Affordable Golf

[SB]

Tom,

I agree with your statement.  In the long run, the market will win out and the price will be the price.  

However, it is worth pointing out that the average cost to construct a course increased dramatically during the 90's, excluding land, and the architects do share a little blame for that.  

Particularly a few of your compatriots that encouraged expensive construction techniques such as sand "plating" or moved dirt in many cases just because they could.  This forced many courses to spend more than they should have and the price had to go up as well.  That said, we all drank the same punch.

Again, the developer takes most of the blame, but there were a lot of developers who were blindly led off the edge by people who should have known better (see Paragon Construction).  

[Doug Siebert]

Since you brought up Iowa, I'll give an example from my neck of the woods.  First of all, if you think Iowa is a low tax state, you have another think coming -- I'm not sure what NJ's tax rate is, but Iowa's top personal rate is 8.98% and sales tax is 5%.  Definitely not low rate.  Iowa's got more miles of road per capita than any state and is always at or near the top for the best primary and secondary education in the country, and those things don't come cheap!

When I first started playing at age 12 or 13, there were four courses in or near town.  One private nine holer, two daily fee nine holers (cow pasture quality) and one university-owned 18 holer.  The population of the town and surrounding area has probably increased by 50% in the 25 years since then, and what has happened is that a new 18 hole daily fee course was added about 15 years ago, one of the 9 hole cow pasture courses is now an 18 hole cow pasture as of about five years ago, a new 18 hole daily fee was built about four years ago.  Plus a new nine hole daily fee/real estate development was built about 15 years ago, went bankrupt two years ago, and bought by the city (actually a suburb of where I currently live) and expanded to 18 holes.

Now obviously land is more expensive in some parts of NJ than it is here, but you'd be surprised -- half acre lots go for $100K or more in better areas, and we don't have ocean views or anything like that to jack up prices.  But given that there are two public courses in town by the logic of some here the owners should be screaming.  But I haven't heard of any complaints at all.  What's funny is that the place that seems the most empty is the 18 hole city owned course, even though prices are reasonable ($25 for 18 holes IIRC) and the course is a pretty decent track.  Not top 10 public even for Iowa, but still quite playable and better than (or at least no worse than) say San Jose Muni and Santa Teresa to pick a couple munis that many here are familiar with.

[Matt_Ward]

SBusch:

You completely missed my point.

I don't doubt there is golf -- generic no frills golf available. So what? The places you mentioned are simply low level stuff -- far, far removed for any person who wants to enjoy some real connection to the game. Yes, they have holes in the ground but none of them is anywhere near the likes of the better taxpayer-owned facilities like Hominy Hill, Howell Park, Quail Brook, The Knoll, Sunset Valley, Flanders Valley, Tamarack, etc, etc, etc.

If you want to use better examples you should have mentioned Bowling Green, Farmstead, Buena Vista, to name just three.

My point which you clearly don't understand is that the middle type course Joe and Jim are referring to is not present in Jersey -- you have the CCFAD types and the taxpayer-owned courses. Those that remain are, IMHO, minus a very few exceptions, are easily forgettable and clearly avoidable given the available options.

Competition and the cost of doing business has made them more difficult to operate. My only point was that those who scream about taxpayer-owned courses would want the government owned courses to simply GO AWAY. That somehow if the muni was outlawed the financial plight of those in the "middle" would improve dramatically. I see no reason to believe that because those courses that have stayed the course in the Garden State have risen their rates no matter what -- in some cases quite appreciably.

How bout the folks who scream about the "muni" just simply call it for what it is -- competition.

My robber baron quote is right on target. What a number of golf course owners failed to do is illuminate those small few who have seen fit to gouge the public -- I mean triple digit fees exist and frankly for what you get I don't see the justification for it -- only recently have CCFAD courses in New Jersey begun the process in scaling fees to time of day and season of the year.  I find it hard to believe that people on the private daily fee side of golf will issue lectures about muni golf and all the unafir advantages it has but literally say not a word about their fellow "brethern" who simply push up and up the costs to play -- thank you Jim for mentioning the aspect of "greed" because few people on the ownership / development side ever say such things publicly.

