The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

THese were sandy, DIRT roads, no more than cart paths.

Mike, you just can't tell the truth.
If you ever want to regain your credibility, please try to start now.[/b]

You're in serious denial, and your supposed North "Highway" is also a dirt road here, and NOT in the location you claimed it was when you said CBM would not have tried to buy land south of Cold Spring Lake because the North Highway was there.

Mike, it was you map of the Olmstead plan that YOU posted that showed the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom golf course site, not mine.  It's right there, running East to West, right down the middle of your absurd claim regarding the golf course site.

So, don't tell me it's not in the location "I" claimed.  YOU posted that plan, it was right down the middle of your golf course location, a location which you subsequently abandoned, in favor of your newest location.

This is what I mean by you being disengenuous and lying.
You do it repeatedly, and Jeff Brauer, sits there like a bump on a log ignoring your misrepresentations and lies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Blue X is the site of the Shinneock Inn and Shinnecock GC to the EAST.
The Red X is the site of the Shinnecock Train Station.

Mike, here are the maps and aerials you posted.

The North Highway runs smack down the middle of the phantom golf course you insisted was CBM's choice.
Now, you refute your own opinion, claiming instead that the golf course wasn't in the area you marked, which is what I had stated all along.

If you're going to make outrageous claims and misrepresent the facts along with what others have stated, you'd better erase/edit all of your previous posts because they clearly contradict your most recent claims.

YOU posted the Olmstead plan with the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom, delusional golf course.

[Andy Hughes]

This may be common knowledge to you guys but it isn't to me---were people going out to the end of LI back then?  Were there many people living there or just a few scattered potato farmers? How did people get out there--I assume via the LIRR? I can't imagine there was any car traffic to speak of at this point, was there, as there couldn't have been many cars yet.  Pat, those playing SHGC then would have taken the train from the City, yes? There was no Shinnecock Inn yet--where did they stay? How did they get around? Was Montauk yet a destination?

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Your correct on every count.  Patrick is blowing smoke over a dirt road and he's calling me disengenous.

Priceless.


Patrick,

Thanks for reposting that aerial of the land the October 1906 articles obviously refers to that CBM was considering.  

It gives me the opportunity to show folks exactly where Shinnecock Golf Club was located at that time.  

ALL of Shinneock GC was south of ALL of Sebonac Neck, and I'm really surprised that you and David didn't note that before trying to make it appear as though the articles in question were talking about the site of today's golf course.  :-/

Of course, when the western point of the proposed purchase in the articles is 1.5 miles away from the western point of NGLA, we all should have known you both were blowing smoke up our keisters in continually representing it as today's property.

We shouldn't have needed to figure out the Shinnecock ruse to get to the right answer, but I guess that's the game you guys want to play.

Whatever...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Did you forget that all of the 1906 Shinnecock Hills Golf Club was south of Sebonac Neck in 1906 and couldn't possibly have been due east to CBM's proposed purchase on that site?

You spent a lot of time recently in studying early Shinnecock and the progression of that course so i'm sure it's not something you wouldn't have realized.  

How could any of that course be due east of any of Sebonac Neck when it is ALL south of it?   There is no way then for it's "eastern limits to adjoin the Shinnecock Hills course", is there?   Not ONE FOOT of the Shinnecock Golf Course in 1906 was east of the entire two miles of the Sebonac Neck property, was it?

Even the Olmstead Bros. 1907 Land Plan had the proposed North Highway running north above all of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and south of the land of National and Sebonac Neck.  

Did you notice that and realize that the "highway" had to be merely proposed, and not an existing one?  

I'm guessing you didn't notice, because otherwise, why would you let Patrick continue in his unproductive tirade about CBM building a course right along an existing highway?

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

I looked at the map and the only mention on the key is that "red dotted roads indicate "poor roads".

I would assume the black dotted roads mean exactly what they mean on maps today.

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, was the area covered in black owned by SHGC?

The brief newspaper article you are quoting below, is that talking about the 120 acres that CBM tried to initially buy, or something else?

