The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick would have us believe that in 1906 CBM had selected 18 Ideal holes that he wanted to reproduce at NGLA.

Amazingly, he further argues that the land was so perfect that all of these 18 specific ideal holes just magically fell into the landscape, end to end like dominoes, and that the course just created itself, as if by God-ordained intervention.

The truth?

Well, as you might imagine...

First, here's CBM's list of 18 Ideal Holes from an article he penned in the 1906 Outing Magazine, as reproduced in his book.   Does this look like NGLA to you?

No, of course not.   Some of his holes were in there, but most were not reproductions, nor were they intended to be, as CBM's own thinking on this issue had evolved over the years, as noted by Horace Hutchinson and others.





Now, here's CBM ACTUALLY telling us what he created at NGLA, and how they did it.  

Only 5 of the holes were meant to be copies...the rest were either composites of various features he liked from holes abroad, or they were originals.




Here's Horace Hutchinson on the matter;




and Mr. Darwin;




And if the hole just so perfectly fit the ground that the routing just routed itself, then why did he need Seth Raynor to do this?





I'm not sure why Patrick would want to minimize the effort it took for CBM to lay out such a complex undertaking.

Can it be that he wants to give him authorship of a one-day routing at Merion so badly that he has lost all objective reason and judgment here?

[Andy Hughes]

In The Evangelist, George says that CBM made an offer for Shinnecock's golf course. Is this claim in error?

Mike, do you have any ideas where the Founders' lots were to be located?  I have never been to NGLA, but looking at the aerial that has been posted here it is hard to see the extra land, or at least anything remotely approaching 90 acres.  Also, it seems to me awfully hard to get around the fact that CBM's one prior attempt to purchase land (assuming George was in error regarding Shinnecock Hills GC) certainly did not include any land at all for Founders' lots. That suggests to me that if it was a priority at all it was a small one.

How many Founders were there? I have read 60 and 100.

When you stand behind the Eden, but with only a northern direction to follow along Bulls Head Bay, the Cape concept seems to unfold in front of you, naturally.  He states the sequential nature of the routing.  After he explains locating and formulating his Eden, he states, "Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."  So, I think that in finding one setting for one of his template holes, the Eden, by default, he found the next, the Cape.  A Eureka moment as you declared

Thanks Pat.  But if it was found that way, doesn't that suggest that he did not really have 18 predetermined holes and these holes were then draped over the 205 acres?  Never having been to NGLA, how well do you believe the list Mike reproduced below (I am assuming that is the same list you said was on page 184) matches with what CBM created at NGLA?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

As David Moriarty pointed out, Mike continues to reference a "concept" that was at odds with reality.

One only has to look at the attempted purchase of the 120 acres located just West of NGLA to understand that the concept had been abandoned prior to CBM ever setting foot on NGLA.

The abandonment of that concept continued when CBM examined NGLA for the first time.

CBM only took as much land as he needed for his golf course, which turned out to be 205 acres.

BUT, he could have purchased an additional 245 acres for lots/homes if that concept had any merit with him,, but he didn't, he deliberately chose NOT to purchase any land for lots, despite the fact that he had a huge parcel at his disposal.

Why ?

Because now that he had found the land to place his ideal golf course upon, he didn't need the "marketing sizzle" of member lots to attract investors/members.

If the "concept" had been a serious one, CBM would have gobbled up additional acreage, but, we know he didn't.

You'll also note, in "Scotland's Gift", in the chapter dedicated to NGLA, that land for lots/housing was NEVER mentioned.

Even when he was going to buy the 120 acres to the West, 2,000 acres were available, yet he never made any offer for any land other than that land dedicated to the golf course.

Furthermore, once NGLA was built and being played, neither CBM or NGLA bought any additional land for the purpose of siting lots/homes.

The notion of member lots was a concept, even a marketing ploy, meant to attract prospective members.

But, when it came time to buy land for the golf course CBM never attempted to buy surplus land for lots, despite the fact that ample land was available for that purpose..

