R. Whitten and the state of the golf biz at Tierra Verde!

[David_Tepper]

The Golf Digest website has an interesting article by Ron Whitten about Tierra Verde in Dallas and the state of the daily fee golf biz.
Unfortunately, the web address has a ? in it and I cannot set up a direct link. If you go to:

www.golfdigest.com

Scroll down and click on 'Course Critic', you can access the article.

If anyone out there can link the article, that would be great. Thanks.    

[Lou_Duran]

The question that perhaps didn't occur to Mr. Whitten is why a municipal course needs to charge $50+ green fees to make it.  Why did the city spend upwards of $8MM on a golf course when the land was purchased for about $1.5MM?  Why were equally qualified local architects charging a more moderate design fee by-passed for a brand (Graham/Panks?)?  Why was a small creek bridged four or five times at $40,000+ per pop?  Why is it desirable to set aside beautiful, rolling, treed land that in not usable but for a few rabbits, snakes, coyotes, skunks, and all sorts of common critters?

There was a private sector developer who submitted a superior offer for that same tract to build a $5-5.5MM course (turn-key).   The city successfully squelched that deal by communicating to the land owner that it could close quickly (it did not), and that the competitive bidder would have a very difficult time getting the necessary (to close on the land) zoning changes approved (by the city).

The superintendent is right that that area's golfers will go with a lower priced product.  This really should not have been news to the city.  The area south of I-30 just doesn't have the demographics to support much high-end development, and land prices still reflect this fact.  This may change eventually, but it has been some 12 years since the planning for the course began.

Unfortunately, at least in the short run, the city is not governed by the laws of supply and demand.  It wanted a high-end daily fee course to compete for corporate outings (prestige) and coveted $$$$$ that it assumed it could then divert to other parks and recreation programs.

The city even envisioned having a gourmet chef to prepare high cuisine for expensive, white-collar social entertaining.  After all, it is the city with the "can-do" attitude that brought the Texas Rangers and Dallas Cowboys to town.

Tierra Verde is one of my favorite courses in the area.  In my opinion, it is a "Top Modern 100" candidate.  I disagree with Mr. Whitten's description of the greens; they have never been as good as they could be, and, in my last several visits, I've noticed that they're getting grainier, thatchy, and very inconsistent.

What Mr. Whitten and a few others seem to see as a virtue- all the natural areas of thickets, briars, and native grasses- many golfers view it as a major nuisance.   Golf is hard enough for most folks when they can chase,find and hit their foul balls.  Put safari type terrain on both sides of some fairways, a little Texas wind, and a bunch of 20+ handicapers on it and the results ain't pretty.

In the winter, after the foilage has dropped and the grass has gone dormant, one can see thousands of golf balls within 10 - 20 yards off the fairway in the thickets.  If I could borrow Tommy Naccarato's shark suit (the one he wears when surfing north of L.A.), I'd find enough in a couple of hours that even if I lost a dozen balls each round for the rest of my life, I'd never have to buy another one.

Mind you, that there is no shortage of wild land in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area with the huge, undevelopable Trinity River floodplain areas and thousands of creeks running all over the place.  There are no endangered animal or plant species in or near the city, to the best of my knowledge.

So, Tierra Verde struggles to get more than 32,000 rounds at $40+, even with coupons.   Mansfield National, maybe 10 miles southeast and a few years newer, does some 60,000 rounds at $20 - $30.

Of course, "the National" (never confused with "The [Dallas] National") only cost the JV developer with the city of Mansfield $5MM (turn-key), a few years after Tierra Verde was completed.  The architecture there is pretty good, the site is much inferior, the feature shaping is not as sophisticated, and the conditioning is perhaps a notch lower.  But damn, the cash register sure rings nicely and the superintendent there is not lamenting the difficult "golf biz" environment that it shares with its more spiffy neighbor.

Tierra Verde and Mansfield National would serve as excellent subjects for a Harvard business school case.  Both courses were done for probably highly inappropriate reasons.  One is successful on paper at least.  The other, despite not even closely meeting its pro-forma objectives, will survive.  Government does indeed have big pockets as demonstrated again yesterday by the voters in the city that built Tierra Verde approving a $13.6MM bond package for more park land and improvements.  Paraphrasing the most wise Dire Straits, "money for nothing and the chicks for free".




