paying the price for their gluttony , as the old saying goes , little pigs get fat , big pigs get slaughtered.  By not building a loyal membership on following based on making your golfer feel that iyou cared and gave them an emotional stake, most of these are going by the wayside.  It's not up to the government to jump in and fill this void , let them go quietly into the night .

Mays Landing is a good lower level public club that has great food , good management , decent architecture and courteous service. How is that not a good lower tier facility?  I just don't see your logic . When the casinos in AC had the money rolling in the fatcats picked them dry , sucked all the equity out of them , and now are hopelessly burdened with debt and no cash to reinvest. Can you imagine paying a single employee more to retire than Resorts just sold for ....it happened in AC , and they are now struggling mightily.

Why am I the target for CCFAD"S gouging the public I ask again....having nothing to do with same....it proves nothing other than they screwed up , and now are losing their money.  but that's the point , it's their money they lost, not ours  !  So if I contue to cry out for no more high end muni's there's a good reason for it, irrespective of my personal losses .  So am I still tap dancing   Cmon be fair , there is no real logic to suppot building these places , iand they should not be subsidized by taxpayers.  Entry level , when no facilities exist is fine, but that's it.  We have no responsiblity to build anything else.

In the neighboring town of Linwood they got bids to rebuild the municipal builiding and them our state senate passed a bill ( do I hear project labor) that resulted in bids going from 1.2m  to a final price of 2.7m  , did government help us on that one. In OCNJ the citizens and local government did a great job buillding a beautiful new high school , at teh cost of $40m dollars ....they a wonderful job .  Yet ithe "School Construction Company " has proposed and if not for the recent intervention was going to build a slightly larger on in Millville for get this  $153 million, three times as much in Millville.  Costs in Millville are far lower and there are many contractors dying to work and feed their families and keep their houses . We can build down here for about 75% of what it cost in the heydey of real estate....but our government job is costing  3x more in a cheaper building environment .....as a taxpayer  "YOU WANT ON THAT WALL< YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL >>>  LOL     it took me six months of screaming to have someone figure out that something was wrong in Millville .....and you know what , it still might get built at that cost......helllooooooo NOONAN ..there are hundreds more examples littered throughout the state as we speak , hopefully good guys will help us police same. 

We need government and good elected officials , they should work to make sure that our infrastructure, health and welfare, civil rights and educational systems work well

 they shouldn't build golf courses or just about anything else for that matter.

[Craig Sweet]

Thirty years ago, the only 18 hole golf course in Missoula was the country club....a private club with a membership fee beyond the wages of many Missoulains...the University had a short little 9 hole course that was inexpensive, but not much of a course... then the county, not sure if they owned the land or did some swapping, built a course on land at Fort Missoula.....and the town had two courses....the public course quickly became the most popular course in Montana (rounds played) and the country club did not suffer...over time golf has grown in the valley...partially because the affordable public course turned on a lot of people to golf....and partially due to a big increase in population. Now we have another private course...The Ranch Club, and a privately owned and opened to th public course...Canyon River. When Canyon River was being planned there was some talk that the county would take it over and run the course....but that didnt happen. The developer got a housing development approved along with the course and that was that.

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

You mentioned the NJ Open Space Preservation Fund -- I'd like to see some specific instances to back up the claim you made.

The program has worked quite well in a number of areas that I am familiar with -- especially farm-land issues.

Archie, TD was not the course I was thinking about regarding price gouging -- but the marketplace in AC went off on that binge in a big time way in the late 80's and throughout the 90's. The issue was cherry-picking only the deepest of pockets -- when the market went south then the blame taxpayer courses started in earnest. These same courses could have built a loyalty program which provided for reasonable fees and all they did was drive those potential customers away. I shed very little tears for such people.

Archie, let me try to illuminate something you may not realize -- many municipalities here in NJ likely would not or could not get into the course business. They don't have land -- and with other more pressing issues it's doubtful the local voters would take a liking to all that $$ being siphoned off for such an effort. I did mention to you the counties in the state that have done well -- Morris, Monmouth and Somerset. They have provided a reasonable fee product and have designed loyalty programs -- even for out-of-county residents.

Archie, if you see Mays Landing in comparable terms with what the counties I have mentioned above provide then we see the issue in very different terms. I've played Mays Landing several times -- it is bare bones golf. I didn't say anything to knock the place in terms of its courteous service or mgmt.

By the way -- check out when gov't has built things -- my dad in his youth was active with the CCC and it did quite well. Ditto what the WPA did with Bethpage State Park.