Mike continues to flail and strike out in desperation, fueled, aided and abetted by the "phillyphiles" (;

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

CBM ended up using much more than 110 acres for NGLA over time, probably close to 160-170 acres of the 205 he purchased.   I have never claimed that NGLA ended up being 110 acres...that's just how my position has been misrepresented, but it's clear from all of the evidence that he went into the securing of that property with that general estimate in mind.

This shouldn't be surprising or shocking.   We've seen in 1915 where Max Behr writes that the average ideal course takes up about 100-110 acres.   We've seen where in 1910 CBM told Merion that he thought they "could" put an ideal course down on roughly 120 acres, and we've seen where CBM made an offer to the real estate company for 120 acres for his golf course prior.

We've also seen Mr. Behr tell us that the most efficient routing in terms of land usage was an out and back routing, so it had nothing at all to do with the site, the routing strategy, or anything else but consistency with his overall plan goals that led CBM to once again purchase his magic number of 205 acres at Sebonac Neck.

My assumption is that CBM would have located his building lots around the perimeter of the course, in specific places as his routing progressed, but that's just supposition on my part.  Whether the course he built was as "wide" as we see in today's aerials is unclear, but we know that even in early development he wanted what he termed to be "ideal" 50-55 yard wide fairways, on average.

However, we know he built bigger.   The course he built has gigantic fairways, averaging over 70 yards at their widest points, with some over 100 yards wide.

Once again, I'm guessing, but I think that reality overcame theory once CBM started building his course, and he realized that to create avenues of play for the weaker golfer "around" his intimidating hazards meant that he had to really significantly widen his holes.

In the preceding years he had railed against the idea that fairways needed to be wider than 50-55 yards, but when it came down to it, CBM was the worst offender, not that it was a bad thing.

I also think that more of the land down near Bullshead Bay than CBM anticipated was indeed worthless for any purpose.   He wrote that his course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile, but besides the litle bit down by the Eden and the Cape, the course really turns inland from there and the Bay is not even in view  on the next two holes.  1908 articles on the construction talk about the unexpected number of areas that were swampy, or that had to be filled, and I think the combination of increasing hole widths, evolutions in his routing plan, and land discovered to be unfit for golf or housing eventually chipped away at his ideas for building lots.

Not that I think CBM minded a whole bunch...he had what he needed...money in hand from the Founders, and his focus was clearly on golf.

This 1912 map shows the areas shaded that were not golf course but still fell within the property boundaries.   I'm not sure if it is meant to represent all 205 acres;




If CBM had indeed already routed his course in December 1906, it is unlikely he'd still be talking much about building lots, but it's clear that as the project progressed, and the routing using the best land forms got fleshed out, that idea for building lots got pushed to the wayside.

Patrick mentions a personal anecdote with George Bahto in what is an obviously transpoarent to make it appear that our friend George agrees with his theories that NGLA was routed in a day or two on horseback.

However, I wonder how that could be as here is what George wrote about the routing of NGLA;

From "The Evangelist of Golf", pages 62-64;

"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course.   The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs.   In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."

"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property.   To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based.  Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."

"...From the survey, Macdonald made a rough sketch of the holes he planned to build, and with Raynor, located potential sites and elevations for greens, tees, and turning points in the fairway.   Macdonald tinkered endlessly with the routing plan.   Finally, after months of planning, he was ready to move to the next step..."

"...C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan.   Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp.   Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"

"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."

"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking.   Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography.   They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."

"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification.   The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain.   The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."

"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction.   Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."

"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams.   A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created!   It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil.  Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."

p.s.   I just read Patrick's response to you.

As you can see from the map I just posted, as well as all of the associated documentation earlier this morning, CBM did NOT buy just the land he needed for the golf course.

Patrick also mentions the previous offer for 120 acres that CBM made to the developer.   That land was down by the canal connecting Shinnecok and Peconic Bays, an area where subdivisions for housing existed by 1906, and were certainly planned in concept by the time CBM made his offer.