   

[David_Tepper]

Lou -

You obviously have a great deal of knowledge and some strong opinions about the Tierra Verde golf course. You should seriously think about forwarding your comments to Ron Whitten at Golf Digest. I am sure he would be interested in what you have to say.

DT

[Lou_Duran]

David,

Yes on both counts, knowledge and strong opinions.  But do you really think that Mr. Whitten wants to dig into controversial issues?  It is much easier and safer with advertisers, architects, construction companies, vendors and other "stakeholders" to attribute difficulties to unforeseeable market conditions.  Afterall, everybody is singing the same song; why spoil it?

When Tierra Verde was being built, I tried to get a local paper to look into it.  It is one thing for a city/school district to compete with the private sector for clearly needed land.  It is another thing altogether to do so it go into a profit making business to subsidize other park and recreation projects.  

Tierra Verde does not get used much by the average city golfer.  Its two other municipal courses still run some 50,000+ rounds each.  Wouldn't it make more sense for parks & recreation to go to city council and ask for the proper funding for their programs and/or charge the appropriate user fees to cover their cost?  Why spend $8MM when $5 would have sufficed?  Is there such as thing as a Palm Springs Effect?  

[David_Tepper]

Lou Duran -

Why don't you forward your post to Ron Whitten and let him decide for himself whether or not he is interested? At the very least, I would hope that he respects your opinions.

I have dealt with reporters & journalists often over the years on issues relevant to my business and a few times on golf-related matters.  My experience has been that these people are looking for interesting/controversial issues to write about more often than not.

I have no idea whether there is a 'conspiracy of silence' within the golf press. Maybe I am a little less paranoid than I should be!

I assume the questions you have raised are being asked rhetorically.  Having lived in San Francisco (where we have plenty of public/daily-fee golf course problems of our own) for 33 years, I have no idea about what is going on in the Dallas area.

DT

   

[PThomas]

very very interesting Lou

and Harvard Business Case Studies...that brings back such fond (??)  memories of graduate school!

[Don Herdrich]

I haven't played TVerde in over 5 years.  I found it very difficult back then.......the greens were in really good shape.  They were rock hard and rolled true.  I didn't like the "african bush" between holes, but being a straight hitter it really didn't affect me.  I really didn't understand that one bridge through the forest, thanks for giving an explanation Lou.  I do know they were breaking ground on a new extravagant clubhouse when I moved.  That might have been a reason for the high cost (I believe the first contractor got booted or went belly-up after starting construction).

I found the place a very good experience for a public course.  It was a long trip from Irving, but I always liked getting over to here and Tangleridge at least once a month!

Thanks for the update on this place........

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou Duran said:

"Mind you, that there is no shortage of wild land in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area with the huge, undevelopable Trinity River floodplain areas and thousands of creeks running all over the place.  There are no endangered animal or plant species in or near the city, to the best of my knowledge."

Please tell that to the Mountain Lion we saw in our backyard yesterday Lou!  Apparently, the nearby Trinity River wasn't big enough for her!

I scotched a long post last night on this subject, which basically said that the right of cities to produce public golf was court established a century ago, has been challenged and upheld many times.  While we both probably have issues with our local govt, the city wanted a learners, low, medium and high end product among their four facilities, which has a certain logic, even if money does matter in the long run.  And, in the planning period, muni courses that maintained poor boy ways (think Indian Creek before my remodel) lost business to shiner new models like Tangleridge and Tierra Verde.  So, they weren't completely off base.

Don,

Just keep playing Tangle Ridge........

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff Brauer,

Either Andrew hasn't told you about his new pet cat or you are leaving way too many scraps in your BBQ pit.

There have been reported sightings of mountain lion in this area for years.  A buddy of mine swears that there is one that suns itself in a small clearing to the right (SW) of #11 at Tierra Verde.  I even saw a blurred picture somewhere of an alleged lion that could have been anything.  Anyways, lions and coyotes assimilate very well to suburban environments.

But what does that have to do with setting aside beautiful usable land that not even an intrepid hiker would be tempted to set a foot on?  For a city that sorely needs to expand its tax base, why would it do what it did?  At least Mansfield's argument for its JVed public course- that it would serve as a catalyst for development- was somewhat plausible.

Also, just because the courts deem or establish something as a "right", this does not make it right, nor necessarily legal in perpetuity (ref. slavery, suffrage, abortion, etc.).  But I am not even questioning the right of a city to develop a golf course, only its propriety on a case by case basis.

