Robert Trent Jones did the Trail in Alabama with funding from that state's teachers' retirement fund. I believe that Jack Nicklaus has done a similar multi-course project for Tennessee. Jeff Brauer has done nice courses in Texas for Somervell County (Squaw Valley in Glen Rose), Grand Prairie (Tangle Ridge), and Plano (Ridgeview Ranch- a JV with a private sector developer). Graham/Panks did an outstanding municipal course, Tierra Verde, for Arlington (TX).
The question is not whether government can build good golf courses- it clearly can since the same architects, construction companies, and irrigation specialists are used. In some cases, government will spend larger amounts of money which it gets from the taxpayers and borrows at much cheaper rates than the private sector. The real issue is whether government should be in the business of building golf courses when and where the private sector is able to do so.
The following probably illustrates what Mike Young and others claim is government's unfair advantage. Nearly seven years ago, I submitted a contract to purchase 315 acres in southwest Arlington for a golf course and residential development. I had equity commitments for well over $1MM, and other funds that would have enabled me to close on the land if the feasibility work was favorable. A well regarded local architect did some preliminary routings for me, and my land plan showed enough promise that I scheduled meetings with city staff to get the project on a fast track.
It should be noted that this tract was the last piece of reasonably priced land in the city that was mostly out of the flood plain, and in sufficient size and shape to build an excellent golf course. Much to my surprise, the city was cool to the idea of a golf course on that site, citing higher use plans and street expansions which would have necessitated splitting the golf course into two or three pieces.
Through further sleuthing, I learned that the Parks & Recreation Department had identified the same property for a high-end daily fee golf course and multi-sport complex. The city wanted to tap into the convention and corporate outings market, and even developed plans to hire a gourmet chef for the club.
Further, upon learning that I had submitted a contract for the land, that department accelarated its own contracting process and communicated to the seller that it had the money ready to go, and subject to a friendly council's approval, it could close in three to four months (I had a feasibility study contigency in the contract, with closing in six to seven months). It's my understanding that Parks & Rec. also stressed to the seller that it could much more easily navigate through the zoning and permitting process.
To make a long story a little shorter, the seller accepted the city's contract. They closed nearly a year later (instead of 3 - 4 months), and it took the city another two years to get the golf course built. Nearly three years after the course opening, and a couple of lawsuits, the clubhouse was recently opened (though the surrounding landscaping is still in progress). As an aside, the new streets that were supposed to go through the property, apparently they were either no longer needed or will be realigned around the site.
There is no question that the taxpayer is subsidizing municipal golf course operations. These projects are sold to city councils and the public on the basis that they generate revenues in excess of costs, with the surplus used to fund other parks & recreation activities. Golfers also benefit because the green fees at many of these facilities are lower, though the ongoing maintenance, service, and atmosphere often decline through time. What the staff does not acknowldege is that it takes property from the tax rolls, and that the net tax receipts are much lower than if the private sector owned, developed, and operated the facility.
I am sure that this is happening throughout the country. Someone that writes better than I could write a very interesting book. As frustrating as this experience was for me, I am sure that it was a lot of fun for the city's park & rec. people. They got to rub shoulders with David Graham and play the role of big time developer with no personal risk. By the way, the course came out very well. It is my understanding that the total cost (turn-key), including clubhouse, was in the $7.5 to $8.5mm range. My preliminary budget was between $5 and $6.
On the subject of buying golf courses for 50 cents on the dollar, there may be a few such opportunities in the near future, but I doubt that the buyers will be the mom and pops. First of all, through this last building cycle, a lot more equity went into the deals. When we saw the crash in commercial real estate in the late 80s, many of the properties were mortgaged to the gills. Unless the economy goes in the toilet, I doubt that we will see the type of panic that will force owners and their lenders to dump the properties. And if it gets to that point, how many mom and pops have $2-$3mm to plop down? Who will lend them the money? In that event, I would watch for our friends with American Golf and CCA to set up a vulture fund. They both have close ties to Wall Street and generate substantial cash flow from existing operations. And in my humble opinion, part of the problem with the lack of growth in the game today is due to the heavy handedness of these corporate operators. In fact, I don't know what is worse, government in golf or a further concentration of the industry favoring the likes of these two giant owners. Just my opinion!