[Adam_Messix]

Mike--

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your black area is part of the land that Shinnecock President Lucien Tyng owned when he contracted Flynn to design the current Shinnecock Hills course.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

To my knowledge, that area was purchased later by Shinnecock.  

The area in question is from an October 15th, 1906 article David posted earlier in this thread.

Whether it is the same proposed area as what CBM referred to in his book I'm not sure.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy/Adam,

That land was NOT owned by Shinnecock in 1906.   I just looked it up as I wasn't sure when I responded earlier.   Macdonald had revised the Shinnecock course later in the mid-teens to remove the holes south of the railroad and reconfigure others on some new land, as well, but it wasn't the land in question.

From Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul's "The Nature Faker";

"Lucien Tyng, an important figure in the annals of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, learned
that a new highway was to be built along the southern holes of the Macdonald design. The
highway, paralleling the Long Island Railroad was eventually built in 1933. So in 1927, in
anticipation of this eventuality, Tyng purchased three lots totaling 108 acres north and east
of the clubhouse. Land on which current holes four, five, six, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and
seventeen are situated one one of the three tracts, part of a sixty-acre tract obtained by Tyng
for use by the club. Holes ten and eleven and the fairways of holes twelve and thirteen are
situated on a separate tract of 38 acres. The green on hole twelve and the tees on thirteen
and fifteen are on a third tract comprising ten acres. Tyng was elected president of the
club in 1928 and was integral figure during the next comprehensive redesign of the golf
course."

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, maybe I am missing the obvious but the article says that the land (250 acres) was actually purchased--if the parcel that you have encircled is correct then don't we know that can't possibly be correct?  Or do you believe they purchased this land AND then bought the actual land NGLA was built on? Or are you saying this article has the landmarks flat-out wrong, as well as the acreage purchased?  

I guess I am baffled what you are getting at?

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Please see my response #689 to Jim Sullivan from yesterday.

If the articles were accurate, they weren't talking about the Sebonac Neck property.

Personally, I think they were leaked to the press as some type of ploy by either CBM or the seller, although I'm speculating.

[Andy Hughes]

Lucien Tyng, an important figure in the annals of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, learned
that a new highway was to be built along the southern holes of the Macdonald design. The
highway, paralleling the Long Island Railroad was eventually built in 1933. So in 1927, in
anticipation of this eventuality, Tyng purchased three lots totaling 108 acres north and east
of the clubhouse. Land on which current holes four, five, six, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and
seventeen are situated one one of the three tracts, part of a sixty-acre tract obtained by Tyng
for use by the club. Holes ten and eleven and the fairways of holes twelve and thirteen are
situated on a separate tract of 38 acres. The green on hole twelve and the tees on thirteen
and fifteen are on a third tract comprising ten acres. Tyng was elected president of the
club in 1928 and was integral figure during the next comprehensive redesign of the golf
course."

Thanks Mike.

In George's book, he says that CBM first tried to buy SHGC--have you seen anything that supports that?

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You are so hung up on the word "HIGHWAY" that you simply won't even believe the New York State Senate when it stated in 1906 that it wanted to PAVE THE ROAD! It was a DIRT road! Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?

You asked, "Perhaps you can tell us how people accessed the North Shore of the South Fork before 1906 ?  How did they get to Sag Harbor before 1906?" Many ways INCLUDING HORSE and BUGGY. Heck Pat, in the 1940's golfers were ferried by horse and buggy from the two train stations serving BETHPAGE to the clubhouse. You can see photographs of this in the book Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses. That is 40 miles closer to Manhattan and forty years AFTER the South Fork after the turn of the century. It wasn't exactly over-populated nor was it built up.

"How did they get to Shinnecock Hills to play golf before 1906 ? How did they get to the Shinnecock Inn before 1906 ?" A number of ways including by HORSE and BUGGY.

"Hint:  It's called the "North Highway"" That's correct... HINT, what road do you think those HORSE and BUGGIES drove on? Answer, the "NORTH HIGHWAY!"