As a guy who knows which side of his bread is buttered on, your stance is not a surprise at all.  You've done a lot of work with the public sector, and do doubt that working on an $8MM project, holding everything else equal, is more attractive than one at $5MM.

Perhaps when you are in the voting booth ready to give thumbs up to the next tax increase or bond election, you will pause for a micro-second to consider the wider, long term implications.  Yes, your trough might be better filled in the short run as a result.  But what if it comes at the expense of your friends and neighbors.  Even in Forest Hills and Shadow Ridge, many are already strapped with jumbo mortagages, high property taxes, insurance, private school and college tuition,  and leases on the Escalade and the BMW.  And as you might know, a mountain lion is but a mere pussy cat when compared to the tax collector, mortgate servicer, and auto repossessor.  Walk around your neighborhood during slow economic times.  Do you think that all the "For Sale" signs are there by accident?

As I said earlier, Tierra Verde is one of my favorite courses in the Metroplex.  Nevertheless, it should not have been built.  BTW, you would most likely have personally benefited if the other buyer for that land hadn't had his offer queered.

BTW2, where do I find your longer, "scotched" version?

 

[Jason Hines]

Lou,

My in-laws live down the road from the course, it’s a nice escape and I try and play it once a year.

So if I am reading correctly, are you saying that Tierra Verde will still charge $50 per round and be subsidized by the city?  If I remember correctly, they also charge more for out of county or city residents.

What’s done is done by the city planners, are they going to lower prices to maximize revenues?  How much of a golf course costs is fixed?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou, Lou, Lou,

While I understand your hypothesis, I have always felt our tax base was most affected by the way the city caved every time an apartment developer came in and wanted more apts. that use more in tax money than they contribute.  Not real wild about the cap on taxes for the seniors we just voted in, as it causes a $3 Mil shortfall a year no on knows how to overcome.

I really believe our tax base is virtually unaffected by the $8 MIl bond issue ten years ago to pay for the course. Even at 30K rounds at $50, it should be self supporting, if it has been refinanced at lower rates.  Mansfield is 50 K rounds at $30. Whats the difference in sustainability?

BTW, the scotched version will never see the light of day. Its enough to say we both have issues with some decisions our city govt. has made.   They are good people trying to make a positive difference in an aging community with problems typical of near urban cities.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

Do you remember when we met with Mansfield's city manager, parks and recreation officials, and others some 10 years ago at their offices?  Do you recall what its Dallas-based private sector bond counsel said about cities building golf courses?

We left thinking that Mansfield deserved the government it was getting, and with a better understanding why it didn't have a tax base.  Boy, were we wrong!

There is a HUGE difference with what Mansfield did some five or six years ago as compared with Arlington and Tierra Verde.  The latter competed with the private sector to take over 300 acres out of the tax base, and it has a minimum of $8MM in the property (I would like to see a full accounting of the project, including the actual total expenditures and how they were allocated to the ball fields, streets, golf course, etc.).

Mansfield bought its land from the RTC or FDIC for a little over $2,000 per acre when there were no buyers for raw land.  It built its baseball, softball, and soccer fields on the best land, and leased the remants, much in the flood plain, to a private sector developer who built the course.

Mansfield did put in some roads, sewers and water lines, but in the process it spurred residential development east of SH360.  In the process, it slowed the previous trend of land being broken up into 10+ acre tracts, each with a mid-price house and a barn.  You do know that they too require sewer and water, right?  Do you suppose that a 240 unit apartment property on the rolls for $10MM might produce a bit more in tax revenue than a two-horse 10 acre ranchette with an ag exemption and a $100,000 hourse?

Financially, assuming that your rounds and prices for both examples are accurate, the $1.5MM in your estimated gross revenues for each hardly equate considering a $3MM difference in the capital structure.  I know that ROI is a foreign concept to the public sector and for some who feed from its troughs, but it is indeed meaningful.  Just ask your financial advisors if you don't believe me.

Sustainability must be trade or public sector jargon as I really haven't come across it in school or business.  You have to think about the differences in maintaining the two courses, the clubhouse and other building improvements, and the F, F & E.  This includes establishing capital reserves and servicing debt.

