[Mike_Young]

Feel that my knowledge of muni facilities and their issues is fairly extensive , and personal . I'm with Mike Young in theory !


Have no problem with a 9 hole easy access for kids and beginners, if it fills a need. Even this is a bit of a stretch as we have owned one that paid taxes and was definitely impacted by two muni's in our area.


When you start talking about $3,6,10 and 20 million dollar "muni's" I'm off the train altogether.  In our area McCullagh's Emerald Links was given a free liquor license(250k value) , they tried to pass laws to impede  our progress at Twisted Dune ( which we were forced to sell ) and have certainly misrepresented the tax payers payments  to a losing venture since its inception in the early 2000's . They didn't have to follow the rigorous engineering and landscape requirements that cost us hundreds of thousand of dollars during construction. Other than that and some other irregularities it is pretty level playing field (lol)


No sense beating that dead horse , but any of you who have had a government agency focused on beating you up would know the fight is patently over before you start . Too many resources and ways to hurt you personally . If you have another business , yikes.


Think of a restaurant that opens right next to yours. They are direct competitors  and are owned by the local government. How about health inspectors, who do they work for? How about the liquor control guys ? How about the builder/ developers who prefer your food but are worried about their permits and future deals in the county They know where they need to eat . Unless you have been in these businesses you can't speak rationally about this stuff.  How about when they discount prices and bill the taxpayers to make up the difference .  It's unbelievable , really !




It's over 15 years since I've experienced this but its still dangerous to talk about publicly.  When we built a nice golf course that reduced the burden on the school system and preserved open space thought they would send a limo to get  me to work , they sent a hearse instead .









P.S.     much like the messages on Mission Impossible I will self destruct this post by lunchtime

Archie,
Enjoyed the above.  Keep it posted for awhile until all the socialist can read it...

[Tim Gavrich]

Do you think the municipalities should also have grocery stores for the people or maybe even pubs?  Hell no....12000 golf courses in this country are capable of competing with the munis and most do a good job of it...but it is an unfair competition that the government has no business being in.   Your BS regarding handouts has never come from me.  I have always placed people in two categories:  those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims.  I'm all for competition but make it an even playing field.  Give me one reason why a muni course should be providing a product for a loss or a breakeven point if there is a private business person in the community doing such.  There is not one.  And I'm not talking about $100 green fee public courses.  I'm talking 35-45 dollar guys.

Since municipalities compete with each other for tax-paying residents, why wouldn't and why shouldn't they would want to seek ways to make themselves attractive to prospective residents? Re: pursuing an ever-stronger tax base and therefore more prosperity, municipalities are in business of a sort, too. So it seems as if you're being awfully selective about who you want to allow to function on a free market basis.


One of the things lots of people want is for the value of their real estate to increase so that they (or their heirs) can sell their houses at a profit someday. One factor that influences real estate values is the quality of services on offer in the place where the real estate lies, is it not? And if we accept the pretty natural premise that golfers tend to be prosperous people with more disposable income and general wherewithal to own nice real estate, why would it not make sense to court (and retain) those people with a good amenity? That's how businesses seek to increase their own values for their shareholders. In my municipality analogy, the shareholders are homeowners. By shaking your fist and crying "Just say NO to municipal golf!" you are potentially injuring your own home value.


Now, of course government projects can get out of hand the same way that private enterprise can, and Archie's post points to an example of that. Which is why it's good that taxpayers periodically have the chance to fire the people in charge of making those bad decisions. Sometimes it may be too little too late, but I would offer that that's analogous to saying that that's the cost of doing business, price of progress.


I am sympathetic to the notion that it may be too easy for municipal golf to get implemented, but I don't think calling for its elimination is a good tactic at all.

[archie_struthers]

 


Tim , I've always thought of recreation areas as hiking trails , basketball courts , baseball fields even . Not multi million dollar golf courses .  As stated a basic muni, perhaps walking only might tend to fill a need for golf in a given community .   Certainly equestrian fields and lavish golf courses might enhance property values but at what cost to local taxpayers. I guess it's just a question of scale for many of us ?


In a world where liberals (or some) are calling for Donald Trump to sell all his assets or else , do we really want local pols doling out multimillion dollar construction contracts for an amenity . Opportunities for corruption / nepotism abound .

[A.G._Crockett]

While the "muni vs. privately owned" argument is an interesting one (and one that I could argue from both sides) I don't think it has very much to do with the closures we've seen during the past decade.   