You asked "If it was such a little used dirt road, as you maintained, remember, Mike Cirba denied its existance in 1914, then why did it take the New York State Senate to reroute the highway ?" Do I call you a LIAR now for mischaracterizing what I wrote? I don't care what Mike wrote as I've corrected him on this topic as well. The REASON that the New York State Senate REROUTED and PAVED the "North Highway" and NOT the LOCAL towns or county is because IT WAS AND REMAINS a NEW YORK STATE ROAD! The State of New York was and is responsible for it. You would know this if you had examined the State documents that I referred to just as you would learned that this was but a small part of the entire document and that it dealt with railroad crossings and roads THROUGHOUT LONG ISLAND and defined which were owned by whom and WHO would therefor PAY FOR THE WORK.

"Why couldn't the locals, the town or a few concerned citizens just move this little used, barely a dirt road, deer path ? If it was just a little bitty dirt road, hardly used, as you would have us believe, how could it present a safety hazard to the cars crossing the railroad tracks in 1906 ?" Once again you use Mucci reasoning rather than actually look into EXACTLY what happened. The "locals" couldn't because THEY DIDN'T OWN IT! It wasn't that the "North Highway" presented a "safety hazard" to cars crossing the railroad tracks on the South Fork but, and once again if you had read the document you would have learned that this was for EVERY RR CROSSING in BROOKLYN, QUEENS and LONG ISLAND! EVERY ONE OF THEM!

"But, no, the highway was such a significant artery that it had to be moved by nothing less than an official act of the New York State Senate. That tells you all you need to know." No Patrick, that tells everyone else all they obviously need to know about your understanding of this small bit of Long island history... You absolutely do not even begin to udnerstand it.

"We also know from Mike's disengenuous comments when he posted his 1914 map and denied the very existance of the North Highway,claiming that it didn't exist because it wasn't on the map, a map that didn't show one additional road in the entirey of the East end of the South Fork in 1914, that a map does not a fact make." Pat, with all of YOUR ridiculas blather on this subject should I say that YOU have been disingenuous? Or can it simply be that you either didn't know or misunderstood? If that is the case, why can't it be so for Mike? Maybe you just decided what must be his beliefs in this and have based everything upon that?

"I'd like to take you at your word, but, any man who claims that the best way to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol Lower, is with a fade off the tee, can't be taken too seriously, as there's obviously a disconnect between theory and reality that he doesn't grasp (;" Now here especially I must say that you are a disingenuous liar! :0 I have never stated that. I stated in agreement with Rick that one could use the ground in front of the opening into the green to play the approach shot. As far as the fade, after seeing my swing you must be in need of some serious medication if you think that I could ever move a ball from right to left!

[Andy Hughes]

Andy,

Please see my response #689 to Jim Sullivan from yesterday.

If the articles were accurate, they weren't talking about the Sebonac Neck property.

Personally, I think they were leaked to the press as some type of ploy by either CBM or the seller, although I'm speculating.

Mike, so you are suggesting this article is not accurate and not to be trusted.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

The October 1906 articles were presented here as supposed strong evidence, even proof, that CBM had identified and had been working at the site of today's NGLA for months prior to securing the actual property on December 14th, 1906.

Given the description of a number of items in that specific article, I would say it's likely related to another piece of property that CBM may have been interested in purchasing, which I've surmised is roughly the location on the map I posted above.

What we do know for certain is that CBM had been looking at property on Long Island in "VARIOUS SECTIONS around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills", from the canal at the west end to likely Southampton for over a year.

In CBM's book he refers to making a prior offer on land near that Canal that was rejected, and he tells us that happened weeks after the land of Shinnecock Hills was sold by a British Company.   That took place in the autumn of 1905.

From certain evidence, it seems that the land he settled on was surely not his first choice, and led to the fact that when he eventually secured the land in December 1906, the boundaries of the purchase had yet to be exactly determined, possibly due to the fact that the land had never been surveyed to that point as CBM mentions in his book.