You trained John Colligan well.  Mansfield National was designed not only to be user friendly, but also for ease of maintenance.  It is not a course built to make a statement about the city's leaders, but to provide inexpensive recreation for its citizens.  The course does not compete heavily with the 36-hole private club in town, but you will find its members there when the course is closed and at other times for variety.

I do not question the "goodness" of Arlington's city officials.  If I was the director of parks and recreation, I too would much prefer building an $8MM facility and rubbing shoulder with David Graham than I would a lesser $5MM property and hang around with John Colligan (no offense to John).  It is also beats the hell out of working on Johnson Creek or arguing with the seniors about a proposed $1 increase in green fees at Lake Arlington.

It is quite a heady thing to play big time developer with little downside risk.  Having high profile vendors like Landscapes Unlimited and Graham/Panks treating you like a big shot is probably a nice change of pace.

By the way, did anyone loose his/her job because of the fiasco with the clubhouse?   Who verified that the work was being done on schedule which triggered the progress payments?  Didn't the guy in parks and recreation who spearheaded the project succeed his boss as P & R director when the latter retired?

I admitedly have a bone up my rear not just with Arlington, but with any government group which continuously seeks to expand its domain.  Even if Arlington did a decent job with its traditional responsibilites like traffic, roads, crime, water, sewage, garbage collection, schools, etc., I would be against it competing with the private sector.  That it barely gets passing marks in discharging most of its duties suggests to me that the city must first learn to crawl before it tries to walk.

As to your comments regarding apartments, not everyone can afford a half-million dollar+ home.  Zoning is a delicate topic with all sorts of profound social and financial implications.  It is my opinion that a city which witholds zoning approval unreasonably is taking property and the owner is entitled compensation.

I wrote much of this while watching Leno with my favorite blond, Ann Coulter.  Now I am into Konan (sp).  No scotch, wine, or beer.  So if this is rambling or otherwise non-sensical, I have no reasonable excuses.

           

[Kevin_Reilly]

If anyone out there can link the article, that would be great. Thanks.    

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/tierraverde.html

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey Lou,

I understand your articulate passion, and am somewhat playing devils advocate.  

However, if you give credit to Mansfield for using golf, aided by the private sector to stimulate development, then you must at least give Arlington (and GP with Tangleridge) some credit for doing the same, even though they chose to self operate their public courses.  All three were in undeveloped areas that are starting to respond, and if the courses break even, the cities still come out ahead.

For that matter, should the city develop out completely in the name of tax base, or does open space scattered through the city in the form of parks, trails and golf courses not add immeasureably to the quality of life, which is a government function.  The feds have spent years snatching up National Parks on the theory that there is no more land, and preserving some is admirable.  Same for cities running out of land?

If we set aside the philosphy of government building golf courses to compete with the private sector, since, unlike slavery (and its related issue of segregations, etc) , it is still legal, not considered immoral by most and has successfully withstood a century of court challenges.  I understand your opinion, but you are clearly in the minority of legal thinkers, at least.  In my first "scotched" version, I did mention  Tennision Park as another example of a court upholding a park departments right to create upscale golf.

If we can take that as a given, then by what criteria is Tierra Verde a failure?  Is the GO bond issued to fund it in default?  (I doubt it, since the city has just passed several other bond issues, including one to fund the private Cowboys stadium in the name of spurring economic development, so we are still under our bonding limit)

Does the city fund subsidize the course?  Do the other courses subsidize it?  If so, would it be so outrageous for the busiest courses to partially fund Meadowbrook (a learners course) and TV, for whatever "Image" and economic development it drives?

I don't know the answers, but if they are no, I don't classify the course as a city failure.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

My apologies if I was a bit curt earlier, as I was rushing out. And to all, sorry if this gets somewhat off topic, but I think its at least somewhat relevant - the role of cities in public golf.

To clear up a few other points, I have seen studies where Arlington feels they benefit most tax wise from house values averaging over $225 K.  Our current average house value is under $150 K.  

A 10 Acre Ranchette isn't a great tax deal.  And, while those 240 apts. may bring in the 2.73% property tax on $10 Million Value, they may generate 600 kids, while 40 250 K homes per acre generates the same tax, but probably only 80-100 kids.  So, both cities are right in trying to move to single family homes and light industry for tax base....

BTW, at one time, (1990) Arlington had the highest per capita income in the state.....but that was before the ballplayers took their big salaries from Forest Hills to bigger homes in Colleyville and Southlake.