In the following map, you can see the canal on the far left, as well as the general area that had been already surveyed and subdivided.

There would have been NO NEED for CBM to buy additional land for housing there.

The land he ended up with, land that everyone thought was "worthless", and which was NEVER subdivided, is in the upper right.

[Andy Hughes]

(bring back the stymie gauge!)

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Perhaps we can all agree on that one!   

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

From that larger map here's a blow-up of the region, and I have the 450 acres that made up the "worthless" land of Sebonac Neck encircled in red.   The shaded areas around it represent all of the already sub-divided lands of Shinnecock Hills available for purchase.

It's clear that the area of Sebonac Neck had not been sub-divided...hell, it hadn't even been surveyed according to CBM.   As we know as well, it was NEVER subdivided and most of the remainder is today Sebonack GC.

Yet David and Patrick are trying to make it seem that it was the same type of deal as down by the canal.

Why do you think they need to fudge stuff like that?

Also..you were asking earlier about the location of the Shinnecock Inn....this should give you a pretty good sense.   Hope it helps.

[DMoriarty]

Was looking at the development map and particularly at the two locations marked "National Golf Course."    

1.   Those locations, particularly the bottom one, speak to the absurdity of Mike's claim that there were no sites for houses near NGLA.  "National Golf Course" almost appears to be part of "Block 97."    The Inn was built by SHPBRC to get people out to look at lots, but I suppose that the Inn isn't near the lots either?  

2.  Wasn't this map first published in the early spring 1907?  If so, then that would still be within the option period, would it not?    Then why is "National Golf Course" marked where it is currently located yet the rest of Sebonack Neck is marked "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company?"    According to Mike, CBM should not even had definitely chosen his land yet.  It was "undetermined."   Sure looks like the location is determined to me.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike, There are probably a dozen questions you haven't answered, yet you again insist I continue to answer your endless questions?  You are a piece of work.  

1.  The routing.  

According to your previous posts, you and I are in agreement that CBM described routing the course when he wrote that they "studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [CBM] had in mind."  In Scotland's Gift that occurred before CBM optioned the property.   Those articles also indicate that this had taken place before CBM took an option on the property.   So I believe that CBM had, at the very least, a rough routing of the course in place before CBM took an option on the property.
  Unlike you, I am not going to blindly speculate as to exactly what features had been placed and what hadn't at this point.  He doesn't tell us that.    As I said before and have maintained from the beginning, the planning of the course was ongoing at this point so obviously not every single feature was in place.  
  And I am not going to buy into your oversimplified version of  exactly what must have been in place for us to consider it a "routing."  For one, such a discussion is a waste of time in that none of us have the information to meaningfully say exactly what was in place one way or another.  For another, your definitions fall apart when applied to a unique course like NGLA.  Take your all-18-tees-and-greens-in-place requirement.  Sounds simple, but CBM wasn't as simple or formulaic in the way you apparently think he was.  
   -  For example, the location and hole concept of the Alps hole was obviously in place from the very beginning. Yet it seems that even in 1909 through 1911 (when they were already playing the course) they were still grappling with the proper location of the tees to create the  "ideal" length for this hole.   So by your oversimplified logic, the routing was not yet in place even after they were playing on the course, including this hole.
  -  For another example, on the green end, the location and hole concept of the Sahara was also reportedly in place early, yet even after they were actually playing the course there was some discrepancy and hesitancy about the exact size and location the green, and therefore the length of the hole itself.   So by your oversimplified logic, the routing was not yet in place even after they were playing on this hole as well.  

   To me, saying that CBM had a rough routing in place means that CBM had a good idea of  the "route," path, or "course" the golfer would take from beginning to end, and that CBM had a good idea where each individual golf hole would fall along this path, meaning he had a good idea of each hole's general location amongst the natural features, and each hole's approximate distance and direction.  But if you want to pretend like you know exactly when he placed all of the tees and greens, be my guest.
_______________________________________________________

2.  The October Articles.    

You carelessly misrepresented my position and now you are demanding I set the record straight even though it is all right there in a previous post.   Classy again.   You seem to think that I am here to correct your misrepresentations, and I guess I understand why --I have had to correct hundreds of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations over the years.  But I wish you'd start doing a little self-correcting, at least when it comes to your misrepresentations of my positions from past posts. They are as available to you as they are to me.

