Should Govt Be Involved in Golf?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

It seem in recent years the government finds way to spend money on golf courses in quanities which make no sense. However most of the muni courses in my part of the world generate significant positive cash flow to the recreational budgets. I am been pushing in those jurisdictions where I have influence to spend more on maintenance and let them be cash nuetral. Or to then enjoy increased cash flow from better product which will make the city more money.

[Mark Chaplin]

Public sport needs to be seen in it's entirerity, if a golf course makes money and the cash also assists loss making sports facilities then it is of benefit to the whole community and should not be judged in isolation.

[Kris Shreiner]

Mark,

I think your approach, stressing assessing the community benefits of a public golf facility in totality, are bang on. If the ground is utilized properly and other uses can be integrated into the physical structures on-site, it can be a great asset. Few open space options exist, that properly managed, can provide the type of revenue that a golf course can. The key words being "properly managed." There also can't be an oversaturated market, or simple supply and demand will hurt profitibility or even break-even potential. The most important contribution of golf, particularly in urban ,or high density areas, is the preserving of greenspace and nature, provided it is responsibly managed from an environmental standpoint.

To me, one of the grest missed opportunites of the recent financial meltdown, was the terrible government exclusion of any funding for revitalization projects, for already existing municipal golf facilities needing help. Funding allocations in this area really could have provided job opportunities and re-energized outdoor enjoyment and recreation of many communites, particularly the youth and older folks. Many solid courses, with good bones, have suffered from years of poor maintenance and lack of capital infusion. With good oversight and planning, a lot of good could come from such efforts.

There has been some regional success, but without financial muscle, nothing of an impactful, comprehensive nature can be realized.
Sadly, the industry and administrative bodies of the game totally missed the boat on this, and in a belated effort to better serve themselves...eerrr...the game...hired a lobbyist firm to help better convey to government the message that they're really a great industry and business. Nice one fellas. Try walking the walk(literally as well) a bit better and you'll have more support, especially from non-golfers.

[archie_struthers]

 

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO    way     they should be in the business with a few notable exceptions .....will chime in later   !


go Eagles

[Dan Herrmann]

Matt and Tom - Amen to your posts.  My muni was Sheridan Park outside of Buffalo, NY.  Still there and still busy.

It was built back when Tonawanda as a industrial town - Dunlop and Chevy were in town.

The course held the 1962 USGA Public Links Championship.  Sheridan would be laughed out of Far Hills if they sent in an invitation to host the Publinx today.  Pretty sad, actually - not for Sheridan but for the fact that some municipal golf has become enraptured with the CCFAD mindset.

I paid $75 for a card that gave me unlimited golf in 1980.  Yes - $75.   Sure, sometimes I had to to wait for 2 hours to play.  Sure, I had to tote my bad on my bike.  But it was ALL fun. 

[archie_struthers]

 


With a few notable exceptions ( bethpage et al)  the government should stay out of golf.  In certain situations rudimentary munis that are affordable and easy may pass the sniff test, but any CCFAD or high end courses should be strictly verboten. 

We don't need to fund golf publicly any more , and they are unfair competition to those who have skin in the game.  Why not government funded hamburger joints or pubs to eat or drink for less.  With few exceptions the govenment buries expenses and gives false statistics on revenue versus expenses at "munis"  .   

There is a small window for low end muni's in my world , where entry level golfers can hit balls and learn the game . But it would be when there is no other venue that exists or could be built by private enterprise.

[Lou_Duran]

Of course Archie is right, but the question is irrelevant as there's no way of putting the cat back in the bag.  The better one might be, going forward, to what level should local and state governments get more involved in golf?  Should govt. own and operate?  Should it require private contractors to use govt employees and comply with local prevailing labor laws (e.g. closed-shop, living wage, or whatever the market will bear)?  Or should golf operations be run like a business and generate "profits" to be returned to be reinvested in the facilities or returned to the "owners"?  A bunch of slippery slope/moral hazard stuff in this one.   

[Jim_Kennedy]

A state like Massachusetts has ca. 410 golf courses. Sixty-three of them are munis, and out of that number fifty-three are leased out to private operators, leaving a whopping  ten municipalities that choose to run their own show.

This subject gets more print than it's worth.   

[Matt_Ward]

Let me just say this -- the concept that leasing out always works out to the taxpayer jurisdiction is not always the case. $$ can certainly be left on the table and as a result the jurisdiction suffers because of it.

