News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« on: June 06, 2002, 04:37:00 PM »
In an article about the Long Island town of North Hills that appeared in the New York Times today. apparently the Mayor of North Hills has Deepdale Golf Club clearly in his crosshairs.

"There is no reason why North Hills cannot rise to first place nationally, Mayor Lentini said, especially if he succeeds in his plan to BUY THE DEEPDALE GOLF COURSE and open it to residents only.

""That would make North Hills that much more desireable, which would make the properties that much more valuable, which will bring in more affluent people,"" he said, ""It can only get better."" "

We've seen what happens when governments determine that they want a piece of property, or want to restrict the use of a piece of property.

If a municipality wants a GOLF COURSE, for its use as a resident only GOLF COURSE, what troubles lie ahead for Deepdale ?

Who's next ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2002, 04:42:50 PM »
Doesn't Deepdale lease the property their course is on? For starters if that's so that's always a terrible situation! But if they own it who cares what the mayor of North Hills thinks is good for his town?

Who knows though, with all the hassle Friar's is going through I guess there are some scenarios in New York some of us from elsewhere find hard to believe!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2002, 04:49:49 PM »
Some of the members might resort to some of their business experience and launch a "Pac Man" defense - and make a counter offer for the entire North Hills town.

some of them could no doubt afford it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2002, 05:05:49 PM »
Sean:

I like that defense!

It reminds me of Howard Hughes's mysterious move to Las Vegas a few decades ago. The man was a very strange man and saw practically no one and wanted very few to know of his whereabouts.

He moved into a few penthouse suites in one of the big Vegas casinos and had the locks changed up there. Management apparently did not know who he was, figured since he was not doing any high rolling they could put the suites to better use so the sent word up to him that they wanted him to vacate and he sent word back down to them that they'd be the ones vacating since he owned the hotel!

I was really fascinated by him in about the last ten years of his life and I was convinced he wasn't even alive. It took his actual death to make me realize that he actually had been alive those last ten years or so!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2002, 06:34:59 PM »
I play hockey every year with the superintendent. He has told me more than once that all the rumours are bulls*it. Remember the wealth of the club when reading the article, nobody there has a "need" to make money from a sale. Why would they sell?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2002, 07:59:53 PM »
Ian,

I don't think anybody wants to sell.

The question is, can a government make things so uncomfortable that they force a sale ?   AND.....

There is something else, it is called ........  EMINENT DOMAIN
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chip Royce

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2002, 09:50:16 PM »
I am personally very skeptical about Deepdale being taken by Emminent Domain.

However, remember that the Timber Point Club (see "Missing Links") of Great River NY was seized in much the same way (60's or 70's). After the club folded, a number of private investors sought to purchase the club's land and maintain the wonderful course, funded by the development of tasteful home developments.

The local government said, "sorry charlie" and took the land despite the plan but forward by the developers, thus destroying a course that Daniel Wexler the author of the book would have believed to be a US top 25 track.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2002, 06:49:56 AM »
Patrick:

If the mayor of North Hills thinks he's going to take Deepdale G.C. from some very wealth members (provided the property is owned not leased) by Eminent Domain to give to the town as a golf course to attract more affluent residents to the town is so completely illogical and unsupportable that he would find himself in front of the US Supreme Court (if it could ever remotely get that far) and lose hands down!

That kind of thing would be so compeletly destructive of the concept of property rights as to be laughable! This is all provided the club is owned not leased. I don't know where I heard it but I once heard the property was leased.

It might have been from JR Delich the pro who was there for many years-but maybe I'm mistaken about that!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Jamie_Duffner

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2002, 08:32:55 AM »
Isn't Old Westbury CC across the street?  What will they do?

Deepdale ahs some heavy, heavy hitters as members.  Skip multi-millionares, go straight to billionares!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2002, 07:39:06 AM »
Gentlemen,

I work at North Hills CC right next door to Deepdale.  Both Deepdale and our course have an address in Manhasset, NY even though we are located in the "North Hills" area.  This is the first I have heard of the situation and I don't know if the mailing address would shed any light on the debacle.  I will talk to one of the guys that works over there that I know and see what this "rumor" is all about.  

Jeff F.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
#nowhitebelt

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2002, 08:42:31 AM »
Jeff Forsten,

This is not a rumor, the Mayor of the town was quoted as saying this is his plan, in the New York Times, just a few days ago.

Now, whether he was serious, or trying to send a message to someone, we don't know.  

But, the mere fact that he would make this statement, to a reporter for one of the most important Newspapers in the world, could give some other government officials a new target for their crosshairs and set off some dangerous trends.

George Bahto can probably fill you in with respect to how the
TOWN OF PARSIPPANY took over The Knoll golf club in NJ.

Don't be so quick to dismiss this apparent effort.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2002, 08:49:18 AM »
That mayor of North Hills is likely not going to move out those well-heeled members of Deepdale. He's probably just looking for a little extra whiskey money for his HONOR. hisself!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2002, 09:03:11 AM »
TEPaul,

I suspect something else may have motivated the statement.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2002, 10:31:58 AM »
Sounds like there's at least one other lawyer on this.  The "proper public purpose" requirement for condemnation has been a bit of a joke, although I don't know what the Rhenquist folks have made of it lately.  Usually, so long as the money is there to pay, its not tough to think up some bs "public" reason to satisfy the courts.  In law school we looked at the possibility of condemning a baseball team and thought it might work, so why not a golf course (or "public" park with one on it)?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
That was one hellacious beaver.

TEPaul

Re: Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2002, 04:48:42 PM »
Cite me a private golf course with the property owned by a membership anything like the membership of Deepdale that has had a government take the course from them by condemnation and give it to something like the residences of a town for public use.

That sounds preposterous to me! I really don't care what that mayor thinks he's up to!