Whether strict development (where cities often provide roads and perhaps parks on donated land from the developer) to golf and park development, cities have always churned the pot to generate economic development.  That some have had decades of experience running public golf and prefer to keep it that way, and others (like Mansfield) have none and contract out golf management doesn't change that, does it?

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff Brauer curt?  Never.  No offense noted or apologies needed.

Like Hank Haney once commented to a middle-age man he was teaching, "your swing is in so many different planes, I don't know which one to look at".  We've indeed gotten far and wide on the subject.

Ron Whitten's main point is his article (which he restated in an E-Mail to me) is that he agrees with Tierra Verde's superintendent in his assessment that golf is now the pizza business.  The inferences are that 1) the business of golf is so lousy that discounting is rampant, and 2) public or daily-fee golfers are not architecturally or quality concious, picking where they play based almost solely on cost.

Personally, I disagree somewhat with their assessment of both businesses, and I think that they also underestimate the daily-fee player.  The problems are much deeper, and, unfortunately, do involve economics as well as politics.

I never said that Tierra Verde was a failure.  Instead, I am stating that it has not met the high expectations raised to sell the project to the citizens.  As Mansfield's bond counsel advised his client in our presence, most of these things do not work out according to plan.  One only has to look to the baseball park in Arlington and the basketball arena in Dallas, both hailed as great successes, to note that even under the best of circumstances, actual results trail promises by a wide margin.

I am a naturalist and an environmentalist (no, I don't run around my back-yard nude nor protest the nukes), so open space, greenbelts, and wildlife (the animal variety) are very important to me.  With today's environmental laws and our terrain, there is no chance that we'll become one large parking lot.  By the way, have you ever wondered what Manhattan or San Francisco would look like if they were developed under the current regulatory regime?

From the standpoint of easily developable land within the city's jurisdictional boundaries, there are no large tracts left.  I was told that this was one of the primary reasons why parks and recreation wanted the 315 acre tract, which it then combined with a couple other pieces it assembled.  There is no shortage of flood plain and otherwise difficult to develop land.  I guess that I shouldn't find it odd that the city would take the best of the last, sort of like the luxury suite and box seats at Ameriquest Park.

To summarize and clarify my position, the main problems I have with Tierra Verde are: 1) the city had no business getting into this segment of the golf market; 2) cities have no role competing with the private sector for profit; 3) it is the wrong product at the wrong place at the wrong time; and 4) it misrepresented itself and the competition to the landowner in order to prevail.

BTW, do you know another recreational endeavor as well funded by the city with a lower citizen participation rate?  On a user per-capita basis, I wonder how golf fares in terms of investment.  I bet it is much higher than basketball, baseball, softball, and soccer.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

"BTW, do you know another recreational endeavor as well funded by the city with a lower citizen participation rate?  On a user per-capita basis, I wonder how golf fares in terms of investment.  I bet it is much higher than basketball, baseball, softball, and soccer. "

I know that our soccer fields are well used, and that there are more soccer playing kids in Arlington than baseball, which is quite a cultural shift from when we were kids. However, I am of the impression, since the golf course pays for itself, and the other facilities are paid for out of our tax dollars (the only fee our team pays is the referees) that the golf course represents a good public investment on a per capita basis.  It costs us each $0 per citizen, no?

Regarding floodplains, if recreation - golf or otherwise - is your goal, they aren't ideal for those uses either.  Revenue producing golf rounds and soccer games get cancelled too often in floodplains.  These are best left for low intensity uses like river walks and nature trails.  As you say, its not surprising that Arlington wanted up land for the soccer fields and golf for the reason above, and because they need to provide parks in all sections of town for their residents, not just where floodplains make them undevelopable.

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the average public golfer chooses his course by design quality.  Surveys point this out - most rounds are a matter of convenience and cost.  Maintenance is probably the next biggest selling point.  Then, food and food sellers (ie, beer cart girls) then, somewhere, design.  Of course, that makes hiring a big name for a public course a non starter, and perhaps the city could have save a few hundred thousand, but they did get a nice course.