Archie, I'll say this one more time so you understand clearly where I stand -- I have no desire to see taxpayer-jurisdiction build places like a Chambers Bay. But I do see government providing for accessible reasonably priced facilities that provide a recreational component for its citizens if it so chooses.

Archie, for the last time realize this -- in today's tough times it's highly unlikely that a public community will engage in such a masiveenterprise given all the other priorities that are already on the chopping block.

 

[archie_struthers]

 

matt , i'n not making much headway but the tone of the discussion is certainly better. i really don't give a damn what the CCFAD charge , just like i don't care what Ruth's Chris charges for a steak....if you can afford it go there , if not go to Chili's.

  My whole point is the government doesn't have to build golf courses to provide price controls , and no one should expect them to.  Why you think this is necessary surprises me.  Mays Landing is way nicer than  any of the public golf course we played as kids , and we really had fun and met tons of characters. About five of the guys ended up being pretty good players , among them Greg Farrow , a perennial contender for best pro in the Philadelphia Section.  When we caddied at Pine Valley we would travel every Monday to play  somewhere, and never paid exorbitant fees to play.  After work we sometimes played Freeway Golf Course , which had an interesting layout but was hard as it's name implied.  It was my first real experience with firm and fast ...except for the greens LOL.

My point , for the umpteenth time , is that short of entry level golf , keep the government out ........

Just for starters , how about the new dorms at Livingston , courtesty of our last Senate President Dick Codey for starters


ps    you might be surprised how much some of us know about NJ politics and golf   , amongst other things

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Again you MISSED the point i raised -- the CCFAD"s bitched and moaned about EL -- they didn't want competition. The sad fact is that when they opened their doors in the late 80's they could give two shits less about others because they had the deepest pocket people in mind. They only NOW care about the competition because the market went south. They should have cultivated such potential players from the get-go.

In regards to your knowledge of NJ poltics and golf -- no doubt you are aware.

Just realize that I am no less aware.

[archie_struthers]

 


Matt , I didn''t miss your point ...I don't care that they tried to fleece everyone...it helped us to be honest....a business can charge whatever they want and bitch about the governent , short of Wiki Leaks....guys are dying for those First Amendment freedoms we enjoy.   That the CCFAD are mostly in big trouble speaks to their failed business plan. If someone in authority thinks they are overcharging for gasoline , are we going to go into the reifinery business...it's a real slippery slope.




Again I ask ...do you thnk a function of government is to build nice golf courses that are priced below market

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Let me clue you in -- if the CCFAD's had priced themselves correctly from the get-go -- the likelihood of EL being successful would likely not have happened. The greed of select CCFAD's FANNED THE FLAMES BIG TIME -- that a low cost golf alternative was needed.

EL convinced people that gov't created golf was needed -- the marketplace did not have a reall good alternate to what the CCFAD's provided.

Archie, you can harp on the advantages of places like Mays Landing and Avalon all you want -- they are, for the most part, mediocre alternatives that are clearly behind the times of what people would like to have. Do plenty of people enjoy playing those courses. Sure. I say to them -- knock yourself out and play them at-will.

I want to say AGAIN in the event you retype something that I have not said -- if CCFAD's and other courses didn't cultivate other players when they had the opportunity I find the tears and pains suffered now as being nothing more than smokle and mirrors. If they had acted proactively to get the loyalty programs in place and had competitive pricing during the off-season months the likelihood that others would have stepped on their feet would have been next to zero.

[archie_struthers]

 

matt if they go broke it is their money .....if they run their buisness poorly , it's their money.......McCullagh's Emerald Links is just one example , but it's our tax moneythey are spending , without a referendum

now would you not dodge the question ??

Should government build courses that are nicer than Avalon , Buena, Hamilton Trails , Mays Landing, etc etc etc  and if so why  ?

Also should they get a free liquor license and if so would you suggest the other taxpaying clubs get one too

It's not exactly a yes or no but that would suffice for me 


ps Emerald Links is not successful it's losing at least $500, 000 a year by my estimates

[Matt_Ward]

Archie,

You still don't get it.

If the CCFAD's had reached out and created a loyalty program and off-season pricing to attract the area locals the likelihood of success for ET and other such courses would likely not have fared well -- even at all.

Archie, let me try this one more time -- the taxpayer-jurisdictions only start golf courses because of a need. If the need was not present -- the desire to justify a golf course paid by the local taxpayers would not have happened.

