Should Govt get out of the golf course ownership business ?

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

It's so e-z to categorize people and come off -- you did really -- with this notion that most of NJ is held hostage by people with their hand out or at minimum looking to extend the approval process to the point of absolute frustration to the max. I have no doubt that DEP is worthy of the scorn it gets in the Garden State. I can say that with personal observations over the last 25-30 years. But, many more people are fair and forthright about the process and try to be accomodating to all parties.

Let me also say I am not here to say your experiences are exaggerated or in error. I am also not here to defend the conduct of those who insist on certain things from privately-owned parties but fail to likewise in return.

Clearly, you had ways to address the issues you faced. It's also apparent to me you simply decided to go along to get along. Just pay the amt and go from there. That was your call -- you could have fought the various administrative hassles you were facing. Frankly, sometimes good old publicity from the media can do the trick without involving the courts and the like.

Archie, I am not here to defend the odious actions of those in the greater AC area. It is shameful conduct because it sets in motion a poisoning of the overall system. But my original point still stands -- gov't does have a role -- albeit in providing a starting point for people who don't have the wherwithal to pay the higher fees for upsacel public courses or the private clubs that are out there.

Best wishes this holiday season !

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

A public entity -- of any type -- doesn't pay property taxes. That's not just golf courses -- it includes all other usages.

The public as a whole is paying for the upkeep and maintenance of such properties.

You ask why should the privately-owned operators be paying taxes ?

They pay property taxes because it's in private hands. They also pay employee taxes for those working there.

Mike, you ask about the better maintained public courses -- OK -- yes, there are a number of them. So what's work with that ? Let me also point out that many tax jurisdictions that have such golf properties have to really show cause as to the nature of their budgets and what they are providing when held against other priorities that are under financial pressures as well (e.g. public safety, education, etc, etc). It would not surprise me that a number of taxpayer jurisdictions will enter into lease arrangements with private providers because it allows them to reap a certain % without incurring the overall costs that have been mounting to handle such properties.

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt , God Bless you , you are more naive than I was. This doesn't mean you aren't smart, I mean no disrespect , just naive.  The reason I got screwed was that I fought . Had I capitulated early, and you have to know what that means, I probablly would have only lost a little. 

They had me by the short hairs , they knew it , and screwed us. they used the engineering department , the police department , (against their will , I might add) and all the bad council people they could recruit.  Some stood up for us . nost didn't and took their marching orders.  So please don't assume I went along to get along, you have to know me better than that , if just for our postings!

merry Christmas

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

I take strong exception to being called "naive."

And I am sorry to hear what you faced.

I have served in various forms of local government for a number of years including a tri-county soil conservation district. If the corruption you say was so blatant and pervasive there are other options you could have done. You decided to go at it from another way. So be it.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize --which is your prerogative from the lingering bas taste in your mouth -- that you can so easily extrapolate the situation you faced and believe it's utterly pervasive throughout all elements of government.

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

Naive was probably the wrong word.  Perhaps invested is a better one.

I've worked for pay briefly at the county and state levels (Ohio) and for two federal agencies (in Texas) and I could write a detailed book about the experience but no one would believe it.  Perhaps NJ is different- and maybe only the few isolated cases make the national news- but we have something going in Dallas and/or Texas every week.

Unfortunately, pay to play is the norm, not the exception.  E.G.- I was thinking about taking advantage of a Texas green initiative to replace my 10-year old gas water heater with an Energy Star model ($300 rebate).  Unfortunately, the good public servants in our city have deemed it necessary that a permit be acquired at a cost of $75, that the work be performed by a professional ($$$$ licensed plumber), and then inspected.  We are talking about simply connecting an existing gas line with a shut-off valve, a cold water line going in, a hot water line going out, and an exhaust vent.  Maybe an hour job after draining the old one for someone with 10 thumbs like me.  Cheapest installation quote thus far is $500.  The city is happy to get a quick $75, the plumber is delighted to make an extra $300, and me, I can choose to forgo playing a half-dozen rounds of golf at my favovite privately-owned daily fee golf course OR take a chance that the old heater will be useful for a couple more years.  Very Keynesian in theory I suppose, but not very stimulative (or sporting) in practice, is it?

