Taxpayer-owned courses / dumb-down designs?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

It's all very easy and comfortable when people who play much of their golf at private exclusive clubs (I believe you are member of Sand Ridge) start pontificating about how much $$ is wasted on public courses and question such subsidies if they are used to upgrade the golf that is provided. Taxpayer-owned facilities can be achieved that are challenging for ALL (my emphasis!!!) types of golfers and there are numerous examples to prove that despite the fact people can name other jurisdictions that have failed to do it.  It's all very ease to diss the move for improved facilities for the masses while others huddle behind locked gates and tee it up on private venues.

Tim, without insulting your intelligence -- I never said I want to see more courses like Bethpage Black. I pointed out several large size counties that offer a full range of facilities for the citizens of those areas. Maybe you missed the point I was making. I saluted Bethpage, among others, for having such a wide range of courses -- all the courses are good challenges at Bethpage minus the easy-to-handle Yellow. And, you also have stand-alone courses that still give a wide range of golfers a solid layout.

Tim -- venture to Monmouth County (NJ) and proclaim to all the golfers waiting to play Hominy Hill that you want to sell the course so that you can give them a golf-lite alternative. Put your track shoes on Tim -- you'll need them.

Your example of a course being crowded on a Sunday afternoon begs the question -- so? There are tons of courses with players waiting to play many in the greater NYC area that are simply awlful but there are no alternatives for the masses because that particular jurisdiction has not seen fit to take care of the need that exists. When you say Mr. Goodwrench types complained about fees going up -- I would ask what did they get for the increase they had to pay? If they simply got the same service / course they had previously they have a reason to gripe. Show them how their dollars have been used with careful planning on improving the course they play and you will see a different response. This is what Bethpage did and the patrons there are quite proud of what has been achieved. The model Bethpage created (not simply just the Black!!!) is replictaed in other places in the USA.

Again, too many people simply write off taxpayer-owned facilities as being the bottom of the barrel in terms of what they can be. When Mark Fine says he can remember his days on the munis I also remember and know what can be done with some vision.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I would caution against personalizing discussion for, in fact, I don't play "much of my golf at an exclusive private club".

It is true that I am a member of a private club, but Sand Ridge is an hour from where I live and, largely due to time constraints, I play one of those "McDonalds" munis you referred to far more often.  Moreover, in each of the past few years I've probably played at Ballybunion more than Sand Ridge and, as you know, Ballybunion is hardly a venue of "locked gates".

In short, your suggestion that my views are somehow elistist is simply unfair.

Actually, I start with a political science perspective.  Much as I love golf, I can't name many cities that can really justify subsidy for building golf courses.  There are many other pressing human needs far more deserving of taxpayers' money.

Even if one could somehow justify spending taxpayers money for this purpose - not an easy hurdle to cross - as a policy maker I'd have to ask myself who exactly we are trying to serve.

Would it be better golfers?  I don't think so.

I'd invest in courses for beginners long before building another Hominy Hill, especially if my market was reasonably well served by private clubs, upscale public access facilities and/or other public facilities that met the needs of 95% of the golfers, i.e., people with more than a single digit handicap.

Matt, you haven't insulted my intelligence.  You simply haven't made the case for why taxpayers' money should be spent building courses that would "test" the very best players.

I don't "remember" what muni golf is like.  I see it all the time.  If any taxpayer money is spent, let's spend it for the beginner.  Let's spend it for the man struggling to break 100 for the first time.  The private sector can adequately serve those who forget what playing the game at the entry level is really like.

[JD]

Just a couple of observations on this most deserving thread:

In each instance of a successful municipal golf course development that I have had the opportunity to become familiar with, there has always been some passionate, smart individual on 'the inside' who understood and appreciated the value not only of superlative design work, but also of conceiving a basis for proper stewardship of the golf course. At Bethpage I think it was Mr. Moses? Granted, in the Great Depression days it was not much of a resource issue to construct and maintain labor-intensive courses, and the designs of the day bear obvious witness of that fact (substantial earthworks, extensive drainage systems, often built by hand, hand irrigation, deep, expansive bunkers, etc.).

