[Jeff Goldman]

Doesn't this discussion relate to 2 different markets? The traditional muni market being inexpensive golf for the community, and the high-end "chambers bay" market? I think only the latter has an active private sector, possibly indicated by the financial results in that market (see Chambers Bay, Bolingbrook, etc), and usage by residents in the lower-end (see Common Ground, Shepard's Crook, etc)

[archie_struthers]

 

Justin how does being against government subsidized golf qualify as an elitist statement?

 Is bowling a luxury item , how about water skiing, deep sea fishing ....they all were for me growing up , maybe not for you. If you couldn't afford to play golf you hung around the caddy yard and worked ...if you were good and went the extra mile the pro might let you play a little or hit balls when no one else was around. So if you don't think golf is a luxury item you are blessed and I am happy for you! Really I am.

As to why the public golfer should care , how about the public hamburger eater....why don't we get to subsidize a burger joint that has better and cheaper food than the local McDonalds....or how about government owned pharmacy to reduce the cost of the drugs ,,,,to hell with those two families that worked all their lives to build their business and paid taxes all these years ...what do we owe them ??
Yes Justin , I think you are being short siighted ...
'

  Matt hopefully doesn't have to deal with a rival NJ Golf Magazine owned by the state, and subsidized by us.  If he did , I'd be the first one to help him protest!


As to affordability there is a fabulous little golf course called Hamilton Trails (9 holes 3150 from the tips)  that charges less than twenty dollars a round to play golf ...and they have special membership deals..great owners ..and a fun quirky golf course ... just like may of us saved up to play on when we were kids

Full memberships at private Greate Bay are less than $4000 a year...the price in 1997 was higher for full members....there is no charge for  kids golf until they get out of college or reach age 23 ...pretty good deal ...

Public venues like Mays Landing and Twisted Dune have special rates all the time ,often for less than $50 , in the off season you can make all kinds of deals if you are a regular at almost all the course...my point being that there is plenty of available golf at good prices ..the world has changed for golf course owners and in some ways it benefits the consumer...Matt alludes to the fact that golf was overbuilt ..he is spot on ...but we don't need the government to pile on...
I

Absolutely I'm against high end municipal layouts like  Chanbers Bay ...

Bethpage really evolved into what it is today from more modest roots, so it should stand as a wonderful anomoly ...not a model for the future...

[Cliff Hamm]

What came first government public golf or privately owned public courses?  At least in metro New York (northern NJ) it seems that county run golf courses were well established before public golf courses began to be built by the private sector.  Thus, it seems that the private sector made a choice to compete with the public sector. Now it seems a bit much to say hold on government it's not fair that you're building/buying golf courses, when historically recreation and specifically golf courses has been a well established government role. 

[archie_struthers]

 

Cliff it's probably moot as to what came first , the reality is that if you continue to allow the government to invest in losing golf course ventures, taxes will go up  and privately owned golf courses will continue to go under.  it's just a fact.  

The desire of private money to invest in golf is likely at historic lows. There is little or no financing available and golf courses are no longer considered a good place to land bank some money.

One of the beauties of owning a large tract of land in America , particularly in a good location, was that over time it became more and  more valuable. Extrapolating on that, at some point golf courses became good investments as the land appreciated , even if cash flows were average returns at best

....the states, municipalities and myriad agencies of the government have taken the notion of personal property rights and oblitierated them for the " common"   good  , or so they say

I don't know how many of you have had to go to your municipality  recently to get a permit  but believe me it is  beyond ridiculous in many cases.....now magnify that by 100 on a large piece of prime property and you lose the intrinsic value of land...only the very rich and powerful politically connected can venture into these waters, and that's the nexus of the problem.  



enjoy your golf as I will , appreciate the good courses and the dog tracts ..if you get an invite to a Pine Valley , NGLA, Cypress , Sand HIlls or any of the great courses take care to go, and have fun.......they won't be building many more

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Archie,

Which came first- Emerald Links or Twisted Dune? Wasn't Rees Jones hired to do the work at TD initially? What happened there?  You have never answered my question about about the initial concept for TD- private or public? I still think this should be a case study at Harvard Business School and Harvard Graduate School of Governemnt.

By the way, the relatively new(open less than 10 years) munis in the Philly 'burbs seem to be doing ok- Lederach and Makefield Highlands.