I am not 100% certain its in the wrong place or built at the wrong time, but I understand your point.  I recall in the interview telling them (much to their chagrin) that I wouldn't spend the money on a three hole practice facility because they aren't generally used enough and because it was too remote for anyone to conveniently use it now.  Set aside the land perhaps, but don't build the holes.  I also disagreed with the clubhouse location in the NW corner - they pre-selected that as part of the park master plan, but it set up an east west course (cross winds, starting and finishing into the sun) and several creek crossings at 40K per bridge) as a result, all to save some other money on utility extensions to a better location.  It probably came out even.

I do agree that the city can pump up stats to sell wanted projects, with the exception of the Johnson Creek Park System which I really supported.  I doubt TV brings all the direct economic benefit they may have claimed, and I doubt the Dallas Cowboys will either.  However, the Ballpark paid off all its bonds way early, and was generally a success with no tax burdens on its citizens, other than slightly more expensive restaruant meals, and, if you are the type to stay in local motels, hotel rates.

I know how Hank Haney must feel. I once had a golf instructor tell me that I "moved everything but my bowels during my swing, and perhaps sometimes, even those!"

[Don Herdrich]

Lou,

I would be less concerned about TVerde and focus on the financial boom the city will get when the Cowboys move to town!  

I ventured onto the website just a few minutes ago...OMG, that clubhouse looks like the one at Southern Highlands!!  Does the city really need that monstrosity???

One final point.........I will always have a fond feeling for this place......I made my first and only hole in one to date on #17........from the Gold tees!  A feathered driver!

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,

My in-laws live down the road from the course, it’s a nice escape and I try and play it once a year.

So if I am reading correctly, are you saying that Tierra Verde will still charge $50 per round and be subsidized by the city?  If I remember correctly, they also charge more for out of county or city residents.

What’s done is done by the city planners, are they going to lower prices to maximize revenues?  How much of a golf course costs is fixed?

Jason,

I don't know what the break-even point is for TV.  As I recall, the course was projected to do 42,000 to 45,000+ rounds by now at a rate in excess of $50.  I don't think that it has done more than 35,000 revenue rounds in any one year, and I suspect that the average rate is well below the pro-forma amount.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no longer a pricing concession for Arlington residents.  I think that it used to be around $5.

I don't know at what level of management the marketing strategy is formulated and the pricing decisions made.  The city has a director of golf who has PGA credentials and appears to be knowledgeable.  He is probably doing a good job with what he has.

The guy that spearheaded the development of the course became the parks and recreation director.  He too seems knowledgeable, and I have no doubt that he has the city's best interests in mind.

Except for some occasional couponing, I don't think that TV has made too many pricing concessions.  It would be interesting to see how far they are off from their 10 year pro-forma P & L.

Having worked in consumer goods for a few years after business school, I understand the vicious circle that can be created by frequent discounting.  To the extent that TV is positioned as an upscale, marketed brand, if they lower the price by 40 - 50%, the place will be packed, but the course will suffer in the long run.  It will take some major repositioning in better economic times to overcome the discount image and the lower level of conditioning which would likely result.

As to fixed vs. variable costs, I would argue that they are mostly fixed.   A certain baseline of conditioning is needed regardless the amount of activity, though these costs do escalate with very heavy play.  Debt service is fixed, as are the higher paid positions.

TV's salvation will be population growth, which is moving forward at a nice pace.  It just will not yield the results it was supposed to, nor provide the tax base that would have been had the private developer been allowed to execute his plan.

Don H,

Congratulations on your ace on #17.  It is a fun hole where a two (one in your case) is very possible, but six+ is not out of the question.

The clubhouse is not really all that extravagant nor large.  I haven't looked at it closely enough to see how functional it is, though it does look nice.  The parking, club drop-off, and entry to the pro shop are a bit akward, as is the location of the practice facility to the first tee.

The fracas with the clubhouse had to do with government contracting and certain preferences given to minority businesses.  Reportedly, the contractor chosen to build the clubhouse had neither the lowest bid nor the best qualifications.  He walked off the job not long after the foundation and some piers had been poured, with a substantial portion of the project's budget collected as progress payments.

For some reason that currently escapes me, the bonding company refused to pay-off, which delayed getting a new contractor to finish the work.  I understand that the bonding company has gone out of business or is unable to make good on the bond, and some litigation may still be in the works.  The $8MM figure that has been tossed around, probably somewhat low in my estimation, does not include overages or opportunity costs (foregone revenues from corporate outings and from F&B) associated with the contracting problems.