Today, of course, this has changed, and I cannot help thinking of a piece written by Doak in the early '90 entitled: "The value of closely mowed grass as a hazard," or something to that effect. It discusses, with predictable authority, the value of contour and closely mowed grass as a hazard, which is something even the most disenfranchised public worker should be able to take care of. "Just go mow the grass." Establish as a goal to create golf courses that are so well conceived and constructed that it is just that simple to take care of them. Easier said than done, but surely not impossible.

In more general terms, I think the trick to improving public golf courses is to rediscover true value in golf. We must figure out how to create interesting grounds for golf that are designed to be mowed with large mowers, and designed to only have a dozen or 20 bunkers. Of course, you can't just take out all the bunkers. Then you have nothing. You have to replace them with something of equal value as a golf feature, yet something that is less expensive to build and easier to take care of. It seems to me that very little thought is being applied to this issue.

In a municipal setting the problem is that it takes exactly that one special person on a municipal review committee, who is willing to evaluate the comparative merits of a generic sales pitch from someone offering a conventional design, against a presentation which might present original, exciting ideas. It's a tough sell.

Aside from financial considerations, I think good architects shy away from muni projects simply because it is statistically improbably that they will ever be allowed the freedom to build what they envisage, and equally unlikely that the product will survive in its original form much past grow-in...

[Mike O'Neill]

JD,

All of the public courses I can think of are easily mowed (maintained). It is not "impossible" at all. I took care of the bunkers at the Maxwell course at Iowa State and just three people purchasing a round of golf on each day paid my wages in doing so. I did work quickly. I believe there were over thirty bunkers on the course. A sand pro, a rake and off I went. I could do the whole course in half a day roughly. The mowing was even easier to manage. So I don't know that public courses are too elaborate to maintain easily. The ones I know of are fairly simple. I think Matt is asking if these relatively easy to maintain courses are "dumbed-down".

And the answer of course, as with all questions about golf courses, is that some are dumbed-down and some are not.

[Paul Richards]

On Chicago's South Side, there's what used to be a great
muni, Forest Preserve National, that has been "dumbed-down" to the nth degree.  When it first opened, it was magnificent.
Over the years, it's obvious that the maintenance budget
must be about $8, and the first-cut of rough at Beverly is
 now better than the greens at what is now the George
Dunne course.

Sad how this has been neglected over the years.  It used to
be a real treat.

[Matt_Ward]

JD, Mike O' Neil:

Appreciate your take on what can happen if some "creativity" is employed by those on staff. I know many course superintendents who have followed the ideas both of you mentioned. Courses don't need to have the demands of a Bethpage Black to be challenging.

Clearly, you do have at some of the larger munis some superintendents who got hired simply because of political connections. And, lest I forget, you sometimes have unionized work forces that could frankly care less about the course once quitting time comes.

I don't doubt there are a number of impediments in designing taxpayer-owned facilities. Much of it is ignorance on behalf of the people who actually want a course. I think architects can assist the process in desiging courses with maximum flexibility so that average golfers can enjoy their day while building in greater challenges for the progressively better player. I do agree with some of the others who have posted that building Bethpage Black type bunkers today would not be helpful but you can incorporate "ground" features that do elevate csmart play.

Paul Richards:

I had the pleasure in playing Forest National when it some real teeth -- the course would bite any golfer who simply failed to execute. Wonderful course -- I'm sorry to hear from you and shivas that things have taken a turn for the worst. Great thing about Cook County golf is that for many years you had a good number of taxpayer owned facilities that didn't "dumb down" because it was politically correct to do so.

Paul -- from what you see in Chi town is the move to "dumb down" a conscious one to rid all hazards and challenges or is it because of just sheer neglect or lack of fundings for needed course grooming?

