Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[MCirba]

David,

I agree but not when we know the evidence is faulty or directly conflicts with other known factual information.

In waist high brambles on a property only navigable on horseback  they had no legal claim to, there is no way to get an accurate topo needed for the level of specificity (2 to 3 foot levels) CBM was looking for without first clearing the property.  Who was going to pay for that without a deal in place?

What is actually accurate in that article otherwise other than them considering all of Sebonac Neck at the time?

[DMoriarty]

There is no conflict.  You are making one up. 

And you are making up the requirement/need for a 2-3 foot topo at this point. That's not what the article said, it is your artifial requirement.

[DMoriarty]

Speaking of mapping, I am still waiting for an answer to a a couple of simple questions: 

1. When do you think the property was cleared? 

2. When do you think they first staked out the borders, if even roughly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I agree but not when we know the evidence is faulty or directly conflicts with other known factual information.

In waist high brambles on a property only navigable on horseback  they had no legal claim to, there is no way to get an accurate topo needed for the level of specificity (2 to 3 foot levels) CBM was looking for without first clearing the property.  


Mike,

Bryan Izatt presented a 1904 map overlay showing roads running all through the property in 1904, two years prior to CBM staking the property.

Didn't you see his post ?

Who was going to pay for that without a deal in place?

What is actually accurate in that article otherwise other than them considering all of Sebonac Neck at the time?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27.
Jeff,

Let's not also forget the land owned by the SI entity.
It could be that the 2 acres was owned by another entity controlled by the parent company.
It's not unusual for parcels of real estate to be owned by separate entities controlled by the parent company.
Wasn't NGLA structured that way ?
I'll try to find out more when the opportunity arises

Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened. 

It's not unusual to have separate entities of a parent company own individual parcels.

Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.

The original entrance to the current clubhouse was an extension of White's Lane.
The gate remains intact today.
The road from White's Lane ran down the middle of the course starting by the 13th green and running parallel to holes 14, 15, 16 & 17.
Subsequently a new entrance was created near the end of Sebonac Inlet Rd

[MCirba]

Speaking of mapping, I am still waiting for an answer to a a couple of simple questions:  

1. When do you think the property was cleared?  

2. When do you think they first staked out the borders, if even roughly?

David,

For what possible purpose would CBM send topo maps of 10 foot intervals to his overseas friends if they were trying to find ways to plot the topos of their agreed upon ideal holes atop them?  They would have had to get much more discrete for golf architecture or template replication purposes but based on multiple descriptions, including CBM's, that would have required clearing 200 acres of waist high brambles only navigable on horseback.

1) I think the property was cleared beginning at the time Macdonald felt confident in his ability to use that land for his course so between Oct 06 to Dec 06 and certainly right after inking the papers in Dec.  In fact, I think it would have been advantageous to do that work over the winter for multiple reasons including avoiding the insect infestation that was mentioned in the summer/fall months which thrive in our more humid summer/early fall seasons here in the northeast.

2) Since the land of Sebonac Neck had never been subdivided into parcels for real estate, I think all involved party's would have felt it prudent to do this work only one time, after the course had been routed, surveyed, and detailed  planned, so roughly late April 1906.  Anything prior given those realities would have been a silly waste of time and money given their mutual agreement to see an ideal course located near their planned real estate development.

[Steve Lang]

Everyone needs to take a breath of healing fresh air...

Those Shinnecock Hills were chocked full of potential for golf.. take a look!   More views as provided by William Merritt Chase, 10 years before CBM got seriously into their development.

I think I see an Alps Hole!




An interesting valley or downgrade/upgrade setting for hole locations or traversing, what do you think?   Love the dunes!



A Cape Hole or potential 1-shotter here, might have to drag a bit…



Could be a nice Clubhouse over there… closer to the bluff, lets go see!

[MCirba]

Steve,

Beautiful paintings, thanks for sharing.

Certainly certain areas of the Hills were previously cleared and probably even farmed.  But the land of Sebonac Neck was described contemporaneously and in anecdotal recollections by Walter Travis, CB Macdonald, and others as hopelessly overgrown and un-navigable except on horseback by multiple sources before Macdonald built his course there.  The Development company considered it essentially worthless for either development or farming


Why do you think that was?
  