I can remember when Jersey had a solid balance of different pay level courses -- from the muni to the single owner who likely had a farm and now golf course to the multi-course ownership groups that seem to be the rage today.

I also understand how the economics have changed in my hole state and frankly without the muni the opportunity for people to play golf at affordable rates would have been lost as so much has in the last few years.

Joe H:

When you say NJ has the highest per capita income -- it;s easy to see that and automatically assume that everyone in the state is driving a Lamborghini and living off the fat of the land. That's hardly the case. The people I speak about -- the Joe Sixpacks & Mary Wineglass types are the ones who need the lower tier option that muni golf provides. Without it -- they would have little need to play a game that is ever more returning to the high levels of income and elitism. I see it here in Jersey everyday -- maybe in your "neck of the woods" that issue is not present -- but it is where I live.

[Joe Hancock]

Matt,

If you think NJ is the only place where the have's and the have-not's exist in the same state.......

I think we're losing each other on "affordable golf" and "growing the  game". Many people see $50 as affordable golf, but I doubt many people that are just learning the game are going to pay that for each trip out. You think the "robber barrons" are not growing the game...I'm just not sure where you draw your "robber barron" line in the sand.

Also, I'm thinking "generic, no frills golf--so what?" golf is the affordable golf, with few exceptions....you are ignoring that type of course and targeting something a little higher up the chain....I think. I honestly don't know who, what, where or how your beef is. I also don't know how one can travel the world playing high end golf and have any real idea what a learning golfer goes through to get involved in this game.

Matt, get to know a few of us robber barrons....we'll set aside our greed long enough to fill you in on how the "generic, no frills golf--so what" golf world is like.....unless you could really give a crap less.

Joe

[Matt_Ward]

Joe:

Hold the phone partner -- I never said YOU or those of you ilk were "robber barons." However, it would be nice if people who are in the business of course ownership would do a bit more public rebuking of those who DO make it a point to simply bump up rates and only go after that small sliver of players at the very top end of disposable dollars. Joe -- I'm willing to see the "other side" provided those on the ownership side would understand the real nature of what's happening.

Very few of the top priced courses in NJ that I am aware of actually provide for junior rates during weekends (they now consider Friday a weekend date ) & holidays. Some places don't even provide for twilights rates to encourage people to come later in the day and get a substanial break from "prime" tee time allocation. You also have very few courses developing core loyalty programs -- akin to frequent flier situations -- to reward those for coming back time after time.

Joe -- with all due respect -- I cut my teeth playing muni's -- started years ago at Passaic County GC in Wayne, NJ and still play a fair number of rounds with the boys there and elsewhere. You must be confusing me with the people who play in the Hamptons and Hobe Sound that post on GCA. I've NEVER forgotten where I came from and I most certainly enjoy each and every moment I get when playing -- whether it be muni's or the top tier clubs throughout the globe.

My issue started with the fact that some in the privately owned daily fee business dee NO REASON for muni's. It's been stated by the leadership of the NJ Golf Club Owners group and I think that's utterly inane given the fact that so few real choices exist for the average family. If people have a bitch about the economics of golf it's far too easy and really convenient to blame the muni for the fall-off in business. Maybe the people running the privately owned daily fees need to do some internal self-examination before lobbing the invective. I understand the nature of how the middleof-the-road course owner is pinched in with the economics that's present today but there can be other answers that are bit more realistic than simply proclaiming how muni's are runining it for everyone else. That's truly simplistic and nothing more than targeting a convenient scapegoat.

[frank_D]

... the idea of affordable golf is when privately owned daily-fee courses become outraged that taxpayer-owned jurisdictions (city, county, or state) jump into the golf development business.....

brother Matt_Ward

yes indeed this economic point can't be underestimated - but what if the governmental entity is the way to save an "old" course ?