I don't have the figures, but I'd be really surprised if there had been any significant number of new munis built in the last 10 years anywhere in the US.  Most munis now fall into one of two categories; they are either very old and heavily used (think Wilmington) or they have been acquired by local government after a developer or operator went belly up.  I'd suspect that the former is by far the larger category; the presence of munis didn't prevent the golf course building boom, and munis aren't a reasonable suspect for the closures, either.

I think that the number of rounds played at most munis has suffered, right along with privately owned courses AND private clubs.  The simple fact is that the golf boom was a bubble caused by the convergence of leisure time, disposable income, and the move of the baby boomers toward golf and away from tennis, running, and the like.  Now not only are all the boomers that are going to play golf already playing, but they are starting to play fewer rounds as their finances (if not their health?) change.  And not only are the generations behind the boomers smaller, there is a mountain of data to the effect that the middle class is shrinking and student debt is exploding. 

In short, the boom is all over now, and it ain't coming  back, and it doesn't matter who owns the golf course(s).  There was plenty for everybody for about 25 years, and now there isn't enough for anybody.  It's a market shake-out, and if every muni in the country was plowed under tomorrow, the privately owned courses that are in trouble today would likely still be in trouble tomorrow, too.

Supply and demand has been mentioned several times during the thread.  If you drew a S-D graph for the golf course industry in the US, it would show BOTH curves moving to the left.  When that happens, we know that the number of rounds offered for sale WILL be lower; the effect on price is much harder to determine and make take years to determine.  But looking for arcane causes for golf's decline misses the point, IMO.  Golf's demographic is simple returning to what it was in the "old days", and it ain't EVER going back to what we got used to in the 80's, 90's, and the first 8 years of the 21st century.  Ever...

[Mike_Young]

Do you think the municipalities should also have grocery stores for the people or maybe even pubs?  Hell no....12000 golf courses in this country are capable of competing with the munis and most do a good job of it...but it is an unfair competition that the government has no business being in.   Your BS regarding handouts has never come from me.  I have always placed people in two categories:  those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims.  I'm all for competition but make it an even playing field.  Give me one reason why a muni course should be providing a product for a loss or a breakeven point if there is a private business person in the community doing such.  There is not one.  And I'm not talking about $100 green fee public courses.  I'm talking 35-45 dollar guys.

Since municipalities compete with each other for tax-paying residents, why wouldn't and why shouldn't they would want to seek ways to make themselves attractive to prospective residents? Re: pursuing an ever-stronger tax base and therefore more prosperity, municipalities are in business of a sort, too. So it seems as if you're being awfully selective about who you want to allow to function on a free market basis.


One of the things lots of people want is for the value of their real estate to increase so that they (or their heirs) can sell their houses at a profit someday. One factor that influences real estate values is the quality of services on offer in the place where the real estate lies, is it not? And if we accept the pretty natural premise that golfers tend to be prosperous people with more disposable income and general wherewithal to own nice real estate, why would it not make sense to court (and retain) those people with a good amenity? That's how businesses seek to increase their own values for their shareholders. In my municipality analogy, the shareholders are homeowners. By shaking your fist and crying "Just say NO to municipal golf!" you are potentially injuring your own home value.


Now, of course government projects can get out of hand the same way that private enterprise can, and Archie's post points to an example of that. Which is why it's good that taxpayers periodically have the chance to fire the people in charge of making those bad decisions. Sometimes it may be too little too late, but I would offer that that's analogous to saying that that's the cost of doing business, price of progress.


I am sympathetic to the notion that it may be too easy for municipal golf to get implemented, but I don't think calling for its elimination is a good tactic at all.

Tim,
I am going to assume you are a Socialist from your above statements.  No problem withme if you are...I just have to assume that.  Anyway, everything you mention above requires a subsidy.  It makes no sense to me.  If a municipality wishes for more industry they create a development authority, which can issue bonds, and they usually create an industrial park.  They entice industry to move there via help with bonds, deferred property taxes and even tax credits for each job etc.  They don't take over for the "new tire plant" and manufacture tires.  No.  All they do is create an environment that industry would like.  Do they build the movie theaters and the malls and the restaurants that create amenities and environment these new community members would want?  No.  So why get into golf?  Why not follow the same template used for industry and perhaps give a private operator a tax subsidy to build a course in the community that can entice development?  A long time ago munis were needed due to the ratio of public to private club golfers and how things were set up but not today. 

A.G.,
While munis may not have caused the problem I do think if all munis were to close or be required to break even or somehow compete with the local public course then enough courses would close to solve much of the golf problem in America.  I wish Chris Cupit would chime in....(he may be entirely different from me, not sure) but I guarantee you he would pick up members if some of the Atlanta Munis closed.  The inefficiencies in munis is astounding and then these carry to the bottom line for all the tax payers to absorb while the competent owner is having to fight to compete with them and they just start a new year clean....