Tim W:

Quality taxpayer-owned facilities that I am familiar with usually pay for themselves if they are located in high play areas. In some cases -- when these courses usually reach the "black" that $$ is then used for other park considerations -- sometimes to the consternation of the patrons at that facility who believe all such $$ should stay with that course.

One more time -- My statements were for challengeing courses for ALL (repeat after me -- ALL) types of golfers.

As a matter of public policy I believe when you can provide people with pleasurable activities it is sound for government to provide such needs. Why? Because the private sector may be charging fees that keep out the bulk of the populace. That's happening today in my home state (8th most expensive according to the NGF).

Golf courses are not frills -- that's been the argument from people from years ago -- as you know, fresh air, exericise as well as preserving open space, are all part of what taxpayer-owned facilities can provide. You can also have quality taxpayer-owned facilities that have the elasticity to serve all types of players. I'm not asking for these type of courses to  become de facto Black type courses -- one is quite enough.

But, I know from my travels throughout the nation many jurisdictions are doing this to much success and they have wonderful staffs that have dedicated themselves to provide a superior daily product.

Clearly, some municipalities, counties and even states may choose not to do this or simply provide the most basic of courses. That is their prerogative but progressive locales understand that giving people something for their tax dollars is beneficial and in many cases builds support for other programs by that respective jurisdiction.

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

My take on the dumbing down of Forest Preserve appears
to be just plain ol' neglect.

Green fees are still pretty low, and, even as I have seen
demonstrated on my visits to Bethpage, muni golfers don't
bother to rake traps, replace divots or fix pitch marks.  It's
not an indictment against the muni golfer (and certainly
resort and private courses have similar, if not quite as blatant
examples of this behavior), but perhaps the more knowledgeable golfers aren't the ones playing the vast
majority of rounds, and so many novices don't know how to
take care of the course.

Forest Preserve, if in the proper condition, certainly warrants
a place in the top 15 or 20 in the state.  It's painful to see
what's been done to a great layout.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

It sounds like you to want to campaign for more muni golf in the NY metro area.  Having grown up in New York, I can certainly understand your desire for more fresh air, exercise and open space in the form of golf courses.

The challenge is political, i.e., convincing the non golfing public that this a legitimate use of limited taxpayers dollars.
In short, you want politicians to convince people who aren't satisfied with the level of basic public services that golf courses are not "frills".  Good Luck!
 
Earlier you mentioned the example of RTJ Trail.  Wasn't that investment really about attracting consumer spending from outside the region and the possible spin off value for the State of Alabama?

Anyway, back to your neck of the woods.  I'm still curious why you see providing attractive golf facilities as a public sector function.  You mention that you are familiar with quality taxpayer owned facilities in high play areas that pay for themselves.  If this is the case, why can't such demand be handled by the private sector?  Are private operators really making such a high return?  Could new munis really offer significantly lower green fees without some sort of subsidy?  Or do you acknowledge a subsidy is necessary and simply believe it is justified?

Matt, I don't see every golf project as serving the same purpose.  I do not believe that every course should meet the needs of ALL golfers.  I believe that if we invest public dollars it should be targeted.  We should find smaller pieces of property and focus on building affordable courses to introduce people to the game.  Your more serious players, e.g., single digit players, will take care of themselves elsewhere and shouldn't be a priority.  They will go out of their way and pay more for something more challenging.

Privately finance a project and you can do whatever you want.  The moment you ask for public dollars, i.e., money from people who don't play golf, you have greatly politicized the investment, probably to the detriment of what you are trying to achieve from a purely golf architecture point of view.

You say you can point to examples from your travels that prove me wrong.  Great!  Collect the data and take it to your local public officials.  Maybe you can convince them.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

I don't have time for a detailed reply but the reason why the private sector doesn't compete in places like the greater NYC area is the cost of land and property taxes. Many have moved far and away from the immediate vicinity because of these significant handicaps. When you have one acre lots going for $1 million plus in prime areas the need for golf isn't the first item on the agena for $$ developers.