PS this is why i saw "The Ponce" as doomed when county commissioners voted against saving it - too many private "turfs" to protect (including WGV) - conspiracy theory aside it is easy for developers (private enterprise) to get their way (not that there's anything wrong with that) in many jurisdictions

IMO as "affordable" is a relative term - the pricing structure is as much marketing as anything else and tier pricing could have its benefit

[Matt_Ward]

Brother Frank ...

It's unfortunate that the situation in golf development sometimes drags down and becomes an "us" versus "them" mentality.

Sadly, when any market collapses and the overall stability is concerned it's likely a panic or "blame someone" mentality will take hold as people scramble for financial lifeboats.

Muni golf has a place in the game ... in those jurisdictions where high property values have occurred the displacement of the "middle-of-the-road" privately owned daily fee came about not because of the muni but because of the high land costs and associated tax levies that come with that.

I don't doubt for a minute the posts made by those in other jurisdictions that are far different than the one in my "neck of the woods." It pains me to see people within golf fighting with one another because nothing really good comes from that.

I did mention beforehand there are numerous strategies that should be used encouraging people to play -- particularly at the big ticket courses through off-day and off-hour usage.

The issue is that the golf market is quite stratified and it's easy to see the muni as the prime suspect because of the wherewithal of muni's to have deeper pockets paid through taxpayer contributions. The muni often serves as the starting point for people to enter the game -- those who become enamored with golf usually gravitate to other facilities further up the food chain in terms of overall quality and amenities.

Clearly, successful partnerships can be attained -- in New Jersey there is a movement for golf in the Meadowlands area very close to Giants Stadium that will take a former landfill and convert it into two 18-hole facilities -- one of which, I believe, will be open to the public. The folks from En-Cap in North Carolina are the primary developers and the win-win is there for the host communities too. Sometimes -- different groups can come together and everyone benefits.

[frank_D]

brother Matt_Ward

well whenever a discussion of money ensues i wouldn't expect less than an us v them mentality

the amusing part for me however is i played a NJ course (the architect's) and found it quite reasonably "affordable" during a holiday visit - i could have done without the traffic through the tunnel into NYC

nor am i against anyone making a buck - but i find things like the weather may have a greater economic impact (certain sections of FL actually got hit with four (4) hurricanes in as many weeks) which i suggest has had a greater impact than any previous periods municipal golf course competition

i'm not sure of the accounting either - if the appraised land value of the course goes from say $1,500,000 to $15,000,000 over the same period of time the "operations" on a cash (revenues minus expenses) basis lost $2,000,000 - does the private owner say he lost or made money during that period ? and moreover i can see why the annual property tax bill is going up in this example - or else the legal remedy might be a certiori proceeding where one can appeal their tax assessment

that's why marketing and tier pricing equating VALUE is the better yardstick - the "affordable" median of say $50 could either be a great bargain or a big ripoff or just right

i don't subscribe to the suggestion that municipal courses are detrimental to private ownership based on getting "a free lunch" as it were - as someone is absorbing the economic "costs" - but that does not mean "an unfair advantage in business" however ( i have seen well run municipals and badly run private operations on courses of equal price and equal course conditioning )

i will concede that given a municipal course addition leading to "excess capacity" the "price" should drop - supply and demand - but i wonder if demand wouldn't eventually increase overall (for both courses)

as far as the "robber barron" why should the golf industry be exempt from economic reality as exists elsewhere

lastly the people i know who no longer play golf say they quit because they couldn't "afford" the TIME it took to complete a round and have no problem with the monetary costs

[SB]

I seriously doubt that NJ golf course owners completely want government "out" of the golf business.  I believe, and I believe that other owners agree as well, that municipal golf is a critical part of the golf landscape, particularly states like NJ.  The problem I have is that municipal golf courses are not providing entry level golf.  This is not Harvard vs. community college.   This is government opening up a steakhouse across the street from a Mortons.

