First Phase $94.1 MILLION DOLLARS

« **on:** May 01, 2004, 11:34:26 AM »

How irresponsible is this? How is it even legal for a governing body to compete?

Quote

The ball is on the tee and La Quinta is nearly ready to take a swing and launch its multimillion dollar publicly funded golf course development.

"The SilverRock Ranch is the most important project that the city of La Quinta has ever undertaken and I would suspect will be the only one that we undertake of this magnitude," said Councilwoman Terry Henderson.

A ceremonial groundbreaking is targeted for Jan. 19 for the project in which the planning is nearly complete and most of the contracts have been awarded.

The SilverRock Ranch project will turn 525 acres at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street into a golf-oriented community with two 18-hole public golf courses.

The project to build the city’s first publicly owned course will be done in phases.

The first phase, pegged at $94.1 million, includes land acquisition and the completion of one tournament-quality golf course, a temporary clubhouse, perimeter landscaping and road improvements.

Other amenities will eventually include a clubhouse, practice range, lakes, hiking trails and hotels. But the timing of the second phase is yet undetermined.

The few contracts that remain are for mass grading to be awarded this month followed by contracts for golf course construction and a landscape architect.

The goal is to open the course for play in early 2005.

Recent developments

The project is a top priority for the city and selecting a firm to be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and operation of the golf course for the first five years was a big step.

Being located and involved in the valley was a big plus for Landmark Golf Management.

"I feel what we need to do, of course, is support our local groups if at all possible," Mayor Don Adolph said.

The firm is headquartered in Indian Wells and lists Indio’s Landmark Golf Club and Shadow Hills Golf Club among its current projects. It traces its roots back to Unique Golf Concepts in 1971.

Mayor Pro-Tem Stanley Sniff said, "There is a kind of a long-term historical relationship here with the Landmark family in the valley and here in La Quinta."

The local company oversaw projects including PGA West and the La Quinta Hotel Golf and Tennis Resort.

The property that was purchased by the city in 2002 for the project was home to the Ahmanson family ranch.

The council decided to re-use the one-story house as a temporary clubhouse since a new permanent clubhouse won’t be opened until well after the first golf course is operational. The 2,650-square-foot house built in the 1960s will be rehabilitated within a $1.2 million budget to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The house will be converted to include a snack bar, pro shop and additional restrooms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonor Vivanco can be reached at 360-6881 or via e-mail.

Taken from the Desert Sun

« **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2004, 12:05:16 PM »

It sounds to me like this is what happens when cousins marry cousins and keep it all in the family, so to speak. But then again, everything is relative and perhaps 94 million dollars to the citizens of La Quinta is comparable to 2 or 3 million to the folks in Gothenburg NE. 94 million, may be a steal if there are 200 home lots to sell at a million a piece, and the golf can then stand alone and run profitably. It just seems odd that a governmental entity would bond for that much in the shrinking golf market we seem to be experiencing. I am just glad I don't live there and have to pay taxes.

« **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2004, 12:08:37 PM »

At the risk of crossing the line into political commentary, a) what is a government body doing getting into real estate development?, b) do we really have to wonder further why the cost of golf is going up ($1.2MM to make a 40 year-old TEMPORARY building ADA compliant)? If this doesn't shock our sensibilities, why are we so outraged when a modern architect moves a million cubic yards of dirt to make an unsuitable site for golf a bit more interesting?

« **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2004, 12:43:13 PM »

Quote

...why are we so outraged when a modern architect moves a million cubic yards of dirt to make an unsuitable site for golf a bit more interesting?

How about when an archie moves a million cubes and still doesn't make it interesting in a golf sense, just a superfluous landscaping job?

« **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2004, 01:18:39 PM »

Dick,

I doubt that there are many courses where a great amount of dirt has been moved by a "name" architect and a good majority of the customers don't like the results (as opposed to the alternative of playing a totally bland or problem site).

Spending $1.2MM on a temporary building to somehow make it a bit easier for a miniscule percentage of the customers is, in my opinion, incredible and irresponsible. But if the taxpayers of that fine community are willing to incur the cost, who am I to complain about it?

