Mike, A productive discussion requires that we deal with the source material reasonably and honestly, and follow its lead even where it conflicts with our preconceived notions. Your post number 194 is a great example of why some doubt your willingness and/or ability to carry on a productive discussion about this material.
The idea that two independent newspapers would just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members laying around to report on less than 24 hours after CBM "announced" that contracts had been signed is beyond preposterous, wouldn't you agree?
Why do you keep trotting out this preposterous red herring? You say this over and over again with your usual rhetorical flourish, yet no one - not me, not anyone - ever suggested that "the newspapers just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members." I've explained at least a half dozen times why the 1904 Subscription Agreement would have been recirculated at this time: CBM was providing Notice that the money was due pursuant to the 1904 Subscription Agreement! This is directly out of the December 15, 1906 Sun article. Read the material you post!
So just stop. Stop with this "fantastical" red herring about whether or not they'd have something from two years before. You've admitted they had it, and they most likely had it because CBM had just re-sent it, along with the notice. How many times do we have to cover this? As for how exactly the press came to receive it, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that either the Founders provided it to the press, or that CBM/HJW provided the press with the material he had provided to the founders. It makes no difference either way.
Beyond that, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle report the next day included information that was in neither of the previous day's stories, so that couldn't have been "cribbed" as you suggested either, correct?
Incorrect. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle tweaked the wording, but it contained the same basic information as the other articles and the 1904 Agreement. Even the bit about the matter not being settled has its roots in the 1904 Agreement, which noted that this was just a suggestion and the details could be worked out later. More importantly, while the Eagle's version is consistent with the 1904 Agreement, the supposed extra information in this portion of the Eagle article contradicts CBM's own words from 1906. There was to be no "bordering land not required for the links." The borders had not yet been determined, but according to CBM the borders were to be closely tailored to the golf course itself!
Also, one of the "next day" stories quotes Macdonald glowing extensively about the land he has secured, and he states, "There aresites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."
This wasn't a "next day" story, but no matter. You are taking it out of context no matter what day it was printed.
Now, I know you suggested that he was talking about building sites that the Real Estate Developer was having surveyed but none of the land of Sebonac Neck was included in the Olmsted/Vaux survey so there were in effect NO sites available for houses. Further, the Olmsted/Vaux plan wasn't produced until sometime in the spring of 1907 so there were truly NO sites anywhere in the Shinnecock Hills at that time in December 1906. When that plan was completed in the spring of 1907, only a single building lot down near today's 9th green was even close to the land that Macdonald had just secured and we already know access to the remote site was a major consideration and problematic risk to be overcome.
So, your position is that not only was CBM planning a huge block of "home sites" on NGLA, but that other than these "there were truly NO sites anywhere in Shinnecock Hills." This is so disingenuous it almost leaves me wordless. . . . . Not quite though. (Before I begin explaining the problems with this position, know that your position here is another good example of why many people don't take you seriously as a researcher and analyst. There is just no way you can reasonably believe what you are trying to sell.)
Here is an overlay of the portion of the Olmstead plan closest to the Shinnecock Inn and NGLA.
Keep in mind at this point in time, the course was to start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn, with the Inn acting as a quasi-clubhouse. Note that the development is adjacent to the Shinnecock Inn which was actually part of the development, and adjacent to NGLA. To put it simply:
No
reasonable person could argue that "there were truly NO sites anywhere in Shinnecock Hills" and convenient to NGLA.
But you aren't being reasonable, so you try to fudge it. You pretend that the development didn't exist until a few months after CBM's Dec. 1906 quotes. FALSE. While the advertisement containing the 1907 map for the development wasn't published in the papers until a few months after the December articles, the development company had been developing the property for at least the past year. YOU KNOW THIS.
In fact, look at the very advertisement you are using to date the development! It indicates that they had been extensively improving the property over the past year, and had built or were in the process of building several underpasses, a bridge, and two railroad stations, roads, and a hotel.
The advertisement also prominently featured NGLA,
because NGLA was adjacent to the development and apparently a big selling point.
The advertisement also noted
that the golf course at NGLA would be over 200 acres. No mention of Cirba's fictional 90 acre real estate development at NGLA. As if the development would have sold CBM land to become its direct competitor!
The advertisement also specifically emphasized that four roads had been built to access (among other things) NGLA and Shinnecock GC from any building lot in the development, and more were being added.
Of course CBM would have been aware of all of this. He had been dealing with this company for some time (remember the 120AC offer?) and mentioned the creation of the Inn in his notice.
So tell me again, Mike, about how CBM couldn't possibly have been referring to lots in this massive development which included NGLA's de facto clubhouse? Better yet, stop with this sort of disingenuous nonsense.
And why would Macdonald mix up his sites within a single sentence? Weren't the yachts going to approach the 200 acres he had just secured through the adjoining Peconic Bay?
Here again you are playing games to the point that I have no idea what you even mean. He is talking about conveniently accessing the golf course. Are you suggesting that since Yachts would approach through Peconic Bay, that NGLA owned and controlled Peconic Bay as well? He also mentions highways and RR's, which made access to the course more convenient. Did NGLA control these as well? Look at the quote
in context. AFTER an extensive discussion of the golf course itself, including a discussion of the property dimensions and the tailoring of the borders to the course itself, CBM moves on to issues of accessibilty and convenience:
It will take two years to perfect the course. Then our members will find a golf house ready, also, with lockers and baths. We are not going into the hash and bed business. A modern Inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of the first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses and Yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay.
By the time the course is ready the location will be more accessible to New Yorkers. . . .[He then goes on to discuss accessing the course by car, train, etc.]
Nothing about subdividing NGLA for founder's lots.
Also, since we are playing games with dates, look at the verb tense. CBM says there "are sites available for houses". Present tense. Were there really sites available for houses on NGLA's property in December 1906? Of course not. How could this be if CBM hadn't yet finalized the purchase? How could it be if the final lines had not yet been drawn? Best case scenario for you is that it would be up to the founder, to divide up the land for houses after the golf course was completed, but that wasn't going to happen for two years, so how could there have been sites available for houses at this point in time? These fictional NGLA lots were a lot further off in time than the real development lots, yet you insist that CBM couldn't possibly have been referring to the development lots.
Again Mike, as with all of this stuff, it takes a willingness to honestly and reasonably deal with the source material, and not cling to our preconceived theories no matter what. Yet you insist that this quote definitely meant that CBM was going to build houses on NGLA? That is neither honest nor reasonable.
Finally, if indeed all of these newspapers were incorrect in reporting the current project thinking, why wouldn't Macdonald, or Emmet, or Whigham, or Travis, or any of the powerful men involved with the club have asked for a retraction, or pen a correcting story?
Probably because it wasn't a big deal. If NGLA's founders knew what was ongoing, then why bother? They surely had no idea that someone like you would come along 100+ years later and repeatedly try to rewrite NGLA's history by forcing a hypothetical from the 1904 Agreement onto CBM's 1906 plans for this particular parcel.
But let's turn it around. If you have it correct, then what happened? Where are these 90 acres of housing for the founders? Show me on a map where it would have fit? Why, a few months later, when Whigham described the course in detail, was there no mention of AND NO ROOM FOR a housing component? You insist that CBM went out of his way to insist that there were going to cottages, rentals, and/or who know what else. So where are they? When specifically did he drop the plan?
You claim he was intending on including 90 acres of housing. Where?
And don't give me any more nonsense about swamps or fairway widths. I already addressed that and you ignored my response and questions.
___________________________________________________
[Edited this later because a number of sentences and words were incoherent. Sorry about that, but I was in a hurry.]