[Cliff Hamm]

Archie...A private course that goes under is not necessarily a losing golf course venture.  Not succeeding as a private course does not mean that it will not succeed as a public course.  Perhaps what is happening is analogous to the public works projects of the depression where government built numerous courses.  Now government is buying and saving numerous courses and getting them at a better price than a few years ago. Specifically for Woodbridge it is a very overbuilt area with few green spaces.  For the town to invest in keeping the golf course from more urban sprawl is not a bad thing...

As to my being invited to any of the elite courses that is why I advocate affordable golf opportunities.  I learned golf caddying at Baltusrol.  Played on Mondays, but most of my golf was at Union County's Galloping Hill.  Talk about two different worlds

That is perhaps why I believe that government has a place in providing recreational facilities for the public. To use another example - New Jersey is known for having limited beach access.  Sandy Hook and Island Beach compete with any available privately owned daily fee beach access, for example that seen in Point Pleasant.  The examples are numerous.  If you and others feel that government should not provide recreational opportunities so be it.  I just don't agree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie and Pat,

   While I understand your points, there is something you are not taking into consideration at all.  What about those of that love to play golf but couldn't afford to pay a $100 dollars every time we play or can't afford the $25,000 initation fees and $10,000 yearly dues which is basically as low as it gets here in northern NJ.  Sure I would love to make the 5 minute drive to Mountain Ridge and play but that would probably keep my family from being able to eat.  Sunset Valley is 10 minutes the other the way and is amazing track for $25 dollars a round.  At $25 dollars a round I can afford to bring both my kids for less then cost of 1 player at most CCFD"S.  How many kids would be playing golf if it cost a $100 a round?  What would the future of golf be if that was the case? 

Justin and Steve,

I think the distincition between a muni and a public facility under private management is or should be as follows.

If a municipality has built a golf course, then residents of that municipality should enjoy the facility irrespective of the price to play it because, directly (green fees) or indirectly (taxes) since the residents of that municipality are paying for it.

Archie's problem  as I see it is when that municipality offers cut rate prices to non-residents

If the facility is a County facility, then residents of that particular county should enjoy the facility, because, again, they're paying for it, directly and indirectly.  It's when the county offers cut rate prices to non-residents that Archie's problem arise, in terms of unfair competition.

A "true" muni should only serve the residents of the jurisdiction of the governing authority since they paid for the facility, indirectly and directly.

Didn't Rancho Santa Fe restrict access to residents only, years ago ?

b]

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat,

Most munis that I'm familiar with offer residents lower prices than non residents. I don't think many munis restrict access to only residents. There are examples, of course, but I don't think cut rate discounts to non resdients are a major factor. Emerald Links does offer residents lower prices:

http://www.mcculloughsgolf.com/index.php

Emerald Links is a course that never should have been built in the first place. As I said above, the Mayor had "feasability  studies" that have turned out to be way off base AND the Mayor had the power to get this project passed as a monument to himself. Archie and Twisted Dune got caught up in that whirlwind. I don't hear the owners of nearby Harbor Pines complaining.

Whenever I play in NJ at a muni, Heron Glen and Neshanic Valley for example, or here in PA at Lederach or Makefield Highlands, I gladly pay the non resident rate. Personally, I think Neshanic Valley's non resident rates are a little high and the distance a little far for me so I haven't played there in awhile.

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

You tapdanced around my previous point -- the AC market was oversaturated prior to the arrival of McCullough's. Unfortunately, it's easier to lay the blame at the ills of the golf marketplace there and say the culprit is muni golf. $100 green fee desires were the dream of many of the courses that came forward in the go-go 90's. That dream became a quick fantasy as the market for such players was a limited one. That didn't stop the onslaught of even more courses being built - even when it was clear that such a market could not be sustained given the limited nature of the players and even more so when tied to their limited pocketbooks to absorb the past along costs.

There's little or no investment in golf because the potential real estate market is in the tank. It's not because of what muni's have done.That's simply propaganda to hang the blame sign on that dimension.

Archie, I can hear and read you anger at what happened to you. I do feel the behavior you explained is totally out-of-bounds. But to extrapolate that into something far broader doesn't hold water to me.