This situation is a perfect example of how you operate.  Let's review . . .
1.  You have a point to make --that very little was done prior to the mid-December option agreement.
2.  The October articles (which report that they were already busy with the site in October and that they had already created and distributed maps) directly contradict your point.  
3.  Rather than consider how this information impacts your point, you simply ignore the information and/or dismiss it as inaccurate and unreliable
4.  To this end, you simply make crap up about what I think without even bothering to go back and check what I had actually wrote about the articles.
5.  When I call you on it, you still don't bother to go and look at what I wrote.  Instead you demand I tell you about the "errors" in the articles.  

That is how you operate.  Again and again. And yet you wonder why we get frustrated with you and your intentions?  

Rather than slamming and discarding these articles as you suggest I did, I actually tried to consider the impact of the articles on the state of our knowledge at the time.  And unlike you, I didn't hastily jump to agenda driven conclusions.   Among other things . . .
-  I cautioned against dismissing the articles as mistaken just "because it is convenient to do so," yet this is exactly what you are doing.    
-  I wrote, "we should at least consider the possibility that some mapping was done by this date."
-  I noted, the articles require us to reconsider our assumed timeframe and "perhaps stretch it out quite a bit."
-  I noted, "it is entirely possible that the land was surveyed sometime after CBM and HJW first rode the land and when they secured on option in December 1906, whether by SHPBRC or at CBM's behest."
-  I noted, according to the articles, "we also know that, by mid-October, they had reportedly visited the site several times" and that the  "land may have been already surveyed at this point" and that maps, even if simple, might have been created.

The only mention I made of possible errors was to note that the announcement that CBM had purchased the property was "premature" and that we could only speculate about the accuracy of the rest, but even here I cautioned against dismissing it out of convenience!

In other words, Mike, you blatantly misrepresented my position and unjustifiably discarded these articles to try and make your  point.   What you ought to discard is your theory rather than the source material undermining it.

______________________

So Mike,  now that you can see that I don't believe the articles were riddled with errors, here are a few related questions for you--

1.  If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?

2.  And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?

3.  And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?  

4.  And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I have to run, but, did you notice, on the map, the two roads that would cut right through the Sebonack Neck property, the road that cuts right through # 8 and # 11.

It must not have been as undeveloped as Mike indicates.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

You and Pat need to get your stories straight on those Oct articles.

Pat isn't going to like the fact you believe they had the property surveyed, mapped, and were seeking design assistance from foreigners months prior to even securing the property.

How the heck will that jive with his Instant Routing theory?

I'll reply in detail early next week.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Whether the property was surveyed before or after their initial ride is immaterial.

It was the initial ride that determined the routing vis a vis the configuration of the land they wanted, which has been described/defined numerous times.

When you look at the entirety of the 450 acres and consider that they chose a very long, very narrow strip, bordered on three sides by natural and defined boundaries, the routing was immediately preordained.  It had to be an out and back routing.

The only thing needed was to locate CBM's 18 ideal/classical holes within the framework of that long, narrow strip of land.

CBM tells us that the holes just "popped" out to him.

As to the newspaper articles, you know that I've always doubted their accuracy.

We know that the "foreignors" you allude to didn't examine the property prior to CBM's initial ride, because you told us it was inpenetrable.  CBM himself states that only he and JW examined it on ponies for 2-3 days, and that only he and JW determined it was what they wanted, so I don't see anyone assisting CBM and JW with the initial study of the land, the study that resulted in them determining what land they wanted for their golf course.  Once they selected that long, narrow strip, bordered on three sides, the basic routing was done.  It was preordained as an OUT and BACK routing.

If "foreignors" were consulted with, it wasn't on the initial ride to determine the land needed to route the golf course.
And, as I stated, once CBM and JW selected that long, narrow strip, bordered on three sides, the basic routing was done.

