What is the Role of Municipal Golf????

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

Didn't Nixon once say something to the effect that we are all Keynesians.  BTW, I do believe that stimulative policies like tax cuts are good for the economy.  The multiplier effect is there in a much more powerful way than government spending it on a super collider that it never finished.  I also think that for the most part, we can spend our own money on our own behalf much better than any level of government can do it for us.

Cliff and A.G.,

The purposes and objectives of colleges and universities are considerably different than that of federal, state, county, and local governments.  Traditionally, many schools have had courses of sufficient quality to hold competitions, much like they have all sorts of athletic facilities for other sports.  These tended to be considerably better than the facilities available to students for recreation and intramural sports.

Admitedly, when it comes to golf, the differences are relatively minor, particularly at public universities.  In the case of Ohio State, as far as I know (Tom MacWood may be able to chime in), after construction, the courses have funded themselves.  I am fairly sure that the current restoration is being funded by increased green fees over the last few years and private donations.

Like most major colleges, Ohio State competes in Div. 1 men's and women's golf.  It also uses the courses for physical education, cross-country, recruiting of promising students in all types of sports (the club hosted Woody's team dinners on Friday nights before home games), recruiting of staff, and for a variety of clubs.  It is an amenity that is self-sustaining, fully utilized, and serves the broader needs of more than 5-10% of the population it serves.

Rawls is a different animal in that Mr. Rawls donated all or the vast majority of the money to build the course, and I think that it pays for its upkeep.  Considering that Tech has a much harder time getting students and faculty than Texas or A&M, their course serves as an important amenity.  And it is not like there was a private sector developer who was willing to build the course.

Places like Oklahoma State's Karsten Creek or the U. of Texas Club are privately funded, operated, and owned.  They identify with the university only in name and serve as the home course for the golf teams.  I don't have a problem with this.

I am generally not opposed to rudimentary, intramural, or  recreational munis when there is a need (demand) for this product and the private sector can't or won't step up to the plate.  This is not what is currently being built.  Additionally, much of the information presented to the taxpayer for the bond or financing elections lacks clarity and conservatism (form an accounting standpoint).  At least, that has been the experience in my part of ther country.

[frank_D]

brother Lou Duran

i would say your illustration (your post feb 23 12:03pm) highlights ECONOMICS not politics or muni v private

a good or bad deal and public and private are mutually exclusive

moreover you indicate yourself that the final product is "quite nice" and "a wonderful course"

an added benefit for golfers is an average rate of approx $35 per round - reasonable for a nice course

maybe the city overpaid for the property and had other advantages you did not but its the ECONOMICS that will dictate a good or bad deal in the end - which for the taxpayer in that jurisdiction is the best yardstick

from your own numbers cited i think they did you a favor by outbidding you - no ?

as far as legalities - keep an eye on NEW LONDON CT case in the supreme court currently where the question is can a local municipal govt take property (waterfront long time residential homes of about seventeen holdouts) via eminant domain with appropriate compensation paid to the previous owners and hand it over to a private developer (to build executive offices for a large pharmacutical company with an existing manufacturing plant nearby)

[Cliff Hamm]

Lou...Many of our differences are perhaps due to different experiences.  Isn't that true for politics, religion and whatever?  I grew up in New Jersey playing the local county run courses.  Far from upscale, mats were used for tees.  Then on Monday's I played at Baltusrol where I caddied.  Talk about two different worlds

Currently live in New England, where there are some government run facilities but not as pervasive as in the NY metro area.  I cannot think of one CCFAD facility that has been built.  Perhaps Wintobury Hills in Connecticut is closet although I haven't had the pleasure of playing there yet.  I suspect though it is a fine course without the unneeded amenities.  My experience has been that the courses pay for themselves and often turn back a few dollars to the recreation department.  