Archie, you also fail to comprehend that the public sector has a role in providing elements to the public at-large community even when they compete against the private sector. I don't doubt that you may have a point in regards to the Chambers Bay of this world -- but muni golf is the pipeline for players -- it was when I was young and it's that way for many people today. Muni golf allows people to get their sense of the game and overtime brings them further up the food chain to play other courses -- some with even higher and higher green fees.

Let me point out that the same "private only development" side of things was used against public libraries, public swimming pools, tennis courts and a whole host of other such linkages. Public education -- especially at the college level is another example. You know that's the case and can't seem to admit to that flaw in your reasoning that the public sector should never compete against what the private sector does.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Matt the AC market being  would have probably been ok  until the opening of McCullagh's , Hidden Creek  Shoregate and Ballamor and Renault.   That's five NEW courses after Twisted Dune opened , which really broke the water.

Without those five you would have had niche markets for Seaview ,  Mays Landing , and Twisted Dune with Hamilton Trails and Green Tree (muni  !!)  supplying the low price point and golf failities for beginners.

With ACCC  going casino ultra private there was room for Greate Bay (still successful)   and Linwood to share the private membership demand.  Obviously Blue Heron East may not have closed, but it really cannibalized it's own clientele and hurt play on the West.

 Now back to the muni question : 

On reflection I am totally fine with the notion of building entry level golf facilities in areas where none exist  demand is high , land is too expensive for private ownership .  If I were despot there would be more inclusionary uses of public funds and land ( eg  soccer fields , baseball , basketball courts walking trails etc )  yes golf to me remains a luxury ...even at lower price points There is no compelling argument I have heard that we are owed cheap golf as citizens@

@ Note in our area we already had a municipal course ( Atlantic County aka Green Tree)  and Hamilton Trails (cheap ...private ownership )  to fill the entry level and affordable void...yet more public funding came anyway ..


I'd be glad to share after a round of golf and a few beers the rest of the Twisted Dune story that were left out , as it makes me too crazy !   Call ahead for discount pricing on both    LOL!


Best of wishes to all on board , may you hit them solid and make everything you look at !



 

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

I watched quite closely the evolution of the AC golf market -- I can remember from over 30 years ago when only a few courses of note were present -- notably Greate Bay, Seaview and a few others of lesser ilk. Roger Hansen changed that dyanmic dramatically with the ascension of Blue Heron Pines and the rest that followed included an aggressive CCFAD development which eventually outstripped the nature of the players coming to the immediate area. Plenty of the places that came on board during the go-go 90's thought they could hit players with +$100 greens fees at peak times and for a time the market sustained it. But that window was indeed a brief one -- unfortunately, the folks who develop golf courses thought that the AC market would be the next evolution to something akin to the Grand Strand with mega housing in and arounds its properties.

I don't agree with your suggested time line when the situation got out of control. I believe it came earlier but many people who brought the golf that came out later were not seeing the signs or simply ignored them at their own peril.

I do agree with your conclusion on BHP - frankly when Hansen opened Hidden Creek he cherry-picked people who might have subsidized the CCFAD market but they opted - quite rightly -- for a club membership that would give them the best of both worlds. Eventually the next wave of courses only accelerated the cannibalization you outlined.

The problem Archie as I see it -- AC is not the marketplace that many thought it was. I agree with you that having the golf marketplace at a certain level can and does work there. Those who saw it as being much, much more -- have come to the realization --albeit painfully in some spots, that the overall , marketplace there is not of national caliber stature to justify the previous fees being charged. Given that -- a shakeout was inevitable but I lay that at the feet of a much broader audience -- not singularly as the fault of a single taxpayer-owned course.

Now to the muni dynamic ...

Archie, I salute your candor -- but public dollars can and should be used to supplement clear needs for those who may not have the opportunity to access higher-priced alternatives. I've mentioned a litany of examples and you are hung up on the notion that golf is a luxury -- well, I can't argue that any recreational sport / activity is a luxury when held against police protection, fire protection, etc, etc.

But, I do believe those taxpayer jurisdictions that do include such an option are creating a pipe-line for future players who can grow and further love the game itself. As a result -- that pipe-line provided purveyors of CCFAD and high end daily fee golf with a stream of players and cash. The market development in the greater AC area did not happen through a concerted planned outcome -- it simply sprouted as individuals speculated that their course could succeed and that was followed by the next developer. A planned campaign could have alleviated much of what has happened now. Sadly, many locations never really work in any collaborative framework and simply follow the mantra of everyman / everycourse on their own.