They are providing upscale golf that competes directly with the business that I have plunked down my hard earned cash to buy.  And, they make no bones about why they do it - to make money.  Most governments get into the golf game believing that they can use low cost bonds to build the course, fund it with future cash flows, and the excess will fill gaps in their budgets.  Heron Glen charges $70 bucks for a round for non-residents.  How is that serving golfers?  How are we robber barons when we charge the same price?  Why is government in ANY business to make money? Or, in the case of Egg Harbor Township, to lose it?  Why don't they get into the restaurant business?  How about golf magazines?  That's serving the public good.

[frank_D]

This is not Harvard vs. community college.   This is government opening up a steakhouse across the street from a Mortons.

brother SBusch

i didn't realize i was touching a raw nerve when i mentioned municipal golf as an "affordable" alternative but for reasons i mentioned above i don't see it as a catastrophe compared to factors like - the weather, the overall economy, local demographics etc - some of which are out of anyone's individual control - and a risk you take as an "investor" as in any business

that steakhouse (mortons / peter luger / ruth chris) whoever still has to deliver a product - and something tells me if it's not satisfactory it won't last long - and that's something a municipal course is not automatically insulated from - and which runs a market economy (fed ex / ups etc compete with the post office ?)

something also tells me if the municipality were to convert an existing course it owned into something the equivilent of a garbage dump or landfill - you would be more serverly and detrimentally impacted economically be a decrease in your land value - but i may be wrong

[Matt_Ward]

SBusch:

Excuse me -- but when you say you "seriously doubt" what's taking place in NJ you frankly don't know what you're talking about. Point blank. The comments came from the leadership of the NJ Golf Course Owners in regards to what took place with McCullough's Emerald Links in the greater Atlantic City, NJ area.

You see I didn't spin the comments -- they came from a group that said government has no place in the golf development business. By all means -- the average Joe and Mary public golfer should depend upon the private side of the ledger to provide them with 'modest' priced golf.

Let me also point out Emerald Links isn't some sort of bells and whistles type course when compared to other high profile public courses in the area. If you want more personalized service and all the other amenities that type of golfer will go to what else is available and New Jersey certainly has them in that area and in other locales in the Garden State.

Pardon me, but you don't seem to understand one very simply basic thing -- when the market is contracting as it is today -- the people on the private (daily fee side) side see A-N-Y competition -- whether it be a your stripped down basic muni or some sort of other type course -- as COMPETITION against what they're offering. Nothing like rolling up the sidewalk to prevent others from walking.

The average Joe and Mary who want to play no-frills golf don't need the high school kid who runs out to the car and gives them the "pampered" treatment -- they simply want golf that's fairly generic and obvious.

Let's take your points one at a time. Heron Glen is owned by the taxpayers of Hunterdon County. It was the first county-owned course built there. I salute the leadership of the county in creating an opportunity for their growing county population to play golf. I see nothing wrong with that. If the privately owned daily fee courses see that as being wrong then I'll say this again -- for every Harvard there needs to be a public counterpart serving an undervalued part of the population.

I also have no problem with Heron Glen charging a non-resident rate simply because (as friends of Bethpage have pointed out to me time after time) the folks who live in that jurisdiction should always be given first dibs on what's there.
If golfers can't play there they will choose other courses -- some of them daily fees -- that are nearby.

Let me also point out that until VERY RECENTLY the privately owned daily fees were slow off the mark in developing loyaty programs, having twilight rates, providing for junior access at a fee structure beyond listing them as "adults" during prime times and in having multi-price points for time of year and day. In my mind -- the privately owned daily fees were simply sticking to their rates irrespective in DEVELOPING the game. The elite high few were simply looking to grab all they could whenever they could.

How bout the privately owned daily fees get more aggressive in marketing themselves -- in providing a clear and compelling reason why golfers should go there instead of taking the "let's bash the muni courses approach?"  Do you know I receive a weekly e-mail from Heron Glen on their availability of tee times. I don't get any such related info from the other clubs in NJ.