Ditto for projects such as Shadow Creek, Dallas National, Lido, Yale, etc. I know Dick, it is all in the ground. I guess that I just don't have a Behrian mind or imagination.

« **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2004, 01:34:22 PM »

RJ has the best take on it. When I interivewed for the project, I read their feasibility study. Basically, that stated that this investment would yield far more in future real estate taxes than it would cost them. And after they build the course, they can recoup some of that cost by selling off or leasing land to hotel and residential developers, so they will probably get most of that $94 MIL back, and the greens fee cost won't be passed on to the golfer.

Also, I think they had some kind of tax set aside fund which they had to use, or the money would revert to the state of California. In essence, some of that was "free money." Lastly, other cities have used golf to spur development, and LaQuinta didn't want to get left behind.

The other thing to consider is that they are just being honest in their reporting. Many cities buy land, or have it (this ranch is at the base of the mountains, and is beautiful, it made sense to buy it when available) but don't report that cost in the construction cost of the golf course. Naturally, everything is more expensive in CA.

As to $94MIL, for comparison, the Dallas Cowboys just asked the City for a $425 Million Dollar stadium, claiming similar economic benefit to the city of Dallas. Somehow, I think the La Quinta project is more viable in that regard.....

« **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2004, 05:35:37 PM »

And I thought the project in Tacoma Washington was outrageous. Pierce County is ony spending $27 million including land costs.

Last I checked this nation was still a capitalistic society. The blurring of the lines between public and private development concerns me greatly. The opportunities for fraud and overblown costs is simply not what government is designed for. I know it is legal, I just think it is wrong. If these are such great projects, the private sector should be doing them with government overseeing compliance and then collecting the taxes.

I pay taxes for government to supply services that would be otherwise unavailable. Roads, Police, public open space and golf courses to provide recreation to underserved populations where the profit motive is not strong enough for private industry to meet the needs.

We are on very slippery ground here!

« **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2004, 06:40:39 PM »

Jeff- When this project really started, it was for the folks. A nice place for the blue collar constiuents (that those funds were intended for) who now likely have to leave and are being crowded out. They didn't need it to spur developement, it was a boom town already. Now, it's some mega monster boondoggle, complete with a feasability study that says that in the long run, it will be a net positive. Guess what? That will take several lifetimes, and Dick, there's no way the lots are a Mil each in the desert.

The board that got this "out-of control" should go to prison. That's how criminal it is.

« **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2004, 06:56:49 PM »

Adam Clayman,

$ 180,000 per acre in that neck of the woods seems cheap.

Two public golf courses seems like a benefit for the residents.

Property tax revenues for 200 homes in that neck of the woods should be significant.

If all goes as planned, who loses in this arrangement

??

« **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2004, 07:01:11 PM »

I.m sorry Pat, I thought it said phase one was for

The first phase, pegged at $94.1 million, includes land acquisition and the completion of one tournament-quality golf course, a temporary clubhouse, perimeter landscaping and road improvements.

And Patrick, How open eneded is this public trough?

Other amenities will eventually include a clubhouse, practice range, lakes, hiking trails and hotels. But the timing of the second phase is yet undetermined.

$180,000 an acre for desert, you must be on retainer.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2004, 07:11:54 PM »

Adam Clayman,

When the Humphries family first begain developing the Vintage Club, in the desert, they were getting $ 1,000,000 per acre for homesites, and that was back in the early 80's.

« **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2004, 07:39:25 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on May 01, 2004, 07:11:54 PM

Adam Clayman,

When the Humphries family first begain developing the Vintage Club, in the desert, they were getting $ 1,000,000 per acre for homesites, and that was back in the early 80's.

Pat- How can YOU compare that ^, to this Municipal project? SInce I am ignorant about the Vintage club, but I'd still bet those lots haven't appreciated much.

Have you ever been to the corner of 52 and Jefferson?

Do you know what the neighborhood looks like?

« **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2004, 07:49:59 PM »

Adam Clayman,

The lots did appreciate, as has most exclusive real estate in California.

If I've been to that intersection, I don't remember it.

You still haven't told me who loses out in this project, and how.