CBM had to make sure that the company would sell them this land for the right price, since they had just previously rejected CBM's offer on land, West,  just down the North Highway.

Once the company agreed to sell the land, CBM and JW returned to locate his ideal/classic holes on the long, narrow strip of land, bordered on three sides, that they had selected earlier.

CBM tells us that was an easy task, that some of the holes immediately identified themselves, and that he placed the most famous holes first, thereby placing the remaining holes in the gaps within the routing.

The 18 link chain provides the easiest analogy.

I think David and I are in complete harmony in that the initial ride determined which parcel of land they wanted, and that once they selected the Eastern most parcel, a long, narrow parcel, bordered on three sides, the die was cast as to the routing.
It would be an OUT and BACK routing where the course essentially routed itself, just as Max Behr stated.

[Mike Cirba]

 Pat,

Do you really believe those October articles are accurate?

Which parts?

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Can you show me where CB says the holes just "poPped"? And where Behr said the routing laid iself out?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,


I asked you a few straightforward questions.  You failed to answer.  Again.   Why is it that you are incapable of defending your own position without deflecting, changing the subject, going off on a tangent, muddying the waters, or some other bush league avoidance tactic?

Patrick and I don't need to get our stories straight on anything.  We can and do each think for ourselves and are each responsible for our own ideas.  Neither of us has a drunken peacock whispering in our ear.  Quit trying to deflect attention for the failings of your own theories by saddling him with my ideas or me with his. 

I answered your questions.  Now start answering mine.

1.  If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?

2.  And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?

3.  And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?   

4.  And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Can you show me where CB says the holes just "poPped"?

Since you want to be in denial about this, I'd be happy to cite where CBM states this.

After finding the setting for his Alps green, CBM stated:

"Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and find a perfect Redan which was absolutely natural."


It doesn't pop out any more quickly than that does it Mike ?

How is it that I answer all of your questions, but that you NEVER answer David's or my questions ?[/b]

And where Behr said the routing laid iself out?

I NEVER used the term "laid" itself out.  Why would you deliberately misquote me ?[/b]

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm on a blackberry and you and Patrick's questions are beyond stupid and insulting.

Still, I'll do ny best to discuss such ridiculous matters as the golf course routing itself when I get back to a computer later in the weekend.

In the meantime, don't let me delay your ongoing search for the truth here. 

[DMoriarty]

David,

I'm on a blackberry and you and Patrick's questions are beyond stupid and insulting.

Still, I'll do ny best to discuss such ridiculous matters as the golf course routing itself when I get back to a computer later in the weekend.

In the meantime, don't let me delay your ongoing search for the truth here. 

My questions are stupid and insulting?  What a strange way of saying that you don't really have satisfying answers to those questions.

Don't bother regaling us with your further insights into golf course routing.  I didn't ask you about that and am not interested in the least.     I answered your questions as a courtesy and now I am ready to move on to the questions I asked you.  Just answer the questions.  There are at least a dozen you haven't answered, but let's start with these:

1.  If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?

2.  And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?

3.  And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?   

4.  And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?

[Mike Cirba]

Time for a little housekeeping.

First, the location of the proposed golf course in the October 1906 article posted by David a few weeks back.

Here again is the description of the location;



Now, the first thing to understand, which I'm surprised with David's recent research on Shinnecock he didn't point out, is that in 1906 Shinnecock was as east of NGLA as Delaware is east of Pennsylvania.

That is, it's not, or wasn't, and you'll note than NONE of the later articles noting the optioning of the Sebonac Neck land mentions that Shinnecock is to the east.  

Here, encircle in red, is the land occupied by Shinnecock GC in 1906.   If anything, I have the northern boundary drawn a bit too far north, as you'll see in my next post that the Olmstead Bros. proposed building a super highway between Shinnecock and NGLA right at Shinny's northern boundary at the time!!  