That's why I mention the fact that NJ has the 8th highest fees in the nation. If the CCFAD's had truly understood that growing the game at all levels would only help them in the long run then taxpayer-supported courses would never even enter the picture.

Archie, the places you mentioned are old in the tooth -- if a taxpayer-jurisdiction wishes to start a golf course so be it. And, if it's better it just means it offers a wider range of services than those dinosaur alternatives you mentioned. Like I said, if CCFAD's paid attention at the outset -- the need for other courses would be present.

They only cried when the market went south. Hard to takle them seriously when the sole motivation is to cherry-pick off the highest of the high customers and forget about the rest.



 

[archie_struthers]

 

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG  !

Is emerald links a success because

A)    it exists

B)  they lose money

C)  the architecture is decent

D) They got the taxpayers to guarantee the note without a referendum or understanding the deal

E) it improved an old eyesore / brownfield  


all are true ....so was the $12,000,000 well spent ?

[Kris Shreiner]

Matt, I don't know if we can state firmly that  government supported courses are created only in response to need. There are several cases(more for sure), especially during the go-go years, where the lure of "potential" profits ...served as a catalyst for politicos to endorse and fund golf those course projects, either purchase of existing or new, that are now in deep do-do!

Reading Country Club, PA. is one such facility that was purchased by a township and got in big financial trouble. Fortunately, they have an excellent superintendent and pro management team that was given a chance to turn the situation around and they have begun doingso. I recall another new course, also PA., that was community funded, higher end, as is in BIG trouble. I'm sorry the name escapes me, but it was solidly reported on and in a smaller community, near Harrisburg perhaps?

Point is, these government-backed golf projects come in all shapes and sizes. Archie may hang on the "basic golf" premise of government support financially, where my view would be more expansive and about value AND quality golf. But I think we all can agree, the era of higher end, government-supported CCFAD type courses should not be revisited!

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

Why do you say munis are only created in response to a need?  Wouldn't you concede that there are some cases where a guy in a position of power in the local government who wants to build a golf course will sometimes find a way to get it done even when it is not needed?  Likewise, there are (or at least were 2+ years ago when local government finances were less bad) communities that have a need that could be filled by a muni, but it isn't being build because of powerful opposition - pols who think golf is elitist, bad for the environment, would be a giveaway to surrounding landowners, etc.

While your arguments about private courses not always filling the need (or targeting higher end markets that are profitable during a good economy but face dire circumstances in the current economy) are correct, private developments will in general come closer to providing what the local market "wants".  And that's simply because those doing it put their own money at risk, and politicians driving a municipal development are spending someone else's money.  I won't lay down a single $50,000 bet on a blackjack table or roulette wheel....while I can afford the loss, its more than I'd feel comfortable losing of my own money.  But if you let me gamble with someone else's money, I'll have no problem laying down that bet

[archie_struthers]

 

Doug , Kris , bingo!

While I may feel even stronger (lol) due to my past experiences my mantra remains that only government should stay in the entry level golf business, period. The escalating costs of higher end facilities , and their ongoing maintenance and staffing needs should be left for the private sector. 

For every one Bethpage there are countless stories of failure and wasteful spending of taxpayers money. My personal issues with government competition bunred this into my soul. Sure  a great operator can survive this competiton, but when they harass you and play by different rules it's pretty hard. When we builtTwisted Dune  we preserved 260 acres from housing in an aleady overbuilt township. This was in keeping with the espoused preferences of the local pols, who have railed against rapacious developers for over a decade. 

I thought (lol) they might send a limo to make sure I came to work every day, instead they sent a hearse!

[Lou_Duran]

Archie,

You still don't get it.

Archie, let me try this one more time -- the taxpayer-jurisdictions only start golf courses because of a need. If the need was not present -- the desire to justify a golf course paid by the local taxpayers would not have happened.

That's why I mention the fact that NJ has the 8th highest fees in the nation. If the CCFAD's had truly understood that growing the game at all levels would only help them in the long run then taxpayer-supported courses would never even enter the picture.

Archie, the places you mentioned are old in the tooth -- if a taxpayer-jurisdiction wishes to start a golf course so be it. And, if it's better it just means it offers a wider range of services than those dinosaur alternatives you mentioned. Like I said, if CCFAD's paid attention at the outset -- the need for other courses would be present.

They only cried when the market went south. Hard to takle them seriously when the sole motivation is to cherry-pick off the highest of the high customers and forget about the rest.