Archie, public involvement has allowed an opportunity for people to be exposed to a wide variety of elements that years ago were the singular domain of the rich and powerful. Golf is part of that dynamic -- so is swimming pools, tennis courts, public libraries, the arts, education institutions and the like.

I am sorry to hear about the hell you experienced -- but muni golf has a place as a valuable instrument in bringing players into the game. The issue becomes at what level -- interestingly, I do agree with you that having taxpayer jurisdictions brign forward high end places like a Chambers Bay create a level of involvement for public support that can clearly impact others on the privately owned but daily fee operated courses.

[archie_struthers]

 


Matthew ...never did I portray the EHT muni as the sole cause or even the bane of golf in our region...it just helped push the tipping point past the red line ....the idea to build on a old landfill isn't so bad it's just the wrong place and time... we already had all the bases covered for entry and affordable access to golf here at the shore

we can agree to disagree on high end muni's ....I'm adamantly against them ...you aren't ...right?

If you are going to spend any state or municipal money on recreation...it has to be more inclusionary for me ... libraries ..parks ...ball fields ... .all are better investments in our public  capital in my world  .. as a practicing non violent anarchist ...oops ...we'll discuss that privately over a beer some day





appreciate your insights ...we just dpn't agree on this issue

[Steve Lapper]

Archie,Matt, et.al.,

   I understand both sides of this issue(s) and sympathize with both camps.

 WITHOUT TAKING ANY SIDE, a critical feature of this discussion is being left out: What are the legitimate and feasible alternative uses for existing golf courses that might be purchased, absorbed and/or run by a municipality? Do municipalities want to pave over these sites and allow private commercial or public use development? Might such a use most likely impair adjacent property values? Would they be legitimate projects that result in elimination of green space? Might they not require further public funding for services (i.e traffic, storm water drainage, sewer and power)? Sure, participating private parties involved in any development would likely contribute to offsetting these potential costs, but in today's fragile RE economy, any developer would look to the municipality for some sort of sponsorship or tax abatement.

 Residential development, at least here in NJ, isn't a feasible or prudent developmental use at present, so the lands would likely lie fallow and become an eyesore sooner or later. I see that happening with non-golf sites all over this state. Also, residential development further increases the burden on local schools and public services (most are already near maximum facility levels)

  Sure, a public park works, but that too requires cash outlays for conversion, maintenance and insurance and patrol.

  Clearly, a township or county can always operate a golf course and eventually switch to other usages. States like NJ have VERY limited abilities to acquire green spaces and usually they do whatever is economically possible to preserve open spaces. Citizens demand that municipalities provide some local recreation facilities and buying and operating an existing golf course (with an eye on doing just well enough to break even) does satisfy such a mandate.

  I readily understand the difficulty incurred by nearby and competing golf facilities. Owner/operators are right to abhor the government coming in and unfairly competing in their backyards, but this is a consequence of working in a state where land goes for such a high $$ and open space carries such a premium.

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Your original thrust of your argument was that muni golf -- especially those opened in the most recent of circumstances were the primary cause for what transpired in your neck of the woods. Only in later e-mail did you change that perspective. I simply opined that the descent you mentioned -- was already underway before McCullough's was operational.

Archie, I can see your point of view on high end taxpayer-owned courses. Clearly, it would behoove people who get into the golf course construction business to thoroughly understand what the dynamics are for a given area. In some places -- the process may suggest one course of action -- in others it might mean going another route.

Let me point out that the AC market was badly served by many developers who simply saw AC as some sort of destination akin to Las Vegas or Scottsdale. That's far from the reality. The AC golf market was not going to be able to sustain the grandiose plans that many had for it. The oversaturation and overpricing with +$100 green fees was ripe for a major fall. McCullough's played a role -- but in my mind, that role was at best a minor one.

Archie you say the base for affordable golf was already at the shore. Really? Let's be a bit clearer shall we. I am speaking about quality designs as well as those that offered reasonable rates. Plenty of the other options were low rate courses with frankly hideous designs or ones that forced you to play there only because other options were not available.

I can appreciate your "practicing non violent anarchist" slant on things. Keep in mind partner -- you did advocate originally that public money should not compete with what is being done privately. My examples I offered refute that position. Glad to see you have come to accept my take. I agree -- the rest can be debated "privately over a beer some day."