The Brooklyn Eagle reported it this way;

"The exact boundaries of the links have not been determined, but they will probably be Bulls Head, Peconic, and Cold Spring Bays, the land being on what is known as Sebonac Neck."

Now, if indeed these October articles were talking about the Sebonac Neck property, and refer to maps and surveys already having been drawn and sent to foreign experts, then why was so little planned, and why were the boundaries reported to have been undrawn two months later?

Also, why didn't those October articles simply refer to the land known as Sebonac Neck, or Bull's Head Bay?    Instead, as seen, they talk about the eastern border reaching Shinnecock GC, the south skirting the LIRR, and the west going out near the Inlet toward Good Ground.

That is clearly not the land they ended up with.

***EDIT*** Andy...I haven't seen evidence that CBM actually tried to buy the land of Shinnecock GC, but it's certainly possible he did.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

For instance, two weeks later Macdonald offered this, which was printed November 1, 1906.

Six weeks later he signed the papers to secure an undetermined 205 of the 450 acres available on Sebonac Neck, which is nowhere near the western end of Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground.

[Bryan Izatt]

Just to verify Mike's reporting of the legend on the map, here it is below.  I would infer from this limited legend that red roads were good for automobiles, dotted red roads were poor for autos, solid black would be worse and dotted black would be worse still.  I'd guess that the dotted black "roads" were nothing more than a two rut carriage track, unpassable by the cars of 1906.  Given that paving of streets only began in NYC in the late 1890's, it seems likely that only the main roads on LI might have been paved by 1906.  How many cars could there have been in New York and Long Island in 1906?

The automobile club map below does seem to have Sebonac neck co-located with Cow Neck. That's incorrect isn't it?

In surfing about I came across rare U.S.G.S. topo maps from 1904 of quadrangles of LI, one as close as Moriches .  Is it likely that the U.S.G.S. had topo maps in 1904 of all of LI, including the NGLA site.

Phil,

I looked at the map and the only mention on the key is that "red dotted roads indicate "poor roads".

I would assume the black dotted roads mean exactly what they mean on maps today.

[Mike Cirba]

Does anyone know the exact site of the Shinnecock Inn?

On November 16, 1906, it was reported that it was going to be a three-story hotel termed "immense" built at a location overlooking the Peconic and Shinnecock Bays, 1/4 mile west of the Shinnecock Hills GC grounds.

Thanks

[Bryan Izatt]

Does anyone know the exact site of the Shinnecock Inn?

On November 16, 1906, it was reported that it was going to be a three-story hotel termed "immense" built at a location overlooking the Peconic and Shinnecock Bays, 1/4 mile west of the Shinnecock Hills GC grounds.

Thanks

Around here.  Both the burned and the rebuilt.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Thanks...what year is that map from?

Much appreciated!

[DMoriarty]

Andy and others,

You've got to view all of these past few pages in the context of the point Mike is trying to make, because  Mike argues from the end.  His desired conclusion shapes his understanding of the facts.  Where they conflict, the facts are reworked, never the conclusions.  That is how he can jump from one sinking ship to another so quickly. His conclusion is the only solid ground.

Here, Mike's point is that at the time the land was formally optioned in mid-December 1906 all that had been done was that HJW and CBM had ridden the land for a few days.  They hadn't begun routing the course and choosing the 205 acres of land he wanted out of the 450 acre parcel.  The October articles (among much other evidence) contradict his point,  so he must shape the articles to fit the conclusion.  

But in this case, we've already been through all of this before,  when I first posted these October articles way back on page 8, post 270.   Between there and the bottom of page 11 Mike pulled out all the stops.  I won't go through it all but it involved trying to pretend this was all on the other side of the Canal, then that it was the 120 acre article discussed in CBM's book, then that it was a third, never before known or discussed parcel right in the middle of the land being developed with roads and infrastructure for housing, and part of the same very same project where from which THE DEVELOPER HAD ALREADY REFUSED TO SELL CBM LAND.  It is all a waste of time, but if you want to see how Mike jumps from ship to ship as each one sinks it is worth a look.  