Government has been involved in the recreation side for quite some time. To throw into the waters such inane comments that government would get involved in the restaurant business or golf magazine business is silly and patently nonsensical. Given your point of view why the need to create a Central Park -- let's wait and have the "private" side handle the situation.

The issue in New Jersey is about escalating land costs and overall taxes that have nothing to do with muni golf. The courses that were in the "middle" were the ones facing the squeeze. From my conversations with the top tier daily fees in NJ I don't doubt I have heard their comments regarding the nature of what is happening within the broader golf industry. But, I also believe, these same folks see the muni as the developing platform for future players.

The quality of muni golf overall in NJ is far below the overall product put forward by the privately owned daily fee courses. Yes, you do have some outstanding county park systems with Morris, Monmouth and Somerset but you also a number of others who are simply backward or in some other instances really low level courses / design that would not threaten the standing of the daily fees that exist today.

Those privately owned daily fee courses that understand how to brand and market themselves will continue to do well. Those that simply look to find a scape goat are really only hurting themselves.

 

[George Pazin]

Matt -

How would you feel if the State of NJ decided to do its own golf magazine on New Jersey golf, with little or no advertising, supported by your tax dollars? Or even more accurately, charged for advertising, but less than your magazine, and then went out and solicited all the advertisers in your magazine?

State governments have no business competing with private businesses.

[SB]

You're totally missing the point.  Competition is fine. The problem is that they want to drop $12 million into high end golf courses, and there is still nowhere to go to play golf with your kid for $20.   In addition, the private owner now has to compete against your own taxing authority.  Imagine if you owned a course near Emerald Links.  Not only do you get the pleasure of them taking 30% of your revenue, but you then get the joy of writing checks for property taxes to help them do it to you.  They then get a free liquor license, no red tape, and low interest bonds - also supported by your taxes, and free land.  You really should walk a mile in an owner's shoes.  To call us greedy is to be completely clueless about how much money golf course owners really make.  

Also, just a quick point: part of government's job, particularly in NJ, is they restrict your ability to ever develop your golf course.  There is no land value for most golf courses in NJ.  

[Doug Siebert]

Frank D,

If the value of the land on which a course sits goes from $1.5 mil to $15 mil I fail to see how that is a problem for the owners in any way at all.  So what if the taxes go through the roof?  I should think it would be fairly trivial to get loans based on the higher property value (the commercial version of the retirees' "reverse mortgage") to fund those operations.  You write off your operational losses, the interest on your ever-increasing loan amount to fund those losses and depreciate your initial construction costs and ongoing improvements (at 27.5 years or whatever it is for golf courses) at your marginal tax rate, and when you sell it someday you pay off your massive gains at the much lower long term capital gains rate.  Plus if its daily fee and has a bar and grill its a cash business and we all know how those work.  Sounds like a dream of a tax shelter, where do I sign up to be a partner in such a poor investment?

I wonder if some people are crying wolf trying to justify their overly high rates by claiming they have to cash flow operationally, knowing that even if they are "losing money" now they could liquidate for a healthy profit at any time....a profit that just grows and grows if they built the course just outside of a populated area rather than someplace like Mullen.

Since munis will rarely sell the land they are on, they don't gain any advantage from increases in property values so maybe it is munis which face unfair competition from private courses

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I love the ploy when people try to use an example that "hits close to home" to see if the person making a case is consistent with their approach. Nice try George -- but it doesn't fly.

I have no issue with the State of New Jersey deciding to run their own golf magazine. If they think they can be successful doing such an enterprise more power to them.

There's nothing written in stone that says they can't do such a thing. However, I would think such an attempt would be frowned upon by the voters of the Garden State because such an enterprise is really not a needed item for the public to pay for.

George -- it's clear you have no idea on how magazines are put together. The state would have to use funds from some source. They would also need to either hire or contract with someone to put together such a publication. In fact -- NJ does do that with information brochures and the like on tourism in the state. If they can solicit advertising that's less than what we charge by all means go and ahead and try it. We've been around 14 years and have seen other better financed competitors come down the line.

