As to the question of whether CBM proposed housing on the site in question, he not only mentioned it in 1904 and again in 1912, but he also mentioned it to the press on the day the land sale was announced as quoted below in a December 15th, 1906 New York news article.
Sigh. The 1912 CBM letter made no "mention" of "proposed housing on the site" and CBM is
NOT QUOTED in the Dec. 15th, 1906 newspaper about any proposed housing on that site! We have been through this repeatedly.
Starting with your excerpt from the much longer December 15, 1906 NY Sun article:
The first five paragraphs in your excerpt are reportedly from an extended quote apparently taken from a "notice sent to subscribers" about the purchase. In that quote CBM made clear that
NGLA WILL NOT BE PROVIDING HOUSING FOR MEMBERS:
"We are not going into the hash or bed business." He also pointed out that there were other convenient lodging and housing options in the area:
"A modern inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses, and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay." The "inn" was the Shinnecock Inn (which would burn down) and "sites available for houses" were in the giant residential property development which was being launched by the interests from whom NGLA purchased the land. (CBM and many of the founders purchased nearby land and/or lots and built mansions.)
However, the last two paragraphs in your excerpt are not in quotations and are NOT part of that extended quote. Rather, they are a near verbatim summary of portions of the 1904 letter. In other words, the article is written using some old information from 1904 (the bits about bonds, the proposed initiation fees, the hypothetical housing scheme, etc.) and some new information from late 1906 (NGLA will purchase this site, NGLA is not in the housing business, etc.) Quite obviously, the new information trumps the old information.
Turning to the 1912 CBM letter to the members:
Again, contrary to your claim, there is no mention of a "proposed housing on the site." The letter does mention surplus land, but it doesn't say how much or identify it in any way, and it definitely DOES NOT SAY THAT IT WILL BE DIVVIED UP FOR HOUSING. It says nothing about housing at all. NGLA did not having a "housing component" and there was never any "proposed housing on the site."
As for your claim that there was room for "cabins, homesites, etc. on multiple places across the property," I wish you were kidding but you probably aren't. Forget about what modern architects would do, as some of those clowns would put houses anywhere. Where,
specifically, would CBM have put homesites on that property in 1907? And when answering keep in mind that you where you have houses you need roads, utilities, etc. So where was this "housing component" to be?
- On the exterior of the course, the only area not being used for golf is the area to the right of 16 and 17, but I thought that this land was low-lying wasteland, not the type of land one used for residential development in 1907.
- As for the interior of the course, you've been to NGLA. Honestly, are there any places between holes conducive to a housing project? I can think of none.
- So, if CBM was planning on a residential component, then why isn't there a residential component? Were his dreams unfulfilled, or was he not in the housing business?
- If there was a residential component on site, why would CBM (and many of the other founders) have purchased nearby lots/and or land around this same time?
Remember just recently how you started a thread on how you cannot take everything in every newspaper article at 100 percent face value, and that you have to look at the totality of the sources and information? Well this is one of those cases. You've taken a mention in a 1906 article summarizing a 1904 article and tried to turn that into some sort of definite directive. But the totality of the facts indicate that there never was a residential component planned for this land!
_____________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
We (Bryan and I) have tried to figure out the weird (4 acres X 2 mile) dimensions in the past. I think I guessed about the same as you; that it meant the width of 4 square acres (209 ft x 4.) If I've done my math correctly, on a205 acre rectangular strip with one side measuring 2 miles, the other side would measure 845.625 feet. So it would be pretty close to that.
Regardless, I think we are just talking about a rough approximation.