Finally, near the bottom of page 11, all of Mike's ships had sunk and Mike seemed willing to concede the point:   I asked, "Do you now see that it is very likely that CBM was focusing on Sebonack Neck at least as far back as October 1906?"  His response:   "I'm willing to consider that it was the same land,yes, thanks." Knowing that Mike was likely to reverse course as soon as it suited him, I pressed him and he wrote, "I think its probably 50/50 on whether it's the site they ended up with and yes, I meant the Nov 1st article if that helps advance the discussion. . . . If nothing else, I think the 50 percenr chance that this was the ultimate site deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down, don't you think?" So while not totally conceding, he thought it was was as likely as not and wanted to proceed as if it had been conceded.  So we finally moved on!  

Mike then asked about what I thought about the details of the October articles.  In post 370 I explained why I am unwilling to dismiss the articles as inaccurate out of convenience and explain many of the things I think we can learn from them, including that CBM and HJW were involved in this property much earlier than we expected.  At this point, did Mike tell me I was crazy to give these articles some credence?  Did he call my reading "beyond stupid and insulting?"  Did he say that my reading was hopelessly flawed?  No.  He largely agreed with me.

"I generally agree with everything you just wrote and would only say that it seems the maps were pretty detailed topos if that article is accurate.  []But, as far as stretching out the timeline, I wholeheartedly agree.   I think CBM knew he wanted to build around Shinnecock since 1905 as he sort of alluded in his book, and probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer. []I'm also betting he got Raynor to survey it prior to securing the land...nothing but a strong hunch based on what we're learning, but I'm thinking it would be a logical step.

That doesn't sound like what Mike has been saying for the past few pages, does it?   But knowing Mike it is easy to explain the about face.  All that changed was that I asked Mike to reconsider his main point in the context of these October articles.  Apparently, until I pressed him on it, Mike had not considered that HIS OWN READING of the October articles completely undermines his point about nothing really having happened until after mid-December 1906.  Trying to get him to reconsider his position even based on evidence he accepted might be impossible.   He'd rather just mischaracterize the evidence.
- First he tried a shortcut, falsely claiming that I had dismissed the articles as unreliable.
- After I set the record straight, he tried to throw the discussion off track by trying to play Patrick and I against each other.
- When we don't fall for it, he turned to haughty insults and pretended the answer is obvious, calling my questions "beyond stupid and insulting."  When I I kept pressing, and he is ready to come full circle.  
- In Post 668 he announced, "Time for a little housekeeping."  In Mike-speak, this means it is time for a full-scale retreat; time to erase all progress and return to blatantly misrepresenting the record to force the facts to fit with his conclusions.  

And that is all that has gone on since that Post 668, with the same tired argument, modified slightlyonly here and there. Suddenly, despite his past representations, reading the October articles as referring to the Sebonack Neck property no longer "deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down."[/i]  

He'll try and rewrite the entire history before he will reconsider his point.   But Mike can blackout all the land he likes and draw whatever lines he wants, and he can argue about railroad stations and plans and over passes and roads until the cows come home.   But none of his various scenarios even come close to fitting with the description in the articles.  He is intentionally misreading the the main descriptor.  The land stretched along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs Inlet.

I am not moved by Mike's blacked out areas or his lines or his apparent argument that rather than being directly east of the land CBM finally settled upon, it is actually slightly south-east.  This is especially so because we don't know for certain at this point whether CBM had narrowed down his course to just the final 200 acres chosen.  And I am not sure he has drawn Shinnecock accurately either.
_______________________________


I see now that he has even resurrected the position that this must be some mystery third location, apart from the 120 acre Canal property or the Sebonack Neck property.   It has been discussed to death, but perhaps it is worth again noting that:
1.  This mystery land was supposedly on land that was already in the process of being developed by SHPBRC and they were already reportedly constructing roads and infrastructure.  
2.  Perhaps more importantly, CBM had already tried to buy 120 acres of land from the same parcel of land on which this development was taking place,  BUT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAD SHOT HIM DOWN, presumably because of their development plans.  
3.  This land does not stretch along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs Inlet.