Matt knows that I like him  and respect his extraordinary golf course knowledge and experience, so I hope that he doesn't take what I am about to write personally.   As both an avid golfer and a businessman, Matt's comments are disappointing to me not only because they are mostly nonsense, but because as a councilman he is a fiduciary and his attitudes betray the notion of competent government.

The broad generalization that "taxpayer-jurisdictions only start golf courses because of a need" is so demonstrably wrong that it doesn't take but a couple sentences to refute.  In Texas as I am sure elsewhere, the apparition of the municipally-owned or public/private sector "JV" upscale daily-fee golf course took off in the early 1990s as one community after another wanted to keep up with "The Joneses".  It was not a matter of providing affordable golf in markets neglected or avoided by the private sector, but as direct competition to existing facilities under the often unexplained guise of expanding the tax base by spurring surrounding development.  I can name a half-dozen such courses off the top of my head.

Matt offers "the fact that NJ has the 8th highest fees in the nation" as proof that "(if) the CCFAD's had truly understood that growing the game at all levels would only help them in the long run" and, it seems to follow, that if they weren't so dull and greedy, "then taxpayer-supported courses would never even enter the picture".

Matt, do you think that, perhaps, the "fact" that NJ is among the top three states in terms of heaviest tax burden, among the most regulated, and, as a consequence, near the top as well in the cost-of-living, that perhaps that may have a little to do with the price of golf green fees?  Could it be that a hyper-expensive real estate market and environmental regulations that make development difficult and costly might have a little to do with how much a course has to charge to provide golf rounds?  On top of that, add the indignity of the government then entering into direct competition in such a difficult market with capital, development, and operating advantages the private owners could only dream of, AND for them to have to subsidize it!  It is not pity the private sector asks for, only the fairness, "level playing field", and respect it deserves.

Finally, I am not very familiar with the NJ golf scene- I could not even gain an invite to PV when I was traveling more- but this issue did not just surface "when the market went south".  From Day 1, a government that "progressively" strays beyond its traditional roles with such ease has alarmed most of us who disproportionally end up paying for it.  Again, when you state "Hard to takle them seriously when the sole motivation is to cherry-pick off the highest of the high customers and forget about the rest" you betray such a lack of understanding of the role of business and government that it is truly frightening, not so much because I know that you are sincere in your convictions, but because these are probably not unusual or unique among those who populate the ruling class.  

  



    

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

I can't speak nationwide but I can address what a number of counties have done here in NJ and why they have done what they have done. The folks in those counties -- namely Morris, Monmouth and Somerset counties, had a pent up need for golf. The showed their voters the capacity to manage what was already in operation and for many residents of those counties the alternate golf reality was not likely -- that would mean private golf and/or high-priced CCFAD's with prices in the high double digits to even triple digits fees. In all of the cases I mentioned above -- the respective counties have done well financially -- not causing additional drain on already strapped taxpayers. In sum -- they even add to the bottom line for the other activities that the respective counties operate recreationally that don't draw anything close to the revenues the golf courses produce.

Doug, let me help you out with your assumption that maybe some half-cocked official will go off like Robert Moses and decide to add golf when it's not needed or can be documented to be successful. Is there a real possibility for that to happen. Sure. How likely is that to happen in today's dire financial climate? Not very. The due diligence and discovery process that various hearings would provide could likely sink that situation from happening because when weighed against other gov't needs that are more pressing.

In my mind, CCFAD's only spurred counties in NJ, and even some municipalities, to add this element to their recreational portfolio. The fees were excessive for CCFAD play and frankly the counties were able to use set-aside $$ for open space presevation / recreation with such a proposal for golf development.

Doug, let me say this as someone in the elected arena -- politicians who willy nilly move ahead with such granidose projects had better make sure they have all their ducks lined up for such situation to move ahead. In today's climate of every dollar being squeezed such efforts will not happen without a documented and well supported plan to support such enterprises.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

I like you too ...

but ...

"mostly nonsense" -- really ? No real understanding of "competent government." Surely you jest Lou !

Lou, I don't claim to know the TX marketplace and you surely don't have a clue on what goes on here in NJ. Your conspiracy argument that ALL TAXPAYER JURISDICTIONS (my EMPHASIS) got into the business to keep up with "the Joneses" is rubbish. The high-priced CCFAD's here in NJ simply only wanted the AMEX deep pocket types to frequent their places. Few, if any, made any real and concerted effort to grow th egame by developing loyalty programs or off-season passes and the like that would grow the game for the benefit of all. The folks on the short end of the stick who could not afford such facilities lobbied successfully for accessible and affordable golf alternatives. They have proven to do well in those locales where mgmt has watched the situation closely -- I mention again the likes of Morris, Monmouth, and Somerset Counties here in NJ.