What they (the state or others) won't do -- that Jersey Golfer DOES DO -- is provide real editorial content to its readers. The State takes the approach in its tourist publication to simply provide generic information and do nothing more than be a yellow pages services to those interested in coming to the state or to those already here.

Jersey Golfer is a "brand name" -- it has a particular "voice" and style that is truly unique. If others wish to compete by all means the door is open.

George -- when you say state governments have no business competing with private businesses then why have state parks and the like. If people don't have the dough to visit the big ticket resorts then too bad for them -- is there your fiefdom approach -- the knaves deserve nothing.  George -- that's patently silly because government does provide recreational services to people that do in fact COMPETE with private business. I think it's great that states, counties and localities to provide these services because the for-profit businesses are primarily interested in those with much deeper pockets to visit there resorts, attractions and the like.

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't this why, entering the golf course business, for cash flow, or short-term bottmline justifications, too high a risk?

If the playing field was leveled, and every public course, was absloved from paying property tax, it would be a fairer fight, No?, and, there'd be alot more GCA, some better (and some worse) out there. Truly big world.

Private Clubs are for those who can afford them, and/or, for people who just can't stand being so close to us riff raff.  

That's not competing that's just an alternative.

If health care can become a right, so can golf. It's healthy (mandatory NO CARTS) and preventative medicine. Even though you may get killed doing it. Pardoxical perfection.

[George Pazin]

How many state parks charge any kind of significant admission?

You dont' see the dangers inherent in using your tax dollars to create a business that competes with the company you work for? I guarantee if you owned the business you would see the problem.

[frank_D]

If the value of the land on which a course sits goes from $1.5 mil to $15 mil I fail to see how that is a problem for the owners in any way at all.

brother Doug Siebert

yes - my point was the effect of the VALUE of the ENTIRE investment should be included to consider an ECONOMIC gain or loss - not just highlight CASH BASIS results which annually may yield an operating loss

if the real estate taxes are increasing - the VALUE of the land must be increasing - or the taxpayer can get relief by challenging the assessment

i think i am reading posts regarding operating losses ONLY as the problem without the effect of the investment increase (or decrease) in the land VALUE

[frank_D]

You dont' see the dangers inherent in using your tax dollars to create a business that competes with the company you work for? I guarantee if you owned the business you would see the problem.

brother George Pazin

i don't know to whom your query was directed to but for my own edification could you explain to me - and i may be thickheaded and thank you in advance for your time - why the same economic forces of supply and demand do NOT apply in the golf industry as they do in other industries where government competes with private enterprise ?

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Let's review what you asked me ...

You asked how would I feel if the State of NJ decided to get into the golf magazine business. I answered you -- point blank. You threw forward such an example to see if I was consistent in my position with SBusch regarding competition that takes place now within the golf industry -- privately owned daily fees versus muni type courses.

George -- I have an equity stake in Jersey Golfer and I know from the front lines -- not the cheap seats in deep left field --what competiton is all about in the publication arena.

I also mentioned to you that if one were to take the opinions of a key leader within the NJ Golf Course Owners group and say government has no business in the "muni" business -- then let's go one step further and say government has no business in being in the recreation and parks business too. That's just plain silly. Parks and recreation are provided by government -- sometimes at no daily costs -- the same argument about governmental involvement could be used when a town operates a swim club -- tennis courts -- basketball courts -- etc, etc, etc. These all compete with private providers -- albeit with nominal daily and / or seasonal fees, but the public side is well served in this regard. No less when muni's are created for golf. There's a certain role they fit and a market they serve.

The parks charge people a nominal rate because without such parks the people interested in such outdoors pursuits would have to pony up considerable more to take advantage of what private developers have created.