Steve:

A most telling point in your comments -- in NJ especially, the wherewithal for privately owned daily fee courses to succeed will be extremely tough because of land acquisition costs, taxes, environmental elements and the need such land can be used for a range of other purposes. Being able to make one's bottom line as a daily fee public layout owned privately is truly a tough nut to crack. At the same time taxpayer jurisdictions -- in NJ it's primarily county governments have stepped forward -- because of citizen demand -- to have ahead with golf facilities -- generally they have been a good notch or two below the level of say a Chambers Bay.

Let me address your other point -- NJ just passed (thankfully) a replenishment of the Green Acres bond $$. No doubt some of the pre-existing golf courses may head towards a direction as a passive park -- see what happened with Oak Ridge in Union County as a quick example.  In other counties the desire to grab Green Acres money may be tied to securing previous privately held courses (e.g. Colonia) as part of their open space program -- albeit with a recreational element thrown into the overall picture.

Steve, let me just say this as an elected local office holder in NJ -- securing tax abatements in todays economy is suicidal for any public body to contemplate. I don't doubt there might be some unique and smart public / private partnerships that can be made to happen but the idea that a public body will simply forego legitimate tax payments when everyone else is hurting to survive from one paycheck to another is highly unlikely -- although in Jersey nothing ever surprises me.

One of the real problems that came about in the greater AC area was a total lack of regional planning with golf in mind. Everyone -- from the developers to the communities themselves -- operated in an island and simply moved ahead without thinking of a regional outlook on how the profusion of more and more golf courses would be sustained. Frankly, the State could assist more in this vein as they do with large corporate moves from one state to the other. Unfortunately, NJ isn't moving at warp speed on this front and given the anti-business climate and all the associated costs for being in NJ -- companies and people have moved elsewhere.

Muni golf has a clear purpose to provide a pipeline for future players. Without it the game reverts back to a bastion of private exclusive clubs only for the most well heeled of folks. The issue, as I see it, is fitting in all the different types of players in such a way that all can work with one another. In AC -- that didn't happen and the end result is what you see now in my mind.

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt just reviewed the thread and once again tell you that I never said that municpal golf killed the AC market ...what I did say and believe is that we should not build or buy one more municipal course >>>> particularly here in NJ given our states fiscal health

open space advocates .....be careful what you wish for ...our taxes are the highest anywhere...and our businesses and best and brightest are fleeing the state many of us love ....


we both share a zeal to promote the game.....but ....now you are saying that not only must we have affordable accessible facilities that they have to be architecturally ziggy   !!!!!  Come on dude you are losing it  ...


why not municipal Palm Restaurants , as McDonalds and the like really don't do it for foodies in training....

that's the rub ...the line between providing opportunity and controlling it is really really blurred these days     ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

With all due respect, you keep on harping that not one more muni course should be built or bought in today's climate. I explained -- in great lengths I might add -- that other pre-existing conditions were already in motion that have impatced the overall golf market here in NJ and with specific reference to the AC area. To lay out the belief that adding more muni golf will only cause more pain is really not accurate or even fair. The privately owned daily fee courses have long been exposed to a slew of different issues -- I outlined several of them already. The slide downhill reached an even more quicker pace caused by a declining golf base of players and because of the economic elements that have forced people to spend even less on the recreational side.

Let's also not minimize the zealous nature of certain developers and their individual projects when they clearly flew forward in the face of the strong tide they willingly ignored at their own peril. Archie, you are so blinded by what McCullough's did that you fail to admoit that other developers went ahead with golf development when the background info was there for them to see before movign ahead. It was this, more than anything else, that caused the glut of courses to happen. The addition of muni golf came about because of citizen need in those respective areas -- people want to play golf -- they just don't want to play golf that costs +$100 to play.

Archie, let me help you remove your self-imposed dark sun glasses -- we do have a range of affordable taxpayer-owned courses that are reasonably priced -- shall I name them all. Have you ever heard of Heron Glen, Hominy Hill, Quail Brook, The Knoll, Atlantis at Ocean County, Howell Park, Sunset Valley, etc, etc. Try to keep this in mind -- wthout taxpayer-supported assistance the availabilty of such golf would not likely have happened and as a result those players would need to either travel to other courses elsewhere outside NJ or simply curtailed their overall playing.