But in one sense you are right.  Knowing how things are, businesses and those who disagree with government dominating the economy and the individual can move elsewhere or curtail activity.  The large blue states are experiencing precisely that, and why many of us are fearful of the federal Californication of the rest of the country.  Where are we to go?  China?  Maybe Brazil? 

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's surprising that a state like Texas would have stricter building codes than a state like Connecticut, where a homeowner can pull a permit for any job he needs to do on his own house, including replacing his own water heater.

[archie_struthers]

 



Matt , naive isn't a hurtful term, and if I wasn't so naive I never would have built Twisted Dune.


Just as a sophistic exercise , can you explain to me how the Emerald Links could get a free liquor license and we couldn't...How can they still have no sidewalks or landscaping along their property , which is on the same county road as Twisted, and was mandated for us.  

Forget everything else ,just try to explain why they don't have to follow their espoused ordinances...that 's all I would like you to explain to me , as I don't understand  ??  

[Cliff Hamm]

That's surprising that a state like Texas would have stricter building codes than a state like Connecticut, where a homeowner can pull a permit for any job he needs to do on his own house, including replacing his own water heater.

ditto RI as long as codes are met

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

I still take strong exception to being called naive -- the implications are that I am somewhat a "babe in the woods" when real actions of all sorts take place. That is far from the case.

You are asking me to defend the actions of Emerald Links.

I never agreed with a number of action that took place there -- therefore I don't need to defend or provide a rationale for one.

If you wanted to take action I would suggest you raise the issues with the appropriate authorities -- the county prosecutor is one. The attorney general's office is another. You say you fought the matters at-hand -- well, there were other options you could have taken to preserve your rights -- you opted to go at it in another way and feel that all gov't entities -- or most of them -- are in line with the folks you faced in your neck of the woods. That's not the case in my mind -- naive or not.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

Invested

If people are shaking down people -- either through direct payments or backdoor via campaign donations and the like then people should report them to the appropriate authorities.

It's so e-z to extrapolate a few different and likely isolated instances and proclaim that all vestiges of government are handled by either corrupt or inept bureaucrats -- simply looking to stick it to those in business. Lou, put down the Republican kool-aid playbook for a moment OK.

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt you take exception to naive , so be it . it's not meant to be derogatory .  While I never considered myself to be naive, when we built Twisted Dune the power of the local authorities to stop your job absolutely amazed me.  In arguably the most free nation in the world , your right to due process is always available, if you can afford to let the interest run on your loans and bring a phalanx of lawyers , and a huge pile of money , to win what , your ability to finish construction or open your business . You can't get damages form the municipality , and try to sue a politiician personally ...it ain't happening dude.  The preponderence of the evidence has to be so high that you'd break your neck falling off the paperwork.

Do you think that the Emerald Links should be able to get a concessionaire's license to sell liquor  ( as a public  entity ) or buy a real liquor license like everyone else. This continues and is patently unfair. Do you expect me to spend another $ million dollars on lawyers or can you believe I am telling you the truth.

You've been to both sites , they are less than one mile apart. Don't you think if we have to put sidewalks in they should too? If you would at least answer these simple questions I would think you are being objective. i've talked to you enough to know that you are way too smart not to understand what I am asking .  You can say you don't have to , but why not ....should the public golf course not have to follow the same zoning permit  and planning process as a regular citizen , and pay for their liquor license , or not!  Yes or
no    

Don't you attach any weight to Kelly- Blake - Morans' answer to this query. that the process is almost criminal   ...not tedious , or difficult , almost criminal !!!   I'm guessing that my experiences are far worse than his . It's not an isolated case, and I don't support Republicans by the way , note the earmarks they shoved into the Omnibus Bill ( oh my )  I support honest , hard working citizens and hope we have the will to elect them going forward.

I know of Lou Duran's project .. same Sh'''''t   ,the government took his rights and trampled on them !

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Hey due, you missed my point by as much as Tiger previously missed fairways.