Now the obvious question is--DOES Deepdale actually OWN the property that the course and club are on or do they NOT? If they lease that property (even extremely long term--as I thought I once heard long before this thread that they did) then that's a whole different ballgame!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary_K

Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2006, 09:06:19 PM »
This post started in June of 2002.  Deepdale has now filed a lawsuit in U.S. District court against the Village of North Hills to prevent the Village from taking the private golf couse and turning it into a public course through eminent domain.  See links below:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--golfclubfight0307mar07,0,3076933.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-ligolf0308,0,7813908.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ? TROUBLE !
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2006, 04:37:48 PM »
A New York town’s actions to seize a private golf club should have club members
and non-golfing taxpayers in cities and states across America very concerned.

Mike Hughes
CEO, the National Golf Course Owners Association

It’s not often the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enters the world of golf, but it did so recently in the Village of North Hills, New York. That’s where city officials are moving to claim eminent domain over a private golf club. While disturbing in this instance, the possibility that similar actions could spread to courses in other parts of the U.S. is what should have golf club members and non-golfing taxpayers alike very concerned.

The Village of North Hills is home to the Deepdale Golf Club, a highly regarded private club approximately 20 miles from Manhattan. The mayor of North Hills claims converting Deepdale to a municipal facility in the name of “economic development” would provide an amenity to village residents. It is also likely the conversion would boost property values, and in turn, property taxes, although mayor Marvin Natiss isn’t talking about this downstream benefit just yet.

We believe the mayor is loosely interpreting the “Takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows taking private property for “public use” as long as just compensation is made to the private party. However, our quarrel is not with the Constitution or even the concept of eminent domain – it’s with this interpretation of economic development.

We saw the eminent domain issue coming even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. ruling in June 2005 that confirmed the use of eminent domain in the name of “economic development.” A pre-Kelo example occurred in Coatesville, Penn., where an attempt failed to condemn a family farm in order to construct a recreational complex that would have included an 18-hole golf course.

Leadership at the National Golf Course Owners Association believes this is a slippery slope. If government starts to condemn private property in order to build upscale municipal courses, or scout for “blighted” privately owned golf courses ripe for multi-million dollar renovations subsidized by taxpayers, where might it lead?  That’s why this is not only an issue for golfers.  Undoubtedly, that’s also why lawmakers in Washington and in more than 30 states have introduced legislation to curtail or require greater scrutiny of eminent domain in the name of economic development.

We believe local authorities need to ask whether their constituents are really clamoring for more high-end, public golf courses. (The golf industry’s participation statistics over the past several years certainly don’t support that.) What’s more, there are currently some 70 public-access golf courses within a 25-mile drive of North Hills. Isn’t the hue and cry much louder for investment in better schools, healthcare and roads?

The question that must be asked now in North Hills – and maybe soon in towns across America – is whether the need for further economic development justifies seizing some of the least-blighted property in the area.  Is it more compelling than the Deepdale members’ right to their private club?  Further, might the property values enjoyed by North Hills – already among the highest in the nation – be due in part to the gem of a private golf club that already calls North Hills home?


Media Contact:
Bill Bryant
bbryant@bryantmarcomm.com
678-366-3232

 

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2006, 05:00:42 PM »
This is well known to most of you, BUT:

Deepdale is on the current property (Dick Wilson design circa 1954) because Robert Moses decided that the Long Island Expressway should cut off part of the original Deepdale layout (CBM? Raynor? circa 1915) despite the club's best efforts to block it.  Same kind of membership back then, too.  The remains of that marvelous design is now the public course for the town of Lake Success.  The original clubhouse, which was a sizable Vanderbilt mansion (Deepdale was originally his private course), is now the Lake Success town offices.

I'm guessing George Bahto has examined the Lake Success course and I've been told there's not much left of CBM/Raynor's original brilliance even where the routing is the same.

I hope it doesn't happen again.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2006, 05:08:04 PM »
Shivas

penumbras eminate

For us non genius's, explain a little bit like we were 85 IQ's
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Tom Huckaby

Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2006, 05:11:53 PM »
Shivas

penumbras eminate

For us non genius's, explain a little bit like we were 85 IQ's

Cary - I am damn glad you said that because I am with you, bruthah.  Seems like our buddy shiv is on an "out-do Goodale with the vocabulary" kick.

The funny thing is though his statements make great sense once you know what the hell penumbra are.  I looked it up.

 ;D ;D ;D

John Goodman

Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2006, 05:15:22 PM »
I believe Shivas is referring to the Supreme Court's stated reasoning in the Roe v. Wade decision and the birth control case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that preceded it.  In substance the Court held that while there is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution, there are other provisions from which a right may (in the Court's view) fairly be implied.  "Penumbra" was a fancy way of saying, "that right is there, even though you can't see it."  The right to privacy (and the right to be free from government control of "reproductive freedom") emanates from, for example, your right (which is articulated in the Constitution) not to be required by the government to quarter troops.  
Agree, Shivas?

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ? TROUBLE !
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2006, 06:55:14 PM »
Property rights purists contend that the words eminent domain appear nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. However, eminent domain law is based on the Fifth Amendment: [no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.

The Fifth Amendment in it's entirety:

 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Jin Kim

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ? TROUBLE !
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2006, 07:22:09 PM »
Powers of eminent domain derive from the common law.
And the SCOTUS has described it as an 'inseparable incident of sovereignty.'

The takings clause of the fifth amendment was intended to prevent abuses of such powers.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2006, 07:40:57 PM »

All bunkers should be penumbra bunkers.
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Deepdale in the crosshairs ?      TROUBLE !
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2006, 08:41:21 PM »
Let it be noted that this thread was initated on 06-06-02, almost four years ago.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back