The following picture shows a little more information.   I've blacked out the land of today's Sebonack GC, as well as those portions of Shinnecock GC not in use at that time, which helps to show the scenario a bit more like it's being described.

Most of the landmarks are indicated in yellow, and include Peconic Bay to the north, the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) running along the south, the Shinnecock Station (SS) and Inlet from Peconic Bay clearly indicated.

Once again, in red you can also see the boundaries of Shinnecock Hills GC.

In purple nearby I've drawn the location of the Shinnecock Inn, and out to the west draw the border of what was known at the time as "Good Ground".

You'll note that the western boundary of today's NGLA is 1.5 miles away from that inlet, and the southern end is .35 miles from the Long Island Railroad.

Whatever land those articles David posted from October 15th, 1906 that said the golf course was within those bounds certainly wasn't talking about the Sebonac Neck property where the course was built.

[Mike Cirba]

We were also told that CBM would have never considered land below Cold Spring Bay, even though that's where the boundaries of the purchase reported in those October 1906 articles clearly locate the specific landmarks, and even though multiple articles mention he was looking at "VARIOUS" sites around Peconic and Shinnecock Bays.

Why?

Well, we were told that CBM would NEVER locate his course where there was already a HIGHWAY going through it.

Even though that supposed super-highway which is seen as proposed on the Olmstead Bros. Land Plan from April 1907 isn't identified on Highway maps of Long Island into the teens, we were told by Patrick and assured by David that it existed, and was very busy as it was the main route to Southampton.

Even though Phil Young showed us that these transportation avenues in the newly developing stretch of LI were very fluid, primitive, temporary and transient though the next years and beyond, we were told that this road was locked in place and it was preposterous to consider that anyone would ever move it for a golf course!

Well, whatever.

What both of those guys evidently didn't notice is that this supposed existing 8-lane Super Highway cuts right through the land separating Shinnecock and NGLA!  

Here, drawn in Red, is the supposedly existing "North Highway".  

If you look very closely, you can see an 18-wheeler running across today's 2nd green at Shinnecock.    




That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.

[Mike Cirba]

Was looking at the development map and particularly at the two locations marked "National Golf Course."    

1.   Those locations, particularly the bottom one, speak to the absurdity of Mike's claim that there were no sites for houses near NGLA.  "National Golf Course" almost appears to be part of "Block 97."    The Inn was built by SHPBRC to get people out to look at lots, but I suppose that the Inn isn't near the lots either?  

2.  Wasn't this map first published in the early spring 1907?  If so, then that would still be within the option period, would it not?    Then why is "National Golf Course" marked where it is currently located yet the rest of Sebonack Neck is marked "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company?"    According to Mike, CBM should not even had definitely chosen his land yet.  It was "undetermined."   Sure looks like the location is determined to me.  



David,

I've blown up that map every which way and God bless you if you can read that small print just above the Super Highway cutting through the boundary with Shinnecock Hills there and tell us without hesitation that it says "National Golf Course".    I can see it clear up near Bulls Head Bay but I wouldn't bet you 20 cents that I can tell you it says that down near the proposed highway.

Actually, not sure that's the border at all, because it looks to me just below that highway and above where "Shinnecock Hills Golf Club" is noted that it says "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company"....kind of like it does up above, where it seems to note that ALL of what is known as "Sebonac Neck" is owned by the "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company".

So, although the proposed Land Plan and proposed subdivisions, and proposed roads that was drawn up by the Olmstead Brothers and which appear in a April 1907 Advertisement for Shinnecock Hills is interesting, I'm not sure it tells us much about the actual boundaries of NGLA at that time, much less the state of the routing at that time, do you?

We know that CBM tells us when he and Whigham found the property it had never been surveyed.    Are you telling us CBM was wrong?  

Or, are you simply stating the obvious, noting that the property had certainly been surveyed (by Seth Raynor) in the intervening months, and certainly by April 1907 when this map was published which was close to the time CBM tells us he signed the actual purchase contract ("Spring 1907") after he had optioned the property a number of months prior?