If the municipality is engaged in illegal or unethical actions the State of NJ has the means to compel compliance. You made the decision to fight locally but never -- at least from what you have said thus far -- engaged higher authorities to review the practices and procedures you encountered.

Ever hear of the Dept of Comm Affairs -- they license building departments -- not the locality. Ever hear of the County Prosecutor's Office? Or the Attorney General's Office. Or how about the NJ Chamber of Commerce as a lobbying aid?

Archie, you don't have to spend a nicklel to make a call to the departments / agencies I just mentioned above. I am well aware that their are a number of municipalities that have been run by the same groups of people for years and often times the practices / procedures they engage in are borderline illegal and likely unethical at the minimum.

Archie, you ask me to answer a question on sidewalks -- if you believed you were compelled to do something that EL was not going to do -- the appeal mechanisms I just mentioned are there. DCA is quite active in their review of actions by building departments and those affiliated with their actions.

Ditto on the liquor license procedure. You can certainly go to the press as well and highlight these diccrepancies and how one has to do something and the other doesn't.

The fact is Archie -- you were burned big time. You have a major hard-on against all of gov't and think all of the people connected to it have their hands out -- or want to drag on with endless procedures that you must comply with but others do not. I am not hear to exonerate the actions of those who screwed you and those affiliated with you on TD. But you had avenues available to you to press your case and make sure that neither you nor others in the future would go through what you had to face. At the end of the day your bitching and moaning here isn't going to change that reality. Sorry to say that but true.

[Lou_Duran]

Unfortunately, pay to play is the norm, not the exception.  E.G.- I was thinking about taking advantage of a Texas green initiative to replace my 10-year old gas water heater with an Energy Star model ($300 rebate).  Unfortunately, the good public servants in our city have deemed it necessary that a permit be acquired at a cost of $75, that the work be performed by a professional ($$$$ licensed plumber), and then inspected.

CORRECTION:

My comments regarding the hot water heater installation requirements were based on separate conversations I had with two plumbing department employees (one was the dept. mgr.) and another homeowner like myself at a major building products retailer, a general contractor, and a licensed plumber.  At the retailer, the employee who had been a former plumber explained in detail how easy the installation is (I have not worked with gas before) and that homeowners who chose to install their own don't bother with the permitting process ("how would the city know?"); the other one (the mgr.)  piped in from time to time, but did not contradict anything.

Mr. Kennedy's comment about how it can be done in CT by a homeowner got me to thinking that perhaps the information I had (and parroted here) was not entirely accurate, so I called the city this morning and talked to an inspector.  He told me that a homeowner can instal a water heater in a house he lives in after he gets a permit.  The cost for the permit is $27 and it takes minutes (as opposed to hours or days) to "pull" one.  This cost includes the mandatory inspection of the work by the city which is normally done on the next business day after the installation is completed.  However, if the property is not owner-occupied or commercial, then it does have to be professionally installed and the permitting process and cost vary.

Matt,

If what I've stated is simply drawn from "the Republican kool-aid playbook" and things are so honky-dory in the bluest high-tax/Big Gov/hyper-regulated states like NJ, NY, CA, IL, MA, et. al., why is it that many of your productive citizens have been leaving in droves?  Believe me, the kool-aid in Texas ain't nearly good enough to overcome our extreme climate.

"Invested" in the context I used it simply means that you might have financial and psychic interests tied to the well-being of the public sector.  Unlike your characterization of my beliefs, my suggestion only seeks to explain where you might be coming from (since you didn't like the term "naive").  It can only be construed perjoratively if you view public sector dominance accordingly.

BTW, I am happy in a democratic federalist system where the good citizens in NJ and NY can choose to pay for whatever they wish without having the means or the need to impose their social experiments and the funding of them on the equally good folks of other states.  You would think that this would be good enough, but, unfortunately, it does not seem to be.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

The net migration out of certain states is tied more to the overall taxes they are paying for exorbitant salaries and health benefits of certain classifications of public employees -- look at police and fire salaries in NJ when held against most other states -- ditto on the teacher side as well. It is shocking. Ditto the profusion of so much government levels -- NJ has 612 scholl districts with 300 of them have having 500 or fewer students. Unfortunately, people in NJ are convinced that "home rule" is the way to go -- it's the way to go bankrupt.