You say in TX the issue of "spurring surrounding development" was the real reason. Fine. Maybe for TX - but NOT for NJ and other Northeast states. The development was already there and frankly the preservation of open space / recreational needs has been a high agenda item for NJ residents for quite some time. No bond issue to preserve open space has ever been defeated here. Just to clue you in -- TX has no density issues of population -- you can spin from one end of the state and it will likely blow to the other without being impeded. NJ has the most people per square mile in the nation and having land for open space / preservation and with golf being a part of that mixture was a real blessing.

Lou, you are quick to cite the tired Republican blather about high taxes being prevalent here -- but you fail to mention that disposable income is also at the top of the charts -- only CT, if memory serves, is higher than the Garden State.

With all due respect, under your byzantine rationale there would be no need for public universities -- they compete against private schools and therefore are beyond the"tradiitional" (always limited) notion of how you see government. Ditto so are public libraries -- so are other receational elements that various towns and counties provide such as tennis courts, community centers which offer classes such as art and dance whch surely compete against other private providers.

I said this before and I will repeat -- when public courses have been pushed through various taxpayer jurisdictions here in NJ at least -- the process is quite involved and is not done in such a cavalier manner to throw $$ away or to simply seek to push under private operators of daily fee golf. I can't speak to the mechinations that Archie exprienxced in his "neck of the woods" and it pains me that further reviews were not carried out by others by I see that episode as more exception than th erule. Is NJ expensive to do business? Sure. But the silly and inane idea that taxpayer-golf has been the bane of such efforts underscores the ignorance of those who live elsewhere and not here.

With all due respect to my good friend in the Lone Star State.

[archie_struthers]

 


Merry Christmas.

Even a stubborn red-head can only beat his head against a brick wall forever , so i'm finally running out of blood on this one. Matt ,God Bless you , you just don't get it ....to compare the need to educate the next generation and builidng golf courses is inane.  The analogy just doesn't make it. 

You have never explained to me why the governnent needs to own courses nicer than Avalon or Mays Landing , as historically they have been two of the most successful blue colllar golf courses in the area.  If a subsidized entity is built in proximity to either, isn't it unfair competition?   If it fair to the owners of Avalon and Mays Landing , who have built their business over twenty years and have paid over $3,000,000 in property taxes over that period , to have this built in their backyard.  Please don't go off about the greedy CCFAD's ,  they are not pertinent to the question. 

If i can get a clear answer on this , we may find some more middle ground .  Cheers

 

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Let's just say there will always be casualities in the golf course business.

Mays Landing and Avalon, plus a few others, deserve credit for what they provide. But under your rationale no public course could ever be created for golf purposes -- save for those that are geared only towards the most lowest of low levels.

Archie, suffice to say, we see things differently. You had a very bad experience and while no one can appreciate the multitude of horrors you suffered I believe it's clouded your judgement on the variety of points I have raised.

Suffice to say - you won't convince me and likewise on the return end.

Merry Xmas to you and yours !

[Lou_Duran]

Lou, you are quick to cite the tired Republican blather about high taxes being prevalent here -- but you fail to mention that disposable income is also at the top of the charts -- only CT, if memory serves, is higher than the Garden State.

"Republican blather"?  You mean that high taxes are not prevalent there?  Boy, what a monstrous conspiracy that must be involving not only the IRS, but the NJDT, the local govt. authorities, and all financial reporting news services.  Who knew?  Please make sure you get the true information out so the over 10,000 NJ residents who left their wonderful state and moved to Texas between 2006-2008 (DMS, 12/21/10) can turn around and head back home before Christmas.   

BTW, comparisons of taxation levels are typically not in $ collected, but based on the highest marginal rates levied against various activities and property.

BTW2, Your point "that disposable income is also at the top of the charts", if true, makes for a better argument AGAINST the public subsidizing golf- with so much "disposable income" why the need for govt. to pay for lower green fees?         

Finally, attributing comments or arguments to me that I never made (e.g. "Your conspiracy argument that ALL TAXPAYER JURISDICTIONS (my EMPHASIS) got into the business to keep up with "the Joneses" is rubbish.") detracts from the discussion and reinforces my suspicion that I am just wasting time on this site.  It would have been more productive if you just addressed the questions and arguments posed by Archie and others.   Please don't feel obligated to respond; probably more than enough has been said.