Start up costs along with protracted hearings and political fumblings can add tremendously to the cost of any project.

I view taxpayer-owned facilities as a way to provide all of the benefits and given high play areas as they are will be able to sustain themselves so that the average taxpayer doesn't have to continually underwrite the costs associated with yearly expenses.

Costs charged by taxpayer-facilities have a first and foremost responsbility to the jurisdiction they serve. The fees charged for non-residents are competitive and when you say subsidy there are start-up costs but quality taxpayer-owned facilities can survive and even thrive -- witness the NJ counties I listed that are building even more courses because of the pent up demand in their area and from outside play.

I credit many of the designers like Roger Rulewich, Mark Mungeam and a few others who have built taxpayer-owned facilities of quality for ALL types of golfers.

Tim you seem to say just take care of Joe Sixpack the starting golfer -- well, I pay taxes too and I believe it's possible for a comprehensive plan that addresses those total needs. Many people who regularly play golf should not be held hostage to a situation that says you either get some dumbed down executive layout with holes cut into the ground or you must pay in excess of $100 for an upscale layout. To me that's like saying death by gun shot or hanging. Not a great alternative either way.

The Alabama Golf Trail for what I know was to induce outside people for total tourism with a golf link for outside investment into the State of Alabama. What people don't say is that although the golf aspect may not be in the black at this point you have to also consider the total investment (restaurants, hotels, other related tourism) that has gained from these visits. I think it's smart move by the state and something others should investigate as it applies to their state.

Hope this helps ...

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I'm in complete agreement that playing more golf, especially on interesting courses, is far better than being shot or hung.

But, I'm less optimistic than you apparently are about building golf courses in the NY metro area that will satisfy the full range of golfers.

In any case, there is a project here in Cleveland that you might be interested in.  It's not a muni.  It won't really appeal to the entry level golfer.  And it won't it be a Top 100 candidate when it opens this summer.

But, owner Joe Salemi built Boulder Creek in Streetsboro, Ohio to provide an enjoyable, challenging and affordable test for better golfers.

Joe's target price is about $60 (w/cart) which is will be able to offer largely because he:

a. did all the permitting work himself (no lawyers or consultants)

b. designed the course himself (no architect's fee)

c. built the course himself (no construction company)

What's more, he built the course on a very good piece of land and did a credible job.  Most people who have seen the course believe it compares favorably to area CCFAD's by name architects, including:

Fowler's Mill (Pete Dye)
Stonewater (Mike Hurdzan)
Red Tail (Robert Von Hogge)

I won't tell you that Boulder Creek is worth a special trip from New York, but if you are in the area, you should schedule some time with Joe.  His formula won't work everywhere, but it is an interesting case study to be sure.

FYI, Joe worked with area pro Gary Trivisono (a three time US Open player) to design the back tees which stretch to about 7,200 yards, if I recall correctly.

[SBusch (Guest)]

Like I said, apples and heating oil.

There are many reasons why there is a lack of decent public golf in NY/NJ.  I live in NY and know very well.  But as a taxpayer, it would tick me off to know that I am in the most heavily taxed area in the country and know that my hard earned cash is being used so that someone can play a nice golf course for $60 instead of $80, and there's still nowhere to teach a 9 year old to play.

As for the rest of the country, most golf course development is a losing proposition, and muni rates just make it worse.  I know from my travels that there are many municipal agencies that can't make their debt service on their nice and strategic golf course.  One I know recently had to write a $4MM check to solve the long term problem.  I wonder what that mistake cost each resident?

[JohnV]

As has been pointed out by Mr. Naccarato, myself and others, Portland OR has a great set of munis that definitely aren't dumbed down.  Eastmoreland is an excellent old Chandler Egan which has suffered from some poor decisions on changes over the years, but is still wonderful.  The newest course at Heron Lakes (Great Blue) was built by RTJ Jr and is definitely very challenging for any golfer.  It is way too hard for the beginner with many carries over water and tough rough.