« **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2004, 08:07:37 PM »

Pat- The taxpayer is the loser. The golfer is the loser. The postal employee who lives in La quinta and doesn't have a low-profile low cost muni to call home, That's who loses. The guy who the whole ball got rolling for. I don't assume you'd know him. I doubt you take the bus enough to even have contact with him. And you know who else is a loser? The unknown, maybe up and coming archie who got beat-out, by the biig time multi-natl conglomerate firm of arnie palmer. His interest in the area is EVERYWHERE. To allow his design firm the pork barrel, is risky, to say the least, from a perception of in propriety aspect. But hey, That's just me.

« **Reply #14 on:** May 01, 2004, 08:18:16 PM »

Adam Clayman,

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 01, 2004, 08:07:37 PM

The taxpayer is the loser.

How ?

The golfer is the loser.

How ?

The postal employee who lives in La quinta and doesn't have a low-profile low cost muni to call home, That's who loses.

How, now he has a place to play golf ?

The guy who the whole ball got rolling for. I don't assume you'd know him. I doubt you take the bus enough to even have contact with him. And you know who else is a loser?

The unknown, maybe up and coming archie who got beat-out, by the biig time multi-natl conglomerate firm of arnie palmer.

That's an assumption on your part.
Perhaps the up and comiing architects who work for that firm, like Eric Larsen, will do a good job

His interest in the area is EVERYWHERE. To allow his design firm the pork barrel, is risky, to say the least, from a perception of in propriety aspect.

How so ?

But hey, That's just me.

I understand

« **Reply #15 on:** May 01, 2004, 11:22:32 PM »

The $94.1 million doesn't faze me too much, after all that's a pretty expensive area and 525 acres is a pretty good chunk of land. But I have to agree with those are point out that $1.2 million to rehab a house as a temporary clubhouse is insane!

If they spend $1.2 million on this, how long is it going to take? If it takes a month, that's $300K per week....is it even possible to have enough people working in a 2600 sq ft place to burn that kind of cash? I wouldn't think there'd be room. So either they are covering the walls and ceiling with imported marble and gold leaf or its taking longer than a month to do the work. I would think that if you give any general contractor half that $1.2 million budget they could knock down that house and put up a "temporary" 2600 sq ft clubhouse in a month. Or heck, just buy a suitable building somewhere and get one of those "wide load" trucks to bring it in!

I'll bet there's a lot of crookedness going on in this deal, and probably more than on just the rehab, but people take their cues from Wall Street and the White House, and the last decade especially both have been so rife with corruption I guess everyone figures if people like Clinton, Lay and Cheney can get away with it, so can they. Glad I'm not a taxpayer down there!

« **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2004, 06:07:21 AM »

This was from the January 15th issue of the Desert Sun. It figures a firm like Palmer/Seay would get the nod, probably just edged out RTJ Jr. for the job.

"The city of La Quinta will hold groundbreaking ceremonies Monday for its Silver Rock Ranch golf and commercial project.

Course designer and part-time La Quinta resident Arnold Palmer will be joined by city officials for the groundbreaking and ceremonial first drives."

« **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2004, 09:08:21 AM »

Doug Siebert,

The question would be, how long and how much would it cost to build a new equivalent facility ?

1.2 million might be cheap.

« **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2004, 09:31:46 AM »

Pat- Your bias is showing. Why don't you disclose your affiliation to this project or to those involved?

Quote

While Wood Brothers, Inc. was gearing up to move over 30,000 cubic yards of dirt per day, the Redevelopment Agency authorized bidding the golf course construction to eight pre-qualified golf course contractors, including: American Civil Constructors, Duinick Brothers Inc. Golf, Heritage Links, Landscapes Unlimited, Oliphant Golf Construction, Sema Golf, Wadsworth Golf Construction, and Weitz Golf International.

La Quinta California, expensive real estate...I don't think so.

Does Eric Larson work for Arnie?

As an artist, how does he feel having his art shown-off to the world, with somome elses name on it?

And Patrick, on this point, That's an assumption on your part. U R WRONG ! I do Know who and what got the city that's the size of a VILLAGE, interested in the idea. It's the reality that's been bastardized and your inability to see through all the B.S., red tape, and hand holding (reads: ass grabbing influence) just accentuates your bias.