Lou, I have no "financial and psychic interests tied to the well being of the public sector." I serve in an elected position as a councilman for a city of nearly 80,000 and it shocks me at the escalating costs of human capital. Try to realize that in answering Archie's comments -- I simply meant that certain communities may be exactly what he mentioned -- the vast preponderance are not and it's quite e-z and fairly predictable for people to think that all gov't operates with the dunce or corrupt cap on its head. Or that needed regulation is simply a tool to extract the very last pound of flesh from business owners and developers. I layed out for Archie a mechanism for his justified complaints to be pursued. It is he who decides what course he takes.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Matt , been there done that ....but thanks

I appreciate that you tried to help ..

Now , if you would answer as to the question....as this is our discussion group ...Do you think the municipal golf courses should get a free liquor license ....and if so isn't this unfair???  If fair minded people accept this as OK , we are in trouble...big trouble
By the way did the muni's in your neck of the woods get them for free also

 Rather than lose big in my favorite state NJ  they just might save a lot of cash and aggravation by not making the mistakes I did trusting the system. YOU must have big big money and incredible patience and time to succeed anymore.  I love it here but more and more of my friends are giving up and leaving , and they are some of our best and brightest, I'm probably too stubborn to let them drive me out

  
p.s  

as an aside my friend in Ocean City who is expanding and enclosing his deck on his home of twenty five years is up to $4600 in review fees surveys and the like   ...this for a 133 foot expansion and enclosure of same ....by the way if he expands his deck he has to buy two waivers for trees from the shade tree commission at $250 per tree that he won''t plant lol...it just goes on and on...maybe you can help stop it, I'm trying here

We recently got rid of the city solicitor of over 27 years who in many ways ran our town and privately bragged about it ..w echecked his billing records and  ,he was found and admitted to have misbilled the city for thousands of dollars ...actually it was way more ...he blamed it on his firms billing system , they billed when he was out of town multiple times ...over  a hundred mistakes actually

.but.... the local ethics board cleared him of ethics viiolations ...they decided that the city was ok with him apoligizing and returning the money ...he got a Charlie Rangel lol ..the board actually ruled that because the city didn't bring the complaint there was no real issue

It was interesting that durign the proceedings two of my buidings ( which are pristine) were red tagged for various and sundry code vioations and the other citizen who participated caught city workers going thru his trash looking for recycling violations thye alos came and told me that I would have to rip out my driveway because it wasn'

t code, unitl I reminded them that our most famous resident's drivewway was identicl and I'd rip mine out when he did

we prevailed I guess as he lost his job ...the council voted 4-3 not to rehire  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lou,
Your first post reminded me of one of the Mythbuster's water heater explosions, probably one of the reasons why you need the technical training and license to install these for someone else, and why you need an inspection after doing it for yourself.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu3FwgIHsQA

Nice explosions at 4:20 and 7:04 minutes.


Archie,
You should have hired Tony Soprano at the outset.  Seriously,  I'm sorry to hear of all the trouble you had while building TD. Takes the fun right out of it.

[Matt_Ward]

What will be curious to see is how the public market does sort itself out.

The higher-prived CCFAD's like Crystal Springs here in NJ have already been quite aggressive with a range of loyalty programs that are far more extensive and cost conscious to grab players. In years past -- the thought of having do just that was not likely. Things have certainly changed.

As much as people have spoken about leasing taxpayer-owned properties to management companies -- there are a number of outstanding publicly controlled situations that I know of. The ones in the NJ counties I have mentioned is a good example of that.

I'd be curious to know of other situation -- places like Industry Hills in Industry, CA and how they are managed.

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

The NJ marketplace -- until the introduction of the high-priced tier of CCFAD's -- which got started in a major way in the late 80's with Hansen in the AC marketplace and the rise of Crystal Springs in the north -- was primarily taxpayer-owned layouts -- many of them quite reasonable in fees -- even for out-of-county residents -- and you also had family-owned daily fee layouts which were also quite reasonable in fees.