I never saw the reconstruction of Progress Downs, now called RedTail or RedHawk, but I heard some good things about it.  In general a city can do good things if it wants.  It needs to provide a good mix of interesting playable courses and more challenging ones that bring out more experienced golfers.

Unfortunately many cities have left the development of courses to the private sector and they are always going to look at how they can maximize their profits.  Given the cost of land that is usually through a CCFAD.

It is like the battle to get low-cost/affordable housing built. in cities like Portland or Santa Cruz.  As long as the cost of the land is high, the price of the house will be high so you have to build a house to justify the price which means building huge houses on small plots of land.

[Tim_Weiman]

JohnV:

As I may have pointed out on previous occasions, Cleveland also has some pretty good munis, the best being Manakiki and Sleepy Hollow, designs by Donald Ross and Stanley Thompson.

These courses charge about $20 to play, but due to demand have become increasingly difficult to play, especially Sleepy Hollow.

Naturally, I and many other local golfers would greatly enjoy a few more such facilities.  But, I'm also aware that, by any obective measure, the city of Cleveland has far more pressing needs, including a school system that was starved for cash for a long time.

That is why I respectfully suggest providing additional golf courses should be left to the private sector.  It's all about governing.  It's all about inevitable tradeoffs.

Fortunately, Cleveland (and other cities in Ohio) are also blessed with numerous decent courses you can play for less than $30.  Typically, these are Mom and Pop operators who got into the business years ago and provide a satisfactory product, i.e., nothing to write about in a golf architecture discussion, but appreciated by almost all who play them.

Having grown up in New York and lived in LA, I appreciate the plight of people like Matt Ward and Tommy N.  They live in markets disadvantaged in terms of affordable public golf.  But, asking the non golfing public to fork over money to bring NY and LA to the level of cities like Cleveland just doesn't seem very realistic.

Desirable?  Yes, of course.  But realistic?  Not by any political process I'm familiar with.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

With regard to alabama. The reason it could be done is the pension funds were under one mans control and he was bullit proof politically. yes the courses are just breaking even or making below 10% on money annually. yet, they are great golf with great service and have without a doubt improved the image of alabama. Most of the people on here would have gone to 30 plus other states for golf before alabama. now many of you will or already have played there. The courses are bringing a high quality of tourist in large numbers and frankly not all from the north. I have played many of them and would have played a lot more of the courses if i was not fortunate enought to be able to afford to go play on the west coast and Scotland when it is hot as hell in the south.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Matt and Tim:

This subject has become much more meaningful to me because I am about to engage in a municipal owned facility.  I appreciate a governmental body being involved in this type of project.  Governments tax us to build ball fields, and sports arenas.  I would much rather see my tax dollars go to a golf course rather than say to a new football stadium or baseball or basketball stadiums for the pro teams, most of whom are populated with thugs. A town near me Reading funded a new sports arena for hocky, professional boxing, monster truck whatevers, and WWF events, again conducted by people whom mostly are thugs. Don King was feted here as a hero for bringing a nationally televised boxing event.  Don King is a thug. Maybe we will have a rock throwing event with Palestinians and Yassar Arafat can be the guest of honor.  I believe golf courses are excellent places for the general public, particularly in view of the other sports we fund because the criminals who run the sports can not seem to make it profitable strictly through the private sector.

Every Saturday and a couple a days during the week we take the kids to ball games on fields developed through taxing authorities.  Why are we not running our kids over to the golf course for their Saturday morning golf league?  These leaugues may exist in the bigger cities.  I know in West Texas we had the West Texas PGA Junior Tour, and probably had 30 to 40 events to play in during the summer, some private courses.

A nice, government funded course that provides for junior and adult leagues seems to fit in with other sports facilities funded by the taxpayers for the general public.  Although I do not pay taxes in Reading, I would not be displeased with paying for their new arena, even though hockey, boxing, WWF, and the like should probably be conducted inside prison facilities rather that in publicly funded buildings.  Golf courses should liewise be viewed by a disintrested public as wholly beneficial the well being of the general public.  No?