Each deal is a separate situaiton -- in some instances, it's better for the jurisdiction to run things themselves. That is happening in Monmouth, Morris and Somerset Counties in NJ and they are each do well for what they provide.

I agree w Archie -- for the most part the private sector should not have the competition but let's be clear without the competition from the taxpayer-owned courses the fee structure offered by the private counterparts is solely about driving their bottom line and rarely do they provide a pricing system that actually encourages low income groups -- their primary aim is the deep pocket crowd. When I hear the cries of unfairness -- let's not forget that private providers main interest is their own agenda -- growing the game for all is more a talking point then actual deed in so many instances that I have seen over the years.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey guys , do you see anybody getting rich running a golf course these days , maybe Mike Keiser  ?  Even some of the best places in Philly are offering deep discounts for new members on initiation and even waiving same .  Certainly the guy running a public course is even further down and looking for a way to survive . Pricing is the same or up to 50% less than in 1999  , and we think that they should compete with government subsidized entities?

Come on    how about county owned Coffee Shops, to give us poor citizens a break from Starbucks

[Jim_Kennedy]

Maybe if there wasn't such a high ratio of private-to-public courses in NJ there would be fewer munis. Nearly fifty percent of the 300+ golf courses in the state are either private/equity or private.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Muni's exist in NJ to provide an affordable mechanism to play golf --- I have mentioned three (3) counties which do a superlative job -- Monmouth, Morris and Somerset. Solid pricing for residents and even fair for non-residents. In each case owned and managed by the county itself.

Archie:

Please -- how bout being a bit more forthcoming -- the privately-owned players could care less about those with less than deep pockets to be picked. They are moaning more and more because of their costs which have certainly gone up -- but even in the heydays they weren't exactly providing a fee structure meant to encourage others into the game.

NJ has the 8th highest fee structure in golf -- according to NGF. The bulk of that share of the top plundering courses are those held in private hands. If taxpayer-owned golf were to disappear tomorrow -- I can tell you this with near 100000% certainty -- the pricing schemes they are offering now would not be very much different. Prior to the recession hitting home starting in '07 these same "private" providers were picking pockets of only the most well-heeled of golfers.

The fact is that taxpayer-owned layouts are important to build the pipeline of future players and they can't do that when fees are closer to $100 then $1. I never advocated for well-heeled CCFAD like Chambers Bay types -- but frankly the idea that the private sector will fill the void with sound pricing geared towards the masses is the same BS that addiitonal tax cuts the millionaires will filter down to the masses.

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt    more forthcoming     While I'm on record as supporting muni's for beginners and those who can't afford to play ....meaning real muni's not multi million dollar courses that are used for political patronage jobs both in the construction and operation of same.

As to pricing ....here in  Southern NJ  the prices are lower than they have been in 15 years , what other industry or business charges less than in th year 1995, I defy you to name one.   As to legitimate , I'd also be surprised if you could get any real numbers or ROI for any of the government owned entities in our area.   Not one legitimate report.

Therhave been multiple OPRA and lawsuits here just to get the real numbers , heaven forbid the taxpayers get a fair accounting. Just take a look at last week in Trenton to see how they are screwing with the first governor in decades to try and fix the problems NJ has been accumulating . Just for the record , I don't trust either party. 

If you believe golf isn't a real business for private owners , tell that to thier bankers when they try to refinance LOL    as to most high end private clubs , they are tyoically non profits owned by the membership.

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Until the recession hit -- the greater AC area was renown for having the biggest daily-fee ticket courses to play in NJ -- Archie, do you remember the triple digit charges ? There was little concern for the masses -- until McCullough's hit the scene. Then people (those connected to the other courses) screamed murder -- as they sought to max out only those with the deep pockets to pay and McCullough's was then taking a portion of their pay. It's important to point out that the course was truly a bears-bone operation and not the high CCFAD models found elsewhere. Let's also be clear when the market was humming this oligarchy of courses in the area only sought to target a very small percentage of players -- there was zero interest then to really seek out those at the lower end of the pay spectrum.

Fine, people should get the real numbers. Just because it might be possible taxpayer $$ was wasted because of overruns -- the real issue is that muni's provide a recreational component that the big ticket courses really never thought about. Let's not confuse the desire to expand the game with an issue tied to mismanagement. The former is needed -- I never defended the latter but the latter should not be used a cloak to hide the real intent of those from the private side to start with.