Getting back to the magazine side of the equation I'll say this again in the event you either missed it or ignored it -- publications of staying power need to be effectively "branded" and "marketed" in order to survive. I see Jersey Golfer with a particular "voice" on what's happening within golf circles in the Garden State. Competitors simply seeking to "jump in" without effectively creating such a brand will end up in the trash heap as so many have before.

By the way George -- if one were to begin to take seriously what you said -- "You dont' (sp.) see the dangers inherent in using your tax dollars to create a business that competes with the company you work for? I guarantee if you owned the business you would see the problem" -- then the answer would be what? No muni golf by various taxpayer jurisdictions -- simply relying upon what's provided by the private side? That's a fine solution.

[George Pazin]

No muni golf by various taxpayer jurisdictions -- simply relying upon what's provided by the private side? That's a fine solution.

I guess we're in agreement, then.

I sincerely doubt you'd appreciate it a magazine if it was funded by your tax dollars. I know I'm honest enough to say that I would be po'd beyond belief if the PA state gov't started printing t shirts. I don't think they'd do a better job than me, but I wouldn't appreciate competition funded by my money. Call me crazy. At least I'm honest.

How does one decide what businesses the government should dabble in, for the "greater good"? What if one is not a golfer? Should the government start opening Wal Marts? Selling drugs?

There is a giant leap between state parks and government funded businesses, a leap that I am not willing to take. It's interesting - and a bit scary - to me that so many are willing to place so little restriction on the government.

[frank_D]

...I am not sure there should be such a thing as state enterprise.  The more business in private hands the better.

brother Sean Arble

give me your prediction (to golfers and the golf industry) if the following event were to happen -

DONALD TRUMP BUYS ST ANDREWS FROM THE PUBLIC TRUST

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Try to do one thing if you can -- read in its totality what I said.

Allow me to help your understanding. Government prints brochures and other travel related info NOW. Nearly all states have convention and visitors information outlets -- usually subsidized by the appropriate governmental jurisdiction in which plenty of info is provided to people on what takes place within a state -- both on the private and public side. Such information is promotional and meant to generate general interest.

Let me give you a local example -- it's fairly likely that the State of Pennsylvania highlights in some sort of "official" travel publication information on the Nemacolin Resort. I'm sure Joe Hardy appreciates the plug -- although he's got his own promotional efforts also underway and would not even need the state's "assistance." The information promotes the Keystone State and it therefore has some sort of spillover gain for others in and around that facility. The state information doesn't evaluate the nature of what's provided or provide a listing of superior / inferior competitors. Government doesn't provide criticial commentary because it's meant to serve all people. Media -- print / electronic provides such distinctions.

Government could not produce a product / magazine that states editorially which golf course is better than the next. That's what we do George. We exist to provide editorial content that makes us unique in the marketplace -- we highlight issues and provide our own take on what's happening. People seek out editorial publications that have a clear and distinct "voice."

When you say you would be po'd about government being involved -- I think you're in the clouds because government is involved with a host of activities that also take place in the private sector. I mentioned parks & recreation previously. If one were to take the comments of a leader within the NJ Golf Course Owners group seriously then no such funding of muni courses or by extension parks and recreation should occur with taxpayer dollars because of the conflict with those on the private side of the street who provide similar situations. That's really silly.

[Bob_Huntley]

This is indeed a thought provoking thread.

Is it possible that the First Tee program will build low cost golf golf courses for the gazillions of kids who morph into adults? I do believe that we are going to have a severe generational shakeout down the road.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

One last thing, after which I'll agree to disagree (yet again ). I didn't mean the government isn't already doing things like muni golf, I meant that the government shouldn't be doing things like muni golf. State parks are not remotely close to muni golf. If there is a demand for it, the private market should fill that demand. You are certainly right that I have my head in the clouds when I ask government (and by extension, people) to do the right thing.

I would also support First Tee programs to build affordable golf, but that is not government money.

P.S. to frank -

Trump buying the St Andrews Trust wouldn't scare me nearly as much as the State of California buying Pebble Beach & Cypress Point.