[Rick Shefchik]

Tim has hit on the key subtext to this entire discussion: Should the public be subsidizing golf at all? I can justify low-priced, straightforward munis in a community where such a course (or courses) would not otherwise exist. But if the appetite remains for a better course charging higher greens fees, shouldn't the private sector take on that responsibility?

It seems to me municipal governments have two interests here: to provide an appealing recrational opportunity to its citizens, just as it provides ice arenas and softball diamonds; and to bring ammenities to the community that make it a more attractive place to live. The latter concern is more a suburban issue than urban, as most large cities built their municpal courses years ago and have no more room to add others.

If a city or county is going to build a high-end course, from my point of view it had better make money and not get in the way of private developers who would have built a similar facility. And there's the contradiction: If the public course makes money, even at a high daily fee, why couldn't a private developer have done the same thing?

No matter what level of course a government entity builds, it is going to be used by a broad range of players. You can't keep the hackers off the high-end courses, and skilled players will always have reason to play the basic munis (playing with family members, lesser-skilled friends, or just looking for a cheap, nearby round). I think municipal courses ought to emphasize maintenance first, pace of play second, and concern themselves with strategic qualities only as a third consideration. There's no reason to build a lousy course, but let the private sector build the Cadillacs.

I've played the RTJ Trail (Grand National near Opelaika), and I can't imagine the typical public golfer surviving on tracks like that. Six-hour rounds would be routine. We played in early April when tourists from the north (like ourselves) filled up the tee sheets. The goal to bring in out-of-state revenue seems to be succeeding, but these courses (many located at least a half-hour to an hour's drive away from any significant city) can't be compared to munis in suburban settings where play depends on the local customer.

By the way, the rangers at Grand National worked very hard to keep the pace of play going -- one ranger told us he nearly had to call the local police when he confronted a slowpoke who raged the usual b.s. about "I paid my greens fee and I'll play at whatever pace I want." But even strong-armed efforts like that couldn't keep the pace under 5 hours.

Rick  

[RJ_Daley]

Gentlemen, it seems to me that questions of Muni developed, owned, and operated golf facilities are variable and location dependent.  In order to plan whether the idea of developing a muni course is sound, one has to test initial assumptions.  Cost or availability of land in that particular area.  Does the municipality have land available, i.e. a tract to reclaim from a landfill capping site, or just spare affordable land from the park system of surplus land?  Where or how is the construction cost to be found?  Can user fee bonding be approved, and can a financial model be conceived where construction bond interest and maintenance costs would be supported by green fees and profit centers?  Is there a honey pot like Alabama's excess or overfunded employee pension fund where construction costs can be borrowed?  ( I believe that a good case can be made that a muni operation funded by excess muni/state pension fund is good if it can be run break even or profitably because it will employ more muni workers and boost the economy of the area with their pay checks and the associated tourist dollars that will/should flow).  Thus an overall benefit to the muni region.  

The obvious cost of land/scarcity of land and construction in many metroplex areas would tend to weigh against these municipal golf course initiatives.  Sadly, they are the places that need affordable/available recreation most.  As KB Moran points out, a sort of extortion is going on where big sports interests are foisting bonding for mega sports facilities that also appeal to a narrow group of sports fans.  Look at my own home area of Green Bay.  Just our Brown County (pop. 250K +or-) is asked to pony up an additional sales tax for a stadium renovation that only a few will have season ticket access to, for huge seat licensing and season pass costs, or those who have boxes for really big $$$) Isn't that an elitist use of tax payer money?  How many public golf and other outdoor recreation opportunities or business park intitiatives could be built for 350-400 million?  

I think of a State like Nebraska where perfect golf land is cheaper than anywhere, and in a region that could use a tourist economy boost.  They have an ideal territory and financial circumstance to mimic the RTJ trail concept in Alabama.  They have idea natural resources too, i.e. water abundance and proper turf growing conditions.  I have tried to float that one by their State Economic Development Bureau and got a resounding, "duh"?  :-/

[Tim_Weiman]

Kelly Blake Moran:

First, let me say that I wish you well with your project.  If any governmental body has decided to build a golf course, I only hope the project goals will be met and that course will be a source of pleasure for people in the community.