[Craig Sweet]

lou...no offense but taxes are too low...they need to go up to a level closer to the end of Reagans term...second thought...I dont think people left NJ for Texas (if that is even true) because taxes were too high in NJ....I think you will find most studies show that people move from state to state, and often interstate, seeking a better job opportunity.  And Lou, those jobs are not there due to a more favorable tax situation...they are there because there is a work force willing to accept a lower wage.

I dont know if it was Matt that said disposable income is at an all time high, but that is simply not true. For 90% of working Americans wages have stagnated or have gone down over the last 30 years.  If they had not tapped into the equity in their home...equity that has evaporated in the last two years...they would not have been spending like drunk saliors in the 90's and early 2000's...

And lastly....

There is nothing wrong with government providing roads, schools, quality education, recreation facilities, police and fire protection, a basic level of health care, etc.  These are what make the commonwealth...the common good that benefits the entire community. 

[archie_struthers]

 

Lou you are not wasting your time , there are kindred spirits here who love golf and their country but not necessarily either party.  As long as they keep us polarized the country will not be succeed to the level that many of us would like.  

I've enjoyed many of the discussions of architecture here , and hope that I haven't muddied the waters trying to get a response from Matt on specific issues .  I'll forgive him . and hope he sees the light.  Imagine if many of us didn't protest , the government would own everything in short order .  !

Craig , lucid and well said but  lots of facts in LOu's analysis.  They may have not gone to Texas in droves , but Florida is littered with transplants from my neck of the woods, who have left to get away from the taxes and regulatory agenciesl.

e.g   my friiend is building a 133 foot addition to an existing exterior deck on his home of 30 years . His costs for permits so far are $4300 and counting, legal fees not included  ...the costs to build the deck will be about   $7500  ..so   the permit fees will soon equal the costs of construction

Under NJ State Tax Code an owner of three small businesses can't offset losses in one to offset gains in another So if you net $200, 000 in real money you might be taxed on $300k on your state income.. wants you want to invest more doesn't it    

so on and on it goes, and we are losing good buinesses and residents to Fla. and the Sun Belt every day ....

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

Let me point out that high taxes unfortunately have happened for a whole host of OTHER reasons -- not tied to the debate we are having concerning the issues in whether or not government should be involved in having golf course facilities. I have mentioned a few of the key counties here in NJ that have done an outstanding job in providing quality and affordable golf courses and the profits from these facilities have not COST ONE ADDITIONAL CENT for taxpayers -- they have actually provided additional $$ back to the general fund and allowed for other programs to be funded to some degree while also preserving for open space. In my mind, that's a good deal no matter how you spin it.

Lou, allow me to help your clouded misunderstanding -- people leave NJ because the overall economy (JOBS, JOBS, JOBS) is the driving engine for that to happen. Taxes are high but NJ does provide much that other states don't do.  

The higher disposable income situation I mentioned -- is not going up further but in reality has likely peaked -- the net migration out of NJ is because of newer areas where job growth, the #1 factor, is happening. Plus throw in the so-so weather and the overall clutter / congestion and those are the central reasons for the dissatisfaction for many in staying here.

Lou, you were the one who said that in TX -- I'm assuming that's the place you are most familiar with -- that various taxpayer jurisdictions got into the course business to keep up with The Joneses.

Here is you direct quote in BOLD ...

"In Texas as I am sure elsewhere, the apparition of the municipally-owned or public/private sector "JV" upscale daily-fee golf course took off in the early 1990s as one community after another wanted to keep up with "The Joneses".  It was not a matter of providing affordable golf in markets neglected or avoided by the private sector, but as direct competition to existing facilities under the often unexplained guise of expanding the tax base by spurring surrounding development. "

I indicated to you that in NJ that was not the case and I explained why. If you can't hack a different opinion that's not my fault. Lou, last point, try to realize that the involvement of gov't is not something I advocate along the Chambers Bay model -- I do believe golf at a lower emphasis point -- like a CommonGround in CO -- and what Doak has done in MI I believe, is a good way to go to spur player interest and long time involvement in the game.

Simple as that partner.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Isn't it odd that those jobs appear in states that have less taxes?  As for lower wages, it costs a hell of lot less to live in Texas than NJ.

The 2010 Census shows that fastest population growth was in states with low or no income tax.

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

It's quite simplistic -- states that are progressive also have expense items that the other states either don't do or even ignore.

Let me also point out the migration to warmer climates is also an element many forget to mention. Ditto the clutter and congestion.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Matt,

    I probably just don't understand the "situation" ya'll are in.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()