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Steve.  The art colony was pretty close to the property.

Mike one of the descriptions mentioned that there were meadows on the parcel, so it wasn't all bramble.
______________________________________________________________________________________

There is nothing in the Globe article about 10 foot interval topo maps, and you just made up the bit about CBM needing 2 ft. topo maps.  You are dealing with your own narrative, not the facts.  Same for your insistence that the plot must have been cleared before they could do anything. It isn't real.  It doesn't come from the record. You made it up.  Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it fact.

As for your answers to my questions:

1)  You think they began to clear the property as early as October.   You also state that at this point they had neither marked off or chosen the definite parcel.  

So how did they know what to clear if they hadn't even marked off the parcel?
 
What about the pesky little fact that you have them out there developing the property when they did not yet own the land?

Honestly Mike, I assumed your thoughts on the clearing would have something to do with the factual record, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything except with picking a date you think fits with your theory.

2. You don't think they had even roughly staked off the land before April 1907 (you wrote 1906 but this must be a typo.)

Again, how did they know what to clear, if they hadn't even roughly staked out the property?  And how did they know if they were even anywhere near the edges of the 200 acres?

How much money do you think it would have taken to put a few stakes in the ground marking off the approximate land CBM wanted?

You seem to be going to extreme lengths to avoid even the most simple and obvious concessions. The idea that they didn't even mark off the property to clear it defies common sense.  So does the idea that they have agreed to an option for the purchase of real property without both sides having identified and marked off the land (this is especially so considering that they had an acreage in mind, and much of the border was so ill-defined.)

[Steve Lang]

  Mike,

I think some of those descriptions are a bit of hyperbole.  Also, i don't trust any real estate related descriptions... sellers promote, buyers negate/discount.   I'm considering three sites for my course... really?  

 Chase's depictions of the Shinnecock Hills have to be seriously considered, which why i posted some earlier in the thread. (Reply #689)  

Certainly the Bayberry Land estate developed by Sabin on the west flank of NGLA was well named, but seriously you're talking low height woody plants and bushes growing in a sandy dune ecosystem. We're not talking deep in the amazon jungle, where eons of plant matter has built up the organic content of the forest floor... and moisture abounds to promote growth if the sun can peak through.  

 Why did NGLA have so much in the way of turf issues?    

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

It appears we're not so far off re how much time the routing and designing took.  As to exactly when the land was staked and cleared I think I'll leave that to you and Mike to debate to death.

If I continue to confuse you about "winnowing" let me try again to clarify.

CBM went overseas to study the great courses.  He claims to have seen "thousands" of holes (which seems a little overblown to me) from which he selected those he felt were ideal in total or for some underlying principle.  He had created notes, plans, maps etc of the ideal templates that he brought back with him in June 1906.  Some of this apparently required further drawing or mapping.  From all this material and from comment on it from others he must have distilled it down, for I recall reading somewhere that he had in the area of 35 templates, in full or part.  That process must have taken some time.

By Dec 1906 he had winnowed his material down to his 18 ideal holes that got published in Outing magazine.  That article got included in the letters calling in the $1000 pledges.  Winnowing his studies down to 18 ideal holes and writing the article must have taken time.

A lot of the ideal 18 made it into the design for NGLA.  Some did not, and was replaced by other ideal concepts or his own original designs.  The winnowing down of the ideal 18 as to what would fit on the real life property must have taken some time. 

Coming up with his original designs and fitting them into the routing must have taken some time.

I hope that clarifies.  These are not things that need proving, rather they are my perceptions of how the process must have worked.  He started with a lot of research material on ideal holes and through some process narrowed it down to a precious few and applied them to the ground available on Sebonac Neck.

[Rich Goodale]

As for the availability of land near todays 9th green/10th tee I defer to you, but my point vis a vis the Shinnecock Inn was that it allowed a place for visitors to arrive, meet and greet and sleep and eat some hash.  Every partially "ideal" course in the UK at the turn of the last century had a "Shinnecock Inn" to support the local golf course.