Archie, you don't get it -- you think the public realm should be a limited one and that the private side should do all the things on the golf side. That has not happened here in NJ but it's not because the game was rigged against private development. Other macro forces have played a more significant role then you care to admit. I'm sorry to say you need to see the other elements I have mentioned. To use a phrase you issued to me -- if anyone's losing it I suggest you look in the mirror.

[archie_struthers]

 


Matt as stated we need to play golf and discuss this philosophically...I'll play you even even though I'm old and in failing health ! LOL


Forget the "Emerald Links"  as what happened to me  (and others)   should just be a warning to those who thnk they can deal honestly and fairly wihout being politically connected...forewarned is forearmed..now let's just drop that issue ....

I don't see the analogy between a golf course and a library ..it just does't work ...the library doesn't make any pretense of being a business , it is a public service

You keep ignoring my point that golf is not an inclusionary sport...it is played by a small minority of the population and is fairly expensive .. why subsidize it      we found a way to learn the game  and I'd guess neither of us grew up in a wealthy country club environment ...i

If you want more government in your life  that's your perogative ....the majority of the country seems to be be moving in that direction  ( both R's and D's)   

let's just agree to disagree ...and hope you can come down soon and play either Twisted Dune or Greate Bay ...back tees of course

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

I just don't think you have really read what I previously posted and the unique forces that have impacted the overall Jersey golf scene.

I'll say this again -- you said no government action should replicate what is in the private sphere.

A library needs to operate in the black to maintain itself. Most do -- it also helps they are dedicated a slice of local revenues based on a state formula.

I also mentioned to you that other recreational elements sponsored by a public entity compete with private concerns -- e.g. tennis courts, municipal swimming pools and health centers. You also have educational institutions that opened up as a counterweight to the elitist nature of many early private colleges / universities.

In regards to your comment on golf being an inclusionary game -- yes -- it is today -- more than ever before. The desire to expand the profile of the game through First Tee is meant to bring the game to those who have had little past contact.

Here's what you ignored -- muni golf creates AN INVALUABLE PIPELINE FOR FUTURE PLAYERS. Without it the game simply uses the diminishing nature of the core players playing now. That is what is happening.

Last item -- we agree to disagree -- happy to play back tees anywhere any course.

[Cliff Hamm]

Let me make an attempt at Common Ground (no pun intended)

1.  Government has a right/responsibility to provide recreational opportunities for its citizens.  This includes golf.

2. Publicly financed courses should fill a void.  A course should not be built if numerous others are available.

3. Publicly financed courses should generally not be of the CCFD ilk.  Greens fees for example should not exceed $65 and preferably $50 or so in the NY area.  Discounts should be provided to residents.

4. Publicly financed upper end courses may be built if the private sector has not built one in a given area and it presents as a great opportunity.  Hence Chambers Bay.

5.  It goes without saying that a public course should not have an unfair advantage as to permitting, etc.

[archie_struthers]

 

Cliff   we will agree to disagree later  LOL

as to

1)  disagree    govt. should protect us and alllow us to enjoy our freedoms...and provide for its least fortunate

2)  agree as to basic premise particularly part B

3) mildly disagree   CCFD are defintely verboten  ...I'd go for 10-20$  fees and very basic facilities

4)  strongly disagree    never should the public finance these ventures with our money

5)  totally agree....but I was once naive and believed .....don't make the same mistake  ..



  appreciate the effort


adios amigo

[Cliff Hamm]

$10-$20...in NJ???..sounds great...love those government subsidies

[archie_struthers]

 


No Cliff the privately owned courses are the cheapest .....eg Hamilton Trails in Atlantic County ...it's a privately owned nine hole course with a small practice facility lots of happy clients and their toughest competition Yep  ...you guessed it the John Gaffney Course , nee Green Tree.   Despite the county course being subsidized they survive , thanks to good management and hard work...this gets to the crux of the matter again...should these guys be put out of business as the County subsidized courses drop their prices to compete with these tax paying private citizens... I think not!

[Matt_Ward]

Cliff:

I'm in near 100% agreement with you save for item #2 -- sometimes markets have "numerous" others but the fees charged don't entice players of lesser income levels to play them.

If a taxpayer-owned course enters the scene and is looking to interest those who are either just getting started or need a place to play because of income ceilings that prevent them from playing more expensive options I see no reason why they should not move forward and include the course.