That said, I obviously reacted to Matt Ward's initial post more as a student of public policy than as someone who loves golf architecture.

I won't repeat what I've already said.  FYI, I'm not a big fan of public funded sports facilities.  The whole exercise just seems too much like reverse Robbin Hood for my tastes.  Unfortunately, politicians keep buying into such projects, but I think such venues should be privately funded.

Anyway, I think Rick Shefchik pretty well summarized my thinking on both the political and golf design issues.  I hope you are able to build something fun, relatively easy to maintain and a layout that isn't a nightmare from a pace of play point of view.

Sorry if this perspective limits your creativity.  My Dad raised me to believe golf should be played in three hours.......that's why I get along so well in Ireland where they still adhere to this philosophy.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tim,

That is the challenge.  Can it be something strategically exciting that can be maintained by a management company that will bleed it dry.  I hope it will be something to be proud of or it could be the big disappointment of my career.  Either way it is great to be in the "arena".  

Your father taught you how to behave on a course.  Maybe more dads need to spend more time on the course with their kids.  I know how to behave, and keep the game moving because I started early as a kid.  I believe you said before that municipalities should focus more on providing courses that kids and beginners can play.  I feel the ideal golfer for the future of the game starts at an early age.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

Thanks for the info on Boulder Creek ... next time I'm in the area I'll make a point on getting over to see what's been done.

SBusch:

If a government branch fails to do its homework BEFORE breaking ground regarding the financial feasibility of any course I blame the leaders for that ans they should be held accountable at the polls. With that said I also know of many counties and other levels of government in the USA that have put together first rate taxpayer owned courses that don't cost a bundle to play for the golfers who reside there. I have already listed a number of locations -- including the NY / NJ metro area.

What I detect partly here is that there are some people who don't want to see their taxes go to golf development but just as fast have memberships at private clubs. Are we not interested in seeing the game grow?

Again, I'm not advocating Bethpage Black type courses but the model of quality and strategic designs can be done at publicly owned courses.

Part of the issue is that those who operate privately owned daily fee courses don't want any COMPETITION for their particular player. I know plenty of course owners from Long Island who own their own courses and are envious of what has happened with Bethpage Black. They believe that's lost business -- such an opinion is very shortsighted because as others have mentioned concerning Alabama the tide rises for all ships as more $$ come in not just for golf but for tourism and other related aspects.

Kelly:

I believe providing quality designed publicly funded golf courses is not some sort of throw-away of public dollars. I just believe it's possible to provide courses that have a maximum amount of flexibility to challenge all types of golfers. Is that always easy ... no, clearly! I salute architects who deal with trying to accomplish this important goal because balancing all the varying demands / egos is clearly not easy.

RJ Daley:

Agree with your take on what could happen in places like Nebraska. Public golf can be a wonderful tool to build interest in the game and the design of those courses can be multi-faceted for all types of players.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

I don't want to keep going over old ground, but one of your latest comments merits response.

".....some people who don't want to see their taxes go to golf development but just as fast have memberships at private clubs. Are we not interested in seeing the game grow?"

Opposition to public investment in golf courses is more likely to come from non golfers than people who play golf and have memberships in private golf clubs.

Moreover, that opposition is largely based on budget constraints and judgements people make about social priorities.  You can disagree with how people - non golfers - assess priorities for social spending, but I hardly think the issue of private club membership has much to do with it.

Furthermore, I am interested in seeing the game grow.  That is why I believe if public money is going to be spent on golf courses, it would best go to courses appropriate for entry level players.  Focusing on the top ten percent of golfers - single digit type players - won't do much to help the game grow.  