Since the SI was a "resort hotel" in the summer months, with a limited amount of rooms, how could it accommodate members and guests at NGLA when it was full of vacationing guests ?  

After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business, so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut.  

What about the land in the doughnut hole makes it non-golfable ?

How many times have you played NGLA ?

At least IMHO.

Hope all is well.

Rich

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, Pat, but I've been tied up at the annual ICOM (International Community of Morons) convention in Switzerland for the past few days.  We have missed you and hope you are OK.  Sepp Blatter has been asking after you, and praising you for all the great work you have done as a moronic advisor to FIFA over the past two decades.

We actually held a rump session yesterday debating as to how I might answer your superbly moronic questions above, and it was unanimously agreed that you should answer the questions yourself, as you probably think you have all the answers, reflecting the gold standard of Moronism.

All the best

Rich

[Bryan Izatt]

Sven,

Re the 1.5 acre lots, yes these were rich and famous people for whom a 1.5 acre property worth $300 was a drop in the bucket.  Yet, Macdonald raised the possibility in his solicitation.  Why would he do that if he didn't think it might persuade some of the founders?  Given the number of press stories and circular letters, it certainly seemed that Macdonald was promoting the ideal course in a very public way.  Why was he doing that?  He only needed 70 well heeled golfers to make a go of it.  

Maybe he felt that some of the 70 were less enthusiastic golfers and really were looking for an investment angle.  Or, maybe not all 70 were part of the super-elite and were less wealthy?

Or, maybe it was because he was looking to find a way to make the location more palatable.  It was a 2.5 to 3 hour journey each way either by train or car.  Clearly nobody at the beginning was going to do that on a day trip, especially during the work week.  For weekends he'd have the Inn for people to stay overnight and enjoy the weekend in the country and the golf.  Maybe the lots could have been a way to make it more attractive for those who wanted a weekend golf retreat in the Hills but didn't want to use the Inn.

In the end, whether we think that cheap 1.5 acre lots were of no import to the wealthy clientele, the fact is that Macdonald put the idea out there.  A century later I think it is silly of us to question his logic in doing so.

[Bryan Izatt]

Rich,

Thanks for a good chuckle so early in the morning.      on the Rhicelin scale of responses.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I now understand better what you mean by winnowing down, but I don't necessarily agree with your description regarding either the ideal holes or the holes at NGLA.

1. CBM's Ideal Holes.  It is not as if CBM wasn't already familiar with many of the ideal holes.  He had been playing them and discussing them for years.  Remember the influence that the Great Hole debate at the beginning of the Century had over CBM's thinking, and remember also that he was already very familiar with many of the holes from his extensive experience prior to 1906.  

Also, surely he was already forming and solidifying his list of which of the holes were his favorites while he was seeing them, and deciding which to document. And so when he returned he must have had some ideas on what holes he viewed as best.  For example, when CBM returned in June 1906 he had already decided to include the Biarritz.  

Imagine you played a bunch of courses on a trip, many of which you had been discussing and playing for years, and you even took notes and created diagrams, etc.  Would you need months to decide which you liked best, or would you know when you got back?  

Also, according to CBM holes on his list of 18 weren't even necessarily superior to others he had in mind: "I have notes of many holes equally as good as a numtier of the above, but this list will convey to the mind of the reader a fair idea of what I have gleaned during the last few months as constituting a perfect length of hole consistent with variety."  So I am not sure it is a winnowing down so much as a representative sample.

2. NGLA.  By CBM's description it sounds as if he found his key holes fairly early on.  So we are really talking about his hybrids and his originals.

A lot of the ideal 18 made it into the design for NGLA.  Some did not, and was replaced by other ideal concepts or his own original designs.  The winnowing down of the ideal 18 as to what would fit on the real life property must have taken some time.  

Coming up with his original designs and fitting them into the routing must have taken some time.

I think in envision this a little differently.  Rather than coming up with the exact holes he wanted to use then trying to fit them on the property, I gather that, after placing his key holes, he found features that would with any of his many of his concepts.  You seem to have it as the concept was the driving force, whereas I think that after placing the key holes, it was the land that was the driving force and he found concepts which would work with the interesting feature on the land.  So his broad knowledge of great holes  wasn't something he needed to winnow down before the design process, it was something that helped him make the design process more efficient.  