The town I live in has a 9 hole course built in the 1890's.  They bought the course some 20 years back, lease it to someone who runs it but the town gets a % of the profit.  Voters voted to purchase the property to protect it from development.  The situation is obviously different in Texas and that is why generalizing is dangerous.  Again, I don't expect government run facilities to operate at a loss.  I would like a quality golf experience though, which means a decent course without the extras.

As to your points about university courses the same can be said of munis.  I doubt 10% of the university population by the way benefits from the golf course at Ohio State.  I would be surprised and then some if 10% of students are golfers.  To say that they need a quality course for the golf team and division 1 championship is no different than saying the county should have a quality course for the pub links.  As far as a university course being a recruiting  vehicle so are munis as they make the community more appealing.  Cape Cod is the perfect example of this where basically every town now has a muni which helps attract residents, especially the many retired folks.

Finally I am glad you are not opposed to "rudimentary, intramural or recreational" munis.  Does that mean only cow pastures are ok?  Doesn't the golfing public deserve a decent course?  Again I'm not talking CCFAD but a decent design in decent shape at a fair price.  

[Buck Wolter]

Slicing Municipal Golf from Government Balance Sheets

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6900

From the article
"Which brings us to the second immediate problem with government-owned golf courses: They are unfair, in two different ways.

First, they are unfair to private golf course owners. It’s one thing to go head-to-head with another business risking its own money in the golf industry, but it’s another to go up against a government that taxes you in order to build and operate the competition that may drive you out of business. To make matters worse, the operations are often cross-subsidized by other departments within municipal government. In Oakland County, the new Lyon Oaks course was expected to make a "profit" of $84,000 in 2004. But this is only an accounting fiction, because a different portion of the county budget is used to make the $400,000 annual debt service payment. The ways that counties can make their courses appear cost-effective when they are not are endless.

Second, government golf is unfair to the consumer. Only 12 percent of the American population play golf. For the 88 percent who choose not to play golf, they not only have to pay for a sport they don’t enjoy; they then have fewer resources to pay for the unsubsidized sport — such as bowling — that they do enjoy.

In the end, the fact that government golf courses are unnecessary makes them unfair. These government golf courses are based on taxes, and taxes, by definition, involve the use of force. They are not voluntary. The government might justify forcing people to pay for truly public goods that wouldn’t be provided if government didn’t create them, but it is a very questionable use of force to produce private goods that would still exist if government had no role. "

[Lou_Duran]

frank D,

I didn't fully understand your post.  The city did not outbid me.  In fact, I think that they offered just slightly less for the land than my group.

What my own city did was convey to the owner that it could get the closing on the land done quicker (untrue as it actually took about a year to complete the purchase), and that I wouldn't be able to get the zoning and permits which was part of the due diligence process.  In no uncertain terms, the city represented that I was not going to develop that piece of land (it was the last large tract of land within the city boundaries that did not have a bunch of irregular boundaries,  less than 10% of it had flood issues, and was reasonably priced).

My wife and a couple others seem to be thankful (for my unanswered prayers).  My pro-formas were in line to make it competitive with a nearby course that's doing 60,000 rounds.

I would like to believe that my capital structure would have allowed me to keep my head above water until that area gets more rooftops and commerce.  No question that the city and the average golfer would have been better off.  My green fees would have been lower (affordable golf was the niche which was underserved), the city would have had a much larger tax base, and I would have used a local architect and some contractors.  But we'll never know.


Cliff,

I do see a difference between municipal and university golf courses.  The funding is typically different, usually not built through debt financing or from general funds.

For the upteenth time, ideally, I think that government should stay out of most things that the private sector can do better.  In most cases, this would include golf courses.

As to the quality, I would say that it should be consistent with its other sports facilities and the need in the market.  On the other hand, if a city wishes to build a Baltusrol with the full consent of a supermajority of the affected taxpayers and without opposition from the private sector, all the more power to it.

Typically, most communities have their hands full with police and fire protection, traffic and roads, garbage collection, code enforcement, large-scale public infrastructure development, and education.  Get these done right and perhaps I could see a stronger case for other roles.