If guys like Kelly Blake Moran really can build economically viable muni courses appealing to all types of players, all the better.  I just think you can accomplish the most by deleting the requirement to satisfy the best players.

[Lou Duran]

As a looser in a private sector/public sector competition to build a golf course in my home town, I am probably too close to the issue to address it objectively.   The answer to Matt's original question is that it is indeed possible for a government body to finance the construction of an architecturally sound golf facility.  With a budget some $3MM higher than what we had in mind, the city had a wonderful course built.

But the real question (perhaps not in a website dedicated to GCA) should probably be whether government has a role in golf course development, specially at the upscale end.  As one who believes that the government which governs best governs least, I would argue that where the private sector is efficiently meeting a need, there is no role for government.  Parks, soccer and athletic fields are typically funded by the taxpayer because of their general use by significant numbers of the population and a lack of privately owned alternatives.  With golf participation rates in the 10-15% range in many areas and ample private sector facilities, I think that the public sector should focus on its more traditional roles in infracstructure, education, and protection.

The RTJ Trail project is an interesting one because there is some benefit to Alabama through tourism and employment.  Here it can be argued that the private sector would not have undertaken a project of this magnitude, and that government had a legitimate role (in pursuing the welfare of the state).  It is highly questionable that the Trail will provide a fair return to the bond holders (teachers' retirement fund), and perhaps it should have been funded more broadly by the taxpayers of that state.  From the standpoint of playability, these courses are a far cry from what I would build for the target market.  They are much too difficult for most folks, take an inordinate amount of time to play (5+ hours on several occasions), and, for the most part, are not walkable.   They are gorgeous, and built to a grand scale.  Money did not seem to be a problem- one bridge alone at Capitol Hill cost over $1MM.

For many parts of the country, if government does have a role in golf, it should be in the basic, no-frills segement which serves the large majority of the golfing public.  Over the past decade, the private sector has ignored this market, primarily because the economics are more difficult.  And some municipalities have done very well in providing low-cost golf to the masses while generating excess revenues to fund other parks & recreation programs.  
    

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Lou,

You are right.  Government funds should focus on the basic needs, particularly education. That starts another debate though.  I feel more money should go to arts, music, reading, writing, arithmetic, basic human morlas and philosophy, and less to sex education, sensitivity classes to different lifestyles and race relations. Recreational fields funded by taxpayers do not get much use.  I drive by many and rarely see anyone using them. But, it is nice to have them when you need them.

Tim,

Exciting the expert player on a muni course may can happen.  I do not know yet.  However, to disregard this player who is a taxpayer, and whose opinion of golf courses is usually highly valued might be a mistake.  If a kid in the community can afford to play there wouldn't it be beneficial to his or her game if they could rub shoulders with excellent player's?  If a well respected expert player in the community speaks highly of the course, wouldn't it be beneficial to the business operations that might benefit from more action? It seems worth a try.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran:

Obviously, you touched on several points I agree with.  But, I am curious.  Why would your home town elect to spend three million more than you were going to spend?  What kind of taxpayer oversight was involved?

Kelly Blake Moran:

Again, if you can pull it off, i.e., economically building a course appealing for all types of players, I'll salute you.
It's just that I'm skeptical about tryimg to have it all.  I just feel that if government funds are going to be used, the priority ought be providing affordable golf for people entering the game.  Let guys like Lou Duran take care of the better players, people who play more and are willing to spend more to play the game.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tim:

We are probably talking about small degrees of separation between our opinions.  I do not know if a better player will like the course.  I suspect it will be at least interesting.  That probably means it will be a bit much for the beginning player.  At what point do you insult the beginning to average player by giving them something which does little to improve their game, and obviously says to them we have so little regard for your golfing abilities and your abilities to appreciate finer things like good architecture that we are going to give you this modest basic course that no one else in the golf world would ever confuse with a golf course, but you are tight, your game sucks, and we know you have no desire to improve and that it would be a waste of money to try to give you something slightly better.  Sounds like the way we fund poor, inner city schools.  No?