It is a subtle difference but an important one.  Where you suggest he had to "com[e] up with his original designs and fit them into the routing," I think he used his broad knowledge to find new and original holes (and hybrids) on the property.
______________________________

Looking at the relief map and the blueprint it is interesting to imagine how it might have happened.   I don't think I ever understood why the Channel Hole is a Channel hole until I studied the blueprint.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Since you are a serial failure on this point, let me say it again.


NGLA owned enough land south of the 9th green for a clubhouse.

The site south of the 9th green had access by the same unimproved road that the Shinnecock Inn did.


And now, back to your regularly scheduled blather.

Patrick,  according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.  
See the yellow outline in first aerial below.  
The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.

That's nice Bryan, but, tell us, how could you get from the road, the North road to that property without having to traverse someone else's property ?

I guess you don't read the second paragraph before tearing in to the first paragraph.

According to your blueprint he also owned parts of the second green and second tee/hole at Shinnecock

It's not my blueprint.  It's Macdonald's.

As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below)  The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.

In the past, you argued that there were no access roads for the trucks/wagons, so now you've changed your mind and you're now claiming that there were access roads ?  ?  ?
Funny how you contradict yourself depending upon the situation.

I first posted this some time ago.

I don't put much faith in your overlay.

Now, there's a surprise.      Is it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived dogma? 

If anything it would counter everything that Mike is claiming, for if there were roads throughout the property, as you illustrate, the land must have been cleared for those roads, making access to the property quite easy.
Why have to ride horses when you had roads you could walk on ?

Silly bluster.

What's your next hair brained theory ?

In addition, why would CBM create a golf course that required the removal and relocation of roads, certainly an expensive task

Which dirt road was he going to have to remove or relocate?  Certainly not the one that was an extension of Whites Lane.  Map reading is not a skill of yours, I guess.

But, I'm still waiting for that expert on NGLA, Rich Goodale, to tell us why the land where the clubhouse currently sits, is unfit for golf.

I see Rich has already answered you.

[DMoriarty]

Or, maybe not all 70 were part of the super-elite and were less wealthy?

Here is a list of the original founders from CBM's 1912 Statement.  Looks like the many of them were super rich and super-elite:

ATKINSON, H. M.
BACON, DANIEL
BACON, ROBERT
BAXTER, GEORGE W.
BLAIR, WATSON F.
BOWERS, JOHN M.
BROUGHTON, URBAN H.
BYERS, E. M.
CHAUNCEY, DANIEL
CLARK, STEPHEN C.
COOLIDGE, T. JEFFERSON, Jr.
DEERING, CHARLES
DEERING, JAMES
DOUGLAS, FINDLAY S.
DUNNE, F. P.
EMMET, DEVEREUX
FRICK, HENRY C.
GARY, ELBERT H.
GRANT, HUGH J. (deceased)
GRACE, JOSEPH P.
GRIER, JOHN P.
HARDING, J. HORACE
HARRIMAN, J. BORDEN
HARRIMAN, HERBERT M.
HOLLINS, H. B.
HUNT, JARVIS
HUNT, LEIGH
KELLEY, WILLIAM V.
J ROBERT BAGE
KNAPP, JOSEPH P.
LAYNG, F. S. (deceased)
LEE, J. BOWERS
LINCOLN, ROBERT T.
MACDONALD, CHARLES BLAIR
MACKAY, CLARENCE H.
MCROBERTS, SAMUEL
MANNING, J. J.
MOORE, JAMES HOBART
MOORE, WILLIAM H.
MOTT, J. L. B.
NICOLL, DELANCEY
NORRIS, ALFRED L.
O'BRIEN, MORGAN J.
PAGE, HOWARD
PARRISH, J. C.
PUTNAM, W. A.
RAINEY, ROY A.
REAM, NORMAN B.
RUTHERFURD, WLNTHROP
RYERSON, ARTHUR
RYERSON, EDWARD L.
SCHOONMAKER, S. L.
SHAW, QUINCY A.
SLOANE, W. D.
STICKNEY, CHARLES D.
STILLMAN, JAMES A.
TAYLOR, JAMES L.
THOMAS, R. H.
THOMAS, WASHINGTON B.
THOMPSON, ROBERT M.
TOSCANI, T. (deceased)
TwoMBLY, H. McK. (deceased)
VANDERBILT, W. K., Jr.
WATSON, C. F.
WATSON, ROBERT C.
WHIGHAM, H. J.
WHITNEY, H. PAYNE
WILLIAMS, R. H.
YOAKUM, B. F.
YOUNG, RICHARD H. (deceased)