The family-owned "mom & pop" type daily fees eventually began to disappear from the marketplace -- the CCFAD then became the main alternative -- with fees which were high double-digit to even triple-digit during the peak summer months.

Kelly, the key thing for the top CCFAD's is not to "brand" themselves lower. Once a facility does that -- the expectation from those playing is that more and more of those "specials" will be part of the norm. Marlboro cigarettes never sells cheaper for that reason.

The taxpayer-owned facilities also are under pressure. Counties are the primary holder of golf courses of this type in NJ and many of them have developed an outside county "loyalty program" in order to capture play. Plenty of that emphasis is coming in the senior side of things during weekdays. Clearly, the economy is shaping so many of these efforts with more to come down the line.

[Doug Siebert]

Archie,

I'm a bit confused about your position here.  On the one hand you don't like the "upscale" munis that cost a lot of taxpayer money to build that are competing with you.  On the other hand you are complaining that they don't have the same expenses as you since they haven't had to put in sidewalks, don't pay for a liquor license like you do, etc. and it sounds like you want them held to the same requirements.  If they were, isn't that money going to come from the taxpayers one way or another? (less profit/bigger losses for that muni)  It will make that course you think is too expensive even more expensive!

Is it fair that you have to compete against a course that doesn't have the same expenses as you do?  No, probably not.  I'm curious which came first, your course or the muni?  If the muni came later, were there other similarly upscale munis elsewhere in the area that may have provided a hint that this sort of thing might happen?  This sort of thing is always a risk in business you have to evaluate before making the investment.  Its really not that different than someone who opens up a coffee shop and has a Starbucks open up down the street, or pays a lot for land near a Walmart to open a gas station, and then Walmart adds gas pumps.  Those are not government funded competition, but they do have a much better cost structure due to economies of scale or the ability to run some sites at a loss if desired for competitive reasons.  The net effect is the same, a competitor that doesn't have the same expenses as you or is able to run at a consistent loss long enough to drive you out of business.

Does anyone building a new course ever ask for or receive some sort of agreement from the city/county not to open up a municipal course with x miles for y years?  If someone was opening up a muni-type course, one that is designed to be open to the public, relatively inexpensive, etc. it seems to me that the type of community that would build a muni would want to attract such a project.  In some cases if they were discussing a muni maybe they'd be happy to have someone private come in and relieve them of the headache of doing it.  In other cases they might still want to do it for whatever reason (i.e., some guy in position of power who has always wanted to build a golf course but can't afford to/doesn't want to risk doing it himself)  It might be enlightening to at least ask for the non-compete and see what answer you get - perhaps in exchange for a guarantee that the course will stay fully public for some period of time in case they are concerned you'll initally be public and then go private once all the housing around the course is developed.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Although your questions was to Archie I believe I can shed some light on a few of the questions you asked.

Emerald Links came after Twisted Dune was in operation.

However ...

Other taxpayer-owned layouts did exist prior to TD and the other CCFAD's that came on like gangbusters in the late '80's and early '90's. These muni's were, as Archie described, a bit old in the tooth and provided low level golf -- fees considerably lower than the upsacel CCFAD's that entered the scene.

Doug, I don't know of any private venture -- that is planning on opening a public-access course (CCFAD or otherwise) that would seek to bind a taxpayer-jurisdiction in a "non-compete" manner.

Couple of things to consider -- the expenses that a private operator is forced to handle -- even if a "non compete" were carried out are still enormous. For example, land aquisition -- the overall approval process and the relative expenses that are incurred with each year (property taxes being the central one but not the only area of concern).

Another thing to consider -- if a "non-compete" were provided -- what assurance would the taxpayer-jurisdiction get that fees for its residents would be respected -- and that there would not be a situation in which those within the immediate tax-payer jurisdiction area would be given second rate considerations against those with far deeper pockets for preferred tee times and access to other amenties provided.

[archie_struthers]

 

Doug , I can't see very many local governments making a deal  like you descibe ,  and thanks Matt for pointing out that Twisted Dune was there first.