Archie:

You need to get real -- show me a taxpayer-owned course that can operate with $10-$20 fees and have basic amenities. Muni golf should be able to sustain itself through the fees charged to operate -- in sum, they can't operate in the red when the costs needed to sustain them are high given the costs tied to be in NJ and the major metro areas in the USA.

Cliff is spot on regarding the government subsidies that would be needed to do such a thing.

[Lou_Duran]

A library needs to operate in the black to maintain itself. Most do -- it also helps they are dedicated a slice of local revenues based on a state formula.

Matt,

Is it true that you are currently a publicly elected official?  May I ask to what position?

I was not aware that public libraries "operate in the black to maintain itself" (themselves).  I was under the impression that the vast majority of their budgets come from tax revenues.

Perhaps if private owners of daily fee golf courses were paid from the public coffers to provide playing opportunities to poor citizens (whatever compelling public interest there might be for providing this type of recreational opportunity) these could be better satisfied.  We provide food stamps for the needy as opposed to having state stores with subsidized goods.  Government owned and operated public housing has been a dismal disaster so Sect. 8 was created.  Perhaps a federal golf stamp program administered by state and county governments is a superior approach.

Archie,

It is bad enough that they make you pay your competition (via your taxes), but they also provide all types of advantages to them.  My own experience with the City of Arlington is all too common.  Not only did they assert at the initial contacts that they would deny me the zoning to build a golf course, they told the owners of the site I selected before I even had a chance to fight them through their own procedures that I would never get the necessary approvals.  They then proceeded to lie to the FL-based owners that they had the money to purchase the same site for a multi-use sports complex and close within 90 days.  Well, lo and behold, it took them a year to close on the land, actually paid a little less than what I had offered (sellers got the message that without cooperation on zoning, the land is worth less), and the centerpiece is a GOLF COURSE which over 10 years in operation has yet to achieve anything close to proforma.

Funny how zoning and permits impossible to a longtime, tax-paying private citizen of that community were a slam-dunk for a tax-consuming bureaucracy (Parks & Recreation).  I will say that it is a very nice golf course which the taxpayers of that city have been subsidizing since Day 1.  Ironically, the poorer citizens play the other three pre-existing city-owned courses which are some 50%+ cheaper, while the well-off golfer like a guy I used to play with at the private Great Southwest now has a superior course closer to home at a 30% reduction in cost.  I suppose that his carbon footprint is reduced a bit, so maybe the public interest is served indeed.

We lament the state of the economy and who amongst us can say we are not gravely unsettled about the future.  There is a madness that has taken hold in this country, that we can get something for nothing, that "the rich" can be taxed for everything we want with no long-lasting repercussions.  We are quickly becoming a country of men and not laws, where crony capitalism and socialism are intertwined in a to-the-death parasitic symbiosis.  Property rights cannot be separated from liberty and freedom, and if we are to regain our national soul and optimism, government must retreat to its consitutionally defined roles.  Government has a very minimal role in golf and every other business.          

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Lou thanks for checking in , hope all is well with you.  I do believe  Matt and Cliff are supporting public golf to afford more people the opportunity but it's not a role government needs to supply ...You guys were laughing at price points ...but  Hamilton Trails , which I was at one time a proud owner, is a great little nine holer in Atlantic County that does this very thing. It is a perfect entry and more level facility ,,with a driving range ..putting green and small snack shop...you could have filmed Tin Cup there ( except maybe it would have been too nice )   They actually undercut the subsidized course prices  thru hard work and good management practices ...they deserve a break ..but don;t get any tax credit for providing open space and recreation to the community ...they get a competitor that bills us to take their business ...God bless them for their efforts


As to libraires  which I support , operating in the black...are you kidding me

     When you look at the library appropriation as REVENUE it paints a really good picture of fiscal health.. our library in Ocean City NJ is very well funded thru tax revenue  .the library receives a flat percentage of the local tax revenue in our state (NJ)  our small town has a $60,000, 000  plus budget ( yikes)    ...thus the library has lots of cash that accrues yearly

However as you point out it doesn't generate revenue it appropriates it , we are currently expanding our city library dramatically and while they have excellent management and good board members their is no way library fees can support a $17,000,000 expansion that they are currently undergoing ...no way no how....

As you stated Lou ...the playing field isn't even close to fair !  As the government grows our freedoms will continually diminsih

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()