Regardless of why CBM chose to include his 'for instance' in the 1904 solicitation letter, if the developer is to be believed, then there was no possibility of a real estate component at NGLA.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make.  These are nuances we'll probably never know the answer to. I guess my underlying point is that the process took time and the result is a design that is widely regarded as brilliant and that has withstood the test of time.

[DMoriarty]

Agreed.

[Bryan Izatt]

Re the 1.5 acre lots, my take is that CBM threw it out there as a possible incentive to the founders; it was reported for a couple of years after; but in the end it didn't happen.  You and Mike can keep at trying to nail jelly to the wall if you like.

The more interesting questions to me are: why did he feel the need to propose a trivial possible incentive to such a wealthy clientele; and, why was he promoting the project so heavily through the media when he only needed 70 wealthy men to step up to set up a private club? 

[Sean_A]

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, Pat, but I've been tied up at the annual ICOM (International Community of Morons) convention in Switzerland for the past few days.  We have missed you and hope you are OK.  Sepp Blatter has been asking after you, and praising you for all the great work you have done as a moronic advisor to FIFA over the past two decades.

We actually held a rump session yesterday debating as to how I might answer your superbly moronic questions above, and it was unanimously agreed that you should answer the questions yourself, as you probably think you have all the answers, reflecting the gold standard of Moronism.

All the best

Rich

Alright, I am now in favour of the like button    I am sure the few drams it took to whistle out this post was a most enjoyable 20 minutes for Rihc.

Ciao

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Rt 27 didn't exist until the late 1920's so it's hard to say that the triangle separated NGLA from it in 1906-07. If you look at the map a few posts above, the 1904 roads are superimposed on the current aerial.  A yellow unimproved road runs and splits between the SI and NGLA and possibly runs through part of the triangle.  The road, such as it was was probably owned by the Realty Co.  Maybe it had been dedicated to the county or maybe not.

The Realty Co was building the Inn and they sold CBM the land he wanted for NGLA.  We don't know if they subdivided out the SI property as it is today and left themselves the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the their larger holding or how or when they created the triangle property.

If the triangle was sitting unused, it had lots of company.  Sales of lots in the Shinnecock Hills was slow for years.

Patrick's anonymous source appears to be correct that CBM did not buy the 1.9 acre triangle as part of the original deal.  At the time of the original deal in late '06 - early '07 obviously CBM didn't think he needed it nor that it inhibited the development of NGLA or the Shinnecock Inn nor that it interfered with the existing road (such as they was) structure.
 

Pat,

Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27. Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened.  Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.

[MCirba]

Articles in March 1906 said that Macdonald went abroad because some holes that had previously been ideal had changed playing characteristics due to the Haskell Ball and Macdonald was doing an update.  After his trip he would confer with experts here and abroad to gain unanimity on which were the best holes and concepts to try to reproduce.

Along with the founders, weren't there to be some 200 associate members?  To suggest that they didn't need housing because they were wealthy doesn't negate the fact that they were going to drive several hours there and back , there were only a total of 30 rooms being buit for lodging in the area, and it certainly doesn't negate the fact that it was Macdonald ' s well publicized plan  for years, including throughout 1906.  HJ Whigham went as far as calling it ingenious that same year.

Steve,

I'm only going by descriptions from Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, and contemporaneous news accounts regarding the state of the property prior to Macdonald purchasing it.  Even the real estate company thought it worthless for building lots from their first board report.

The paintings, by contrast, look lovely and eminently desirable, idyllic pasture land if you will.  Do you think they were all exaggerating the condition of hundreds of acres?  Why would they do that, especially since Macdonald ' s account was over 20 years later?  What would be the point?