As to the Starbucks analogy, how they knock me out of business is my problem if I'm selling coffee, but Ocean City NJ shouldn't open a restaurant or coffee shop because Mayor Gillian thinks  Starbucks charges too much .  That's where Matt and I are light years apart, I thi nk>   

Here is my beliefs in a nutshell.  Municipal golf has been an accepted govennmemt function for many years, howeve in all but a few cases it has been limited to low cost , fairly simple , often nine hole courses with a range that caters to beginners , kids and often our seniors . There are anomalies like Bethpage but they are just that , strange but wonderful venues that have evolved over the years ...They are few and far between.

Why government now has to supply cheap.  QUALITY golf is beyond me......why not cheap bowling alleys,  or motor sports facilities , or archery ranges , ski resorts or other expensive recreational pursuits. I'm against building any expensive municipal courses, as this is certainly not an inalienable riight as a citizen....  Why the local municipality, save to protect an existing course from bankruptcy and perhaps protect sensitive land from development after careful and educated review.

What happened to us was likely criminal, and surely highly unusual.  How many golf courses in the world have been built like Twistded Dune, by digging and selling off almost four million tons of fill to mitigate the costs of construction. The logisitics of the job were mind boggling.

The problem with govenment competing with taxpayers in business is complicated, but given all the things they have to do, is building expensive golf course a necessary function.  Not only are they not qualified to do it, they are playing roulette with our tax money. There are no guarantees in this business.  As has been pointed out to me in this forum.  However , while I understand feeding the poor and needy , and support it with some constraints. I'm not sold on providing steaks , lobster and champagne as necessary to survive.  I think that's where Matt and I strongly disagree.

[Kris Shreiner]

Archie,

The open space benefits, especially in built-up or urban areas, are something you might not be factoring in when evaluating why government should be involved, particularly if the ground is of good environmental quality and diversity or multi-use capable. Also,what is "expensive." Five million,ten million? And if there is significant useable land in addition to just the acreage used for golf, what then is a reasonable figure?

In my view each municipal/project has to be assessed on its individual merits. No doubt, the miscarriage of justice than you seem to have been subject to was harsh. That said, it's tough in any business and government options have repercussions for plenty beside just the golf business. Look at pools, gun ranges, recreational facilities, utilities, etc., they all have been subject to govermnent supported efforts in certain locales. One has to stay sharp and find ways to give folks some things the others don't. I've not played Twisted Dunes, but look forward to teeing it up on your creation!

[archie_struthers]

 

Chris if land is environmentally sensitve there is a time and place for govenment ot step in, but the process has been historically abused. I'm more into parks or walking trails that everyone can enjoy, even though I'm an avid and obviously passionate golfer. 

When  you look at all the costs of municipal , high end golf , not many people can make it work. If you are going to gamble , don' do it with taxpayer money, use your own.  We have yet to have a legitimate P & L from our municipal courses,  yet no one screams too loud.  It's because they are scared of reprisal , or like getting some freebies. In the end  though it's not free.

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Just a word of advice -- you say in your last post -- "the process has been historically abused." Really. Do you evidence of clear specifics tied to a number of clear instances -- beyonds EL in NJ ?

Let me also point out what you have consistently tapdanced around -- there was no screaming from the widest of players in the CCFAD market in AC when the $$ was rolling in and these same places were content to gladly take the $$ from those willing to fork over triple digit fee golf to play during peak months. These same places could care less about the bottom tier who needed a place to play golf. And please spare me with the Mays Landing example of quality low tier golf -- it's at best nondescript stuff.

I'm not here too excuse the shennanigans you outlined but let's be a bit more forthcoming because when the tide was high the CCFAD courses were more than happy to tolerate the existence of other places. Now that the times have turned sour -- the bitterness (however justified or not) rears its head to the forefront.

I'm appalled at what actions have been done by the folks locally -- it only hurts the actions of others. The shakeout of the golf market will no doubt have even more shakeouts in the years to come.

[Mike Sweeney]

Different sport, but here is an interesting article about the evolution and clash of municipal and private enterprise at the Boston Marathon.

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/articles/2010/12/19/baa_is_caught_in_a_numbers_game/

A similar event just happened with NY Road Runners and the NYC Half-Marathon.