We have had this discussion prevously -- should public libraries end because private providers exist? What about universities -- should public ones fade because the private ones have competition? What about tennis courts? Basketball courts? And on and on it goes.

We agree muni's should be trying to get players into the pipeline -- let me repeat in the event you missed it -- I never defended the Chambers Bay model -- but it's outrageous to suggest that the private providers really gave a rats ass about the low income folks. They only wanted to corner the market on the deep pocket players -- that was their target all along. Now, when the market is tight -- these same groups -- cry "unfair" when the market is now much tighter than before. How predictable.

Archie, in regards to reports -- check out the numbers for the counties I mentioned previously -- Monmouth, Morris and Somerset. They are more than happy to have their full records itemized for public transparency.

[Willie_Dow]

So, Archie - How does the USGA fit into this picture ?

 The Open at Bethpage vs Merion ?

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt you have to listen ,please. 

I'm ok with muni's in areas that at have no public access low end golf courses . That hasn't been the case in South Jersey in the forty years I've lived here.  Here at the shore we had Hamilton Trails , Green Tree ( a county course) and Pomona , Latona ,  BL England and even Joe Victor's to cater to the beginning or low budget golfer. I've played them all , and enjoyed them.   So understand that we had plenty of inventory and lots of mom and pop operations that were hurt .

 The next tier of Mays Landing , Avalon , Jersey Devil , Buena, all good courses were reasonably priced all thru the 70's , 80's and 90's.   

Blue Heron introduced the high priced CCFAD's , followed by Stone Harbor, and to some extent Cape May National ,then Sand Barrens .   Twisted Dune was built for a different market , but government intervention in our construction doomed it from the start . This being said , I'm proud of what we built there and it's still fun.

So I think youwould have to agree that there was  no need for the government to have gotten into the golf business in our area, and certainly to spend over $12,000,000 on a "muni" like the Emerald Links is unconscionable.


My feelings remain , starter , affordable munis have a place in some venues  but thats it!

[Doug Siebert]

Archie,

I'm not familiar with the area, but I'm curious.  In the case of that $12 million muni, how did that cost breakdown?  How much was land, how much to build it, how much on extras like a fancy clubhouse, etc.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Willie apologies for not answering your question as to the Open Championship.  I think that it's great that it was at Bethpage, a fabulous facility that has been in existence for years and is obviously anachronistic to almost all other public venues ever built.  It has survived thrived and delivered a special product to the metro NY area for years .

Wherever the Open is at Merion or Bethpage makes no difference to me.   Hopefully the taxpayers share in the revenue at the public course and not just some friends of either the USGA or politiicians.  My guess is that it is good for the facility and area businesses to host the event , which brings added prestige to the club .

Doug in our area they built a course on an old landfillowned by BFI ....the township spent the majority of the money on construction of McCullagh's Emerald Links , as I know many of the contractors who did work on the project . They can't possibly service the debt but  good luck finding the real numbers ...It's also interesting that the Township of EHT doesn't actually own the course but owns the debt ...pretty good stuff

[Matt_Ward]

Archie,

Don't misunderstand me -- I am not here to defend McCullough's. If there were huge overruns then the proper oversight of tax dolars was not done. That is wrong -- plain and simple.

I have played many of the courses you mentioned -- no doubt there is a role for muni's -- you and I do agree with that. The issue is just how much competition -- and at what level -- is fair game.

Public universities exist -- they compete with the private ones. The private ones still provide something that many people see as being important and needed. Ditto the reverse side of things.

Archie, when Blue Heron entered the scene -- the lid went off in regards to fees. Triple digit fees were the norm for quite a number of places in the area and as a result the overall golf scene changed. Where would the average person go to play? Why was the private sector slow on the switch to develop ways to attract them to their facilities.

Frankly, I think they were interested only in cherry-picking off those with the deepest of pockets.

[Jim_Kennedy]

In reading about McCullough's it appears that '09 was the first time in its history that taxpayers threw more money at it, losing almost 3,000 rounds that year may have been the cause.

It also seems that since the landfill morphed into a golf course there has been a goodly amount of new development around it, something that surely wasn't going to happen if the property remained in its sorry state. A new mall and other businesses have been built, and the quality of life of homeowners in the area of the former dumping ground must have been greatly improved.