Some of the early photos of NGLA show what the land was like off the golf course that hadn't been cleared.  I frankly don't recall it looking anything like those paintings, do you?

[MCirba]

Of course, anyone who wants to believe that they were out there surveying and clearing property in the spring and summer of 1906 on land they had no legal claim to until December of that year is welcome to do so.  It seems to me an exceptionally long period to come up with an out and back routing only to have to spend five more months determing which holes to reproduce and their distances after they secured the property per CBM as quoted in Dec of 1906.  But hey...perhaps they wanted to spend a lot of time and money upfront on land they might not be able to purchase.  After all, they had only been shot down one time prior.

The rest of the timeline feels right to me as well with construction commencing in May 1907 after the routing was established and the greens being built first, and completed in September of that year.  If they started back in the summer of 1906 one has to fairly wonder what they were doing all that time?

In any case, I've spent more than enough time on this and unless someone unearths new information such as the original property agreements I'm very satisfied that I have a much better understanding of the genesis of NGLA.

I'm sure we're becoming redundant but at least now we all know why I think the design process took about 6 months, why David thinks it took closer to a year and why Patrick thinks it took 5 minutes.  

Thanks for everyone's contributions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Since you are a serial failure on this point, let me say it again.

NGLA owned enough land south of the 9th green for a clubhouse.

Doubtful.
And if they did, they couldn't access that land

The site south of the 9th green had access by the same unimproved road that the Shinnecock Inn did.[/size]]/color]

Baloney, that road was the property of the SI and the company that owned the SI.

Nice try[/size]

And now, back to your regularly scheduled blather.

Patrick,  according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.  
See the yellow outline in first aerial below.  
The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.

That's nice Bryan, but, tell us, how could you get from the road, the North road to that property without having to traverse someone else's property ?

I guess you don't read the second paragraph before tearing in to the first paragraph.

According to your blueprint he also owned parts of the second green and second tee/hole at Shinnecock

It's not my blueprint.  It's Macdonald's.

Then it's flawed as are the conclusions you've based upon that blueprint.

As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below)  The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.

In the past, you argued that there were no access roads for the trucks/wagons, so now you've changed your mind and you're now claiming that there were access roads ?  ?  ?
Funny how you contradict yourself depending upon the situation.

I first posted this some time ago.

I don't care when you posted it, you're contradicting yourself.
You can't argue, as you have, that there were no roads, and subsequently argue that there was a network of roads, some right through the property, which totally undermines Mike Cirba's argument.

Hey Mike, how do you suppose the people in the portrait that Steve Lang presented go to the property ?  Parachute ?

I don't put much faith in your overlay.

Now, there's a surprise.      Is it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived dogma? 

NO, because it's flawed, like almost every one of your theories.
Do I need to remind you about the topography, sunrise and sunset and White's Lane.
And now your latest theory which is based upon a flawed blueprint

Or is it now your contention that the company selling CBM the 205 acres sold him land they didn't own, land that was owned by SHGC ?

If anything it would counter everything that Mike is claiming, for if there were roads throughout the property, as you illustrate, the land must have been cleared for those roads, making access to the property quite easy.
Why have to ride horses when you had roads you could walk on ?

Silly bluster.

Are you stupid, it's based upon the road map that YOU presented.
You can't have it both wayss

What's your next hair brained theory ?

In addition, why would CBM create a golf course that required the removal and relocation of roads, certainly an expensive task

Which dirt road was he going to have to remove or relocate?  Certainly not the one that was an extension of Whites Lane.  Map reading is not a skill of yours, I guess.

Take a look at the 5th, 7th and 11th holes.
In case you can't locate them have someone point them out to you

But, I'm still waiting for that expert on NGLA, Rich Goodale, to tell us why the land where the clubhouse currently sits, is unfit for golf.

I see Rich has already answered you.

The FACT is that Rich couldn't answer me,, so he chose to be cute.
Rich's knowledge of NGLA is akin to yours.

So, tell us Rich, why was the land that that clubhouse now sits upon, "UNGOLFABLE" ?  ?  ?