« **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2004, 04:43:00 PM »

Adam Clayman,

Quote from: Adam Clayman on May 02, 2004, 09:31:46 AM

Pat- Your bias is showing. Why don't you disclose your affiliation to this project or to those involved?

I have no BIAS.
I have no clue as to who is involved, other then the references others made regarding the Palmer Company.

Quote
While Wood Brothers, Inc. was gearing up to move over 30,000 cubic yards of dirt per day, the Redevelopment Agency authorized bidding the golf course construction to eight pre-qualified golf course contractors, including: American Civil Constructors, Duinick Brothers Inc. Golf, Heritage Links, Landscapes Unlimited, Oliphant Golf Construction, Sema Golf, Wadsworth Golf Construction, and Weitz Golf International.

I have no idea who any of these firms are, nor do I have any affiliation with them or anyone else connected to this project as you've irresponsibly and recklessly asserted.

La Quinta California, expensive real estate...I don't think so.

52nd st and Jefferson is right between La Quinta and PGA West, so it can't be that bad of a neighborhood.
The La Quinta Hotel and Resort is a very nice complex and it's right on the corner of 52nd and Jefferson, so how bad a neighborhood can it be, especially when PGA West is just south at Jefferson and 54th st.

It seems like a perfect site for another 36 hole complex
And, that is potentially expensive real estate that will only appreciate in value

Does Eric Larson work for Arnie?

He did a few years ago, I don't know where he is now

As an artist, how does he feel having his art shown-off to the world, with somome elses name on it ?

I would imagine no different then any young associate architect working for any number of firms.
That's part of the apprentice package.

And Patrick, on this point, That's an assumption on your part. U R WRONG !

How so, and on what issue ?
You need to be descriptive when making a proclamation

I do Know who and what got the city that's the size of a VILLAGE, interested in the idea. It's the reality that's been bastardized and your inability to see through all the B.S., red tape, and hand holding (reads: ass grabbing influence) just accentuates your bias.

What BIAS ?
You haven't identified how or what I'm biased for or against.

Who cares who got them interested, if the project has merit, and benefits the residents, city and others, who cares whose idea it was

« **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2004, 05:20:29 PM »

If is the middle word in life. If the city runs it properly? Most of us who frequent municipal facilities find that pill not only hard, but impossible to swallow.

And,

If, you can't see how this is bad for GOLF, you really are part of the problem. BWT and all.

« **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2004, 05:52:34 PM »

This isn't just bad for golf. This is government competing in the private sector. It smacks of socialism. The opportunity for conflict of interest is so great as to lead me to believe that scandal is almost guarenteed.

Who does the inspections on projects completed by government? Who is to guarentee that a building inspector who receives his paycheck from the city is going to do his job?

I do not understand why others do not see that with this kind of profit motive government must not be involved.

« **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2004, 07:25:51 PM »

Eric Larsen does work for Palmer Design - and would probably be delighted by the description as an "up and comer"...

« **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2004, 07:36:51 PM »

Adam - you made a comment about "an artist showing off his work with someone elses name on it" - presumably in reference to Palmer's company.

One thought: I'm not sure I've seen a similar company where employees are treated as well as they are at Palmer Design's office. It looks to be a terrific place to work - and Mr. Palmer & Ed Seay are wonderful people with a unique gift - good humor! I wouldn't blame anyone for wishing to work there - particularly if they are not "entreprenurially minded"...

« **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2004, 07:48:01 PM »

Steve- I wasn't refering specifically to that organization. I'm sure Arnie's a terrific boss. The bigger point I was infusing was: That it is not art, when it's plagerized. And if that's true, then is this "qualification", either partly or completely the reason why, GCA has not been respected as an artform, as much as it probably should've.

Just my needeling nature. NO offense to Mr. Larson or Seay or any other.

p.s. I meant other Up and comers, not the AP design team.

.

News:

A_Clay_Man

RJ_Daley

Lou_Duran

RJ_Daley

Lou_Duran

Jeff_Brauer

W.H. Cosgrove

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Doug Siebert

Joel_Stewart

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

W.H. Cosgrove

Steve_Lovett

Steve_Lovett

A_Clay_Man