Aren't we trying to determine the state of the land when CBM optioned it in Nov/Dec 1906 and not later after what was likely six months of surveying, mapping, clearing, routing, and planning, prior to signing the final purchase?

[Mike Cirba]

I've been informed that my western boundary of the 1906 Shinnecock Hills course may extend a bit too far west.

So be it...it's a rough estimation and if someone wants to map via Google, or whatever, the exact coordinates, I'm quite confident that the larger point remains the same, especially if they remember to take a little off the top, as I believe I've been overly-generous to the northern boundary as well..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

There's no other way for me to say this.

You're lying through your teeth and you know it.

To post the map/schematic above, and offer it as proof that no other roads existed in 1914 goes beyond dishonest.

If desperate men do desperate things, then you've sacrificed your character, your integrity through dishonesty

Quite simply, if anyone has a GPS system in their car, they know that the resolution can be adjusted.

You can take the resolution down to 150 feet and see everything, or you can take the resolution up to where the minor/smaller roads and arteries disappear from that scale, leaving only the interstates on the map.

David Moriarty called you a "charlatan", and now, unfortunately, I have to agree with him.

You are not a man to be trusted to be candid.

You stated the following:

That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.


That's such an incredible lie, such a blatantly dishonest, disengenuous statement that it's an insult to everyone reading this thread.

You KNOW, from Phil Young's post # 360 that the road was in existance in 1914.
It existed in 1907, and much earlier, as evidenced by the documents from the Senate of the State of New York dated 1907.
It was THE MAJOR artery on the North side of the South Fork. 

The documents appear below.






You should also know that, TODAY, there are roads that run through both NGLA and Shinnecock.

How can you deliberately lie ?
You know the North Highway was there, it's been documented with irrefutable source documentation, documentation which you acknowledged in reply # 361, yet, you stated:

That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.


I'm afraid that I can't trust anything you post, that I'll have to look at all of your future, and past posts with a high degree of enlightened suspicion.

I think it's terrible that you've resorted to such underhanded tactics in your desperate attempt to further your Merion agenda.

Shame on you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I'll check that out tomorrow, thanks.

Right now, I need to eat some newborn puppies for dinner and then hurl some molotov cocktails at the Vatican before getting some rest but I'll be back tomorrow with more acts of treachery and mayhem.

Mike, just so you don't go back and edit your reply # 361, acknowledging's Phil's production of the 1907 New York Senate documents regarding the North Highway, I've quoted your response.

When you speak of acts of treachery, one has to believe that you're speaking from experience.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat and Mike,

Since the two of you have now referred to my previous postings of the records of the New York State Senate of 1906 I feel that someone who has actually read the document, and it is far more than those two brief pages I posted, should comment.

Pat, yes there is the reference to the "North Highway" but what YOU Have CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND and did so when arguing over my post was that the "North Highway" in 1906, according to these records, was a DIRT ROAD that needed to be completely paved over and expanded to a proper two-line highway! This would not happen for quite a while.

The document from 1906 is the debate about WHICH ROADS AND RAILROAD CROSSINGS would get funded for that very work, including the "North Highway." Maybe if you had taken the time to research exactly when the "North Highway" was actually worked on you wouldn't be so quick to call Mike a liar on this. He didn't and I think you owe him an apology on this. There is a VERY GOOD reason why the "North Highway" is not shown on that map.

If you have some time take a ride over to Hofstra University and visit the Long Island Studies Institute. There you will find an enormous archive including maps, documents and copies of all the old East End newspapers that can be found nowhere else. There is a wealth of information there that can shed a great deal of light on this discussion.

If you go ask for Deborah and tell her I say hello. She is relentless in researching good questions.

What has also been missed in the discussion of the "roads" in the Senate document is a POSSIBLE pretty good reason as to actually WHY CBM didn't choose the other property. Might it have been that while he was looking at it the State Senate was debating how to actually put in roads and railroad crossings on that site and develop it which would mean that he would have been buying property that he actually COULDN'T build a golf course on and that he only learned about it later?