I wonder how much property tax revenues have increased from the nearby development? How much will the eventual increase in home values add to the tax rolls? How about the economic boost from the new jobs created in the mall and in the other new businesses that have been created?

 

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt there are and were plenty of places to play for cheap , i just named five or six of them . This is old ground , so we shouldn't bother arguing too much more.  There has never been a decree in the USA that private clubs must provide affordable golf, it's always been market demand . Why it's any different than any other business is beyond me.

Hey Jim , EHT has tons of residents and a great location for business , politics aside.  The golf course is nicer than the dump , that;s for sure , but was it worth 12m of the residents cash.  If you can prove to me that "09 was the first time the place lost money , I'll take you to dinner at the Palm after we play Galloway LOL . If you have the real  financials, you are in a privledged few.

Forget the Emerald Links , I'm against any public owned golf courses that aren't entry level facilites, real muni's as we knew them in the day .  Put your ball in the rack , tee it up where you can find some grass etc etc , and play with whoever is hanging around . No big expenditures that compete with tax paying businesses . No 10-20 million dollar boondoggles that we are on the hook for !

Lots of low priced golf around here now, and some will be out of business when the government owned entities are still being subsidized by taxpayers .

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

The reason is simple partner -- those in the private sector gain from having more and more players play - and doing a bit more on the junior level -- the women level -- and the minority side of things would be a good place for them to show a bit more awareness than just simply being interested in the top 5% because they have the deepest of pockets.

Archie, I get a bit peeved when those in the private sector want it both ways -- no public sector involvement and then gouging players who do play at their facilities.

Let me also point out that a number of the low-tier places you mentioned have had two feet on a banana peel for quite some time. For then going out of business will not be a major loss -- the other new taxpayer-owned faciltiies provide a credible and more suitable venue.

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt , I'm amazed at your statement that as to low cost private clubs


Matt Ward


"for them to go out of business is no major loss, the new taxpayer owned venues provide a credible and more suitable venue "

You are certainly allowed to retract this statement , as it is obviously half baked.  How about the real people that owned these golf courses , are they so insignificant that their loss doesn't matter ....cmon .....you must have mispoken

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Competiton exists in the world and frankly taxpayer-jurisdictions in NJ are keen to attract players from other counties. Morris does this well with its out-of-county program and many people take advantage of it. Why would they not do so ?

The old time decrepit taxpayer-owned courses either need to spruce themselves up or they fall by the wayside. Union County did a fine job in getting things cranked up with Kemper at Galloping Hill and Ash Brook.

I'll also say this again -- NJ has the 8th most expensive market in the USA. The privately-owned daily fee layouts have decided to simply cherry-pick off the deep pocket folks. When the cash register was ringing off the hook you didn't hear a sound from them. Now, when things are tighter, the cry of unfair competition becomes the predictable lament.

Archie, when I speak about loss -- keep in mind the horse racing industry here in NJ has long been crying for government help. The issue is a simple and somewhat related one -- when the body public decides to spend their entertainment dollar in a different direction there's no real need -- logical or otherwise -- to prop up a dying situation. Food for thought on the golf front as well.

[Ken Moum]

We don't need to fund golf publicly any more , and they are unfair competition to those who have skin in the game.  Why not government funded hamburger joints or pubs to eat or drink for less.  With few exceptions the govenment buries expenses and gives false statistics on revenue versus expenses at "munis"  .   

Pesonally, I think the advent of daily fee courses was the beginning of the ruination of golf in America. So was the advent of the publicly traded golf equipment company.

I don't know about other parts of the country, but where i learned to play there were private clubs and munis.  In small towns, the private clubs provided golf for everyone, allowing limited golf for nonmembers, and reasonable memberships for juniors.

In bigger towns, the munis picked up most of that market, and offered the unwashed masses a chance to learn golf without any commitment other than a green fee.

Then came the daily-fee course, which operated in direct competition with existing private and public courses.  They skimmed the top of the muni market and the bottom of the private-club market, hurting both in the process.  In the end, there have proven to be a lot of golfers who wanted a country-club atmosphere, but weren't quite ready to make the moved to the country club--so they found a market, and made some money.

But now that times are tough, they seem to be blaming the muni for their problems.  I know it's not fair, but I' probably be be fine with most of them going broke and ending up as public courses or housing developments.

K