Mike is just making up this hole third parcel because he does not want to face the facts.    The project was well underway long before mid-December 1906!    Even Mike admitted that they had likely been working on it since summer and probably already had it surveyed.   That is before he realized that this contradicted his point.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Thanks...what year is that map from?

Much appreciated!

You're welcome.  1916.  The Inn appears to be at the intersection of what is St Andrews Rd and Hwy 27 today.

[DMoriarty]

As far as your last question, is it really that hard to fathom that CBM and Whigham would have invitied a few of their closest friends over to view the property before deciding that they wanted to option it?   Wow...that must have been an incredible, time-consuming challenge for them!

It is nearly impossible to fathom the scenario you describe: 
- You claim that all they had done was ride the property, yet the two others who were to be directly involved -Emmett and Travis- had already gone over the land and expressed their approval.  Plus others had been over the land as well.
- You've described the land as "a jungle" and "impenetrable" except by horseback, so this would have put these guys right there with CBM and HJW on at least one of those horseback rides.   There is no evidence to support this, and abundant evidence refuting it.
- You claim that at this point they had not even narrowed the property down beyond the 450 acres, so for the six of them to get over this 'impenetrable jungle' would indeed have been been quite time consuming and challenging.

It is fascinating how all the facts are malleable to you.   When you want to argue that they couldn't have routed it quickly, you pretend it was so overgrown that they could barely get around, yet when it comes to for others (including two who were to be directly involved with the planning) you act as if it was as simple as taking a cart out and doing a quick tour around the 18.

As I said prior, the question is both stupid and insulting.

Say it some more and confirm for everyone just who acting in the manner described.

Besides, your argument is with CBM, not me.   HE is the one who wrote that he and Whigham decided to option the property based on the 2-3 day horseback ride.

Not so.  In Scotland's Gift there is no mention of the property CBM optioning the property until after CBM described routing it and even described the land he had chosen based on that routing. 

You should really stop misrepresenting Scotland's gift.   

YOU and Patrick are the ones who keep telling us it's ALL in Scotland's Gift, in those 2 or 3 paragraphs that encapsulate years of activity, so I don't know why you're arguing with me.

Another misrepresentation of my position?  Really Mike.  Stop. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

As I just reviewed above, some pages ago you were not nearly so dismissive of these October articles. 
1.   Rather than dismissing them, you admitted that, as likely as not, they referred to the Sebonack Neck property.
2.  You also suggested that we continue on as if this were the case, because, as you said, this "deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down."
3.  After I explained to you my take on the articles you wrote, "I generally agree with everything you just wrote and added:
-- You "wholeheartedly agree[d]" that the articles stretch out the timeline.
-- You thought that CBM "probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer."
-- You even thought that Raynor had been hired to survey the land "prior to securing the land."
-- Your only expressed disagreement was that, while I had suggested that any mentioned maps might have been pretty simple, you thought they would have been "pretty detailed topos."

Yet when I asked you some questions aimed at exploring how these articles impacted your understanding of what happened, you not only failed to answer, you repeatedly insulting me by describing my questions as "beyond stupid and insulting."

Here is one of your recent non-answers.

Your first three questions assume the October 1906 articles were accurate and speaking about the Sebonic Neck property and I've already told you I don't believe either to be the case, so they are moot.

You told me that, as likely as not, the articles described the Sebonack Neck property, and that you wanted to proceed as if that was the case.  So the questions are hardly moot.   

If you want to again backtrack and switch your position to suit your rhetorical needs, I won't stop you, but let's at least back up and consider the questions under YOUR previous understanding.   

You know as well as I do that if these articles actually described the Sebonack Neck parcel, then they directly undermine your claims.