I honestly don't know at this point if there was any formal relationship between the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co., and the Dean Alvord Syndiciate, but we know CBM secured his land from the latter. It makes me wonder why the news articles wouldn't have mentioned the much larger realty company...they were certainly prominent, but I'm not sure it matters either way.
You honestly don't know?
- But then why were you lecturing me about my supposed "misunderstanding" of the material?
- Why were you lecturing all of us about about how SHPBRC really owned a separate 2000 acre plot of land located in Good Ground, which is not even on the map, (literally not on their own map of their property!)
- Why are you continuing to try to cast doubt on the fact that SHPBRC was developing Alvord land?
YOU ARE JUST MAKING THINGS UP TO SOUND LIKE YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND FOR RHETORICAL GAIN. This is the kind of thing that casts doubt on your honesty, sincerity, and ability.
As seen in this April 1907 blowup, one can see what looks at least to be the shaded surveyed holdings of the former company on the smaller "blowup" map insert. At the very least, those seem to be their holdings to date that had been plotted out for real estate sales purposes.
Are you kidding me? Did you bother to even look closely at the map you posted, or to read the article?
Surely you noticed "
SEBONACK NECK" underlined and all caps, and the words "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company" written underneath? And did you not notice that "National Golf Course" is marked not once but twice on the map?
If so, why claim that Sebonack Neck wasn't included in SHPBRC's property when it explicitly states it is? Obviously Sebonack Neck hadn't been developed with roads and lots which is why it isn't dark on the insert map of lots available at the opening. But the description and the map leave no doubt that it was all controlled by SHPBRC.
And why claim that they did not point out that NGLA was a neighbor when they did so not only on the map but also in the article? The article and the map YOU POSTED leave no doubt!
It is really sad that you have to resort to this crap. It makes civil discussion impossible. You are so clearly agenda driven that you will just write anything you think supports your claim, even when your own information contradicts it. Pathetic.
Neither the land of the NGLA course, nor the land adjoining it that made up the other 245 acres, today's Sebonack GC, look to have been shaded, and I doubt that SHAPBRC wouldn't have indicated the land ajoining NGLA on their sales map if they 1) owned it, and 2) had already surveyed it.
More garbage on your part. SHPBRC DID INDICATE THEY OWNED IT! LOOK AT THE MAP! And read the article. They make a big deal about the proximity of NGLA! And check the date and see of you can figure out why NGLA might not have been definitely drawn in. It is an easy one.
Anyway, instead of continuing to argue about what you clearly admit you do not know. Why not just take the time and look it up. You could surely find the facts in the time it takes you to come up with this crap. That is what I did before I stated who controlled the property.
While I appreciate you saving me the trouble posting that April 6 article, you should have kept researching (or had Joe keep researching) and you would know that while Alvord purchased the property in October of 1905, the land was to be developed by SHPBRC. Reportedly SHPBRC was formed around the end of 1905 to develop the 2700+ acres of land purchased by Alvord for the newly formed company.
As I said yesterday, I was planning on posting some articles about this, but given you are still playing games here and pretending these were distinct sites, maybe I should let you (I should say Joe) discover you are wrong all by yourself. Which would you prefer?
_____________________________________________
Your attempts to pretend they were talking about the 120 acre site are laughable.
- First you miraculously convert the 120 acre site to a 205 acre site.
- YESTERDAY you were sure this site was by Good Ground, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CANAL, yet today you have it miraculously jumping the canal.
- Then, once it jumped the canal, you sketch out some 700 acres nowhere near Shinnecock's course, claiming that the site must have been somewhere in there.
- Then you slip and slide the site well out of this area and over near Shinnecock, as if it never would have been mentioned that both sites bordered Shinnecock! And you just pretend it ends at an inlet which isn't all that near an inlet at all. f
It would be much less trouble to honestly assess the description.