[Jason Thurman]

I have always placed people in two categories:  those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims.

Mike, I'd love to know which category you place yourself in.


While philosophical waxing about what local governments should and shouldn't invest in is all well and good, the great thing about the US Constitution is that, among other things, it establishes three clear levels of government. And while my radical libertarian ass roots for the federal government to provide an open and competitive playing field, I look past rules of thumb at the local level in favor of what my actual interests as a resident of the community are. At the ballot box in November, that made for two very easy decisions as it pertained to local matters:


1. A local bar in my hood had their liquor license on the ballot. While I would love for them to compete in the open market and succeed or fail based only on profit margins, I share a neighborhood with them and can vouch that their reputation as a cheap haven largely supported by people unopposed to criminal behavior is well warranted. They've been a blight in the neighborhood for years, and I was happy to vote with my neighbors to kick them the hell out.


2. The county I live in had a ballot measure on whether to maintain a levy that supports the county parks, including the golf courses they hold. The parks make no money and by their mere existence they compete against numerous private businesses for recreation dollars. The golf courses specifically compete against innovators like TopGolf along with privately-owned daily fee courses nearby. And yet, the citizens of the county voted overwhelmingly to maintain the parks levy. As citizens, we've decided that maintaining the parks is worth a few dozen dollars a year.


One reason why a muni should provide golf at a loss or breakeven point when there are privately-owned businesses competing for the same dollars? Easy - because the damn voters in the community decided they wanted their tax dollars to go to the muni. Plenty of communities have decided municipal golf is NOT worth it, and I don't blame them. But I'm also happy that my community voted the way they chose to vote in November, despite my inner Ron Swanson's objections.

[Mike_Young]

I have always placed people in two categories:  those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims.

Mike, I'd love to know which category you place yourself in.


While philosophical waxing about what local governments should and shouldn't invest in is all well and good, the great thing about the US Constitution is that, among other things, it establishes three clear levels of government. And while my radical libertarian ass roots for the federal government to provide an open and competitive playing field, I look past rules of thumb at the local level in favor of what my actual interests as a resident of the community are. At the ballot box in November, that made for two very easy decisions as it pertained to local matters:


1. A local bar called in my hood had their liquor license on the ballot. While I would love for them to compete in the open market and succeed or fail based only on profit margins, I share a neighborhood with them and can vouch that their reputation as a cheap haven largely supported by people unopposed to criminal behavior is well warranted. They've been a blight in the neighborhood for years, and I was happy to vote with my neighbors to kick them the hell out.


2. The county I live in had a ballot measure on whether to maintain a levy that supports the county parks, including the golf courses they hold. The parks make no money and by their mere existence they compete against numerous private businesses for recreation dollars. The golf courses specifically compete against innovators like TopGolf along with privately-owned daily fee courses nearby. And yet, the citizens of the county voted overwhelmingly to maintain the parks levy. As citizens, we've decided that maintaining the parks is worth a few dozen dollars a year.


One reason why a muni should provide golf at a loss or breakeven point when there are privately-owned businesses competing for the same dollars? Easy - because the damn voters in the community decided they wanted their tax dollars to go to the muni. Plenty of communities have decided municipal golf is NOT worth it, and I don't blame them. But I'm also happy that my community voted the way they chose to vote in November, despite my inner Ron Swanson's objections.

Jason,

I consider myself an independent who chooses to compete and I lean toward Libertarian because I consider less government interference better.  If your community voted that way then for now that is the way t should be.  In many cases the choice is never on the ballot but the decision of an authority.

[Mike Sweeney]

Brother Mike,


Next time you are in NYC, lets take the Subway to golf!!


23% of Manhattan residents have access to a car. You shut down Muni golf in the NYC, you shut down golf for a lot of people:


http://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars


I took the ferry to Staten Island (no Subway) recently and they have a van to pick up golfers. I think there are a few privately owned public courses over there...

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,
I am going to assume you are a Socialist from your above statements.  No problem withme if you are...I just have to assume that.  Anyway, everything you mention above requires a subsidy.  It makes no sense to me.  If a municipality wishes for more industry they create a development authority, which can issue bonds, and they usually create an industrial park.  They entice industry to move there via help with bonds, deferred property taxes and even tax credits for each job etc.  They don't take over for the "new tire plant" and manufacture tires.  No.  All they do is create an environment that industry would like.  Do they build the movie theaters and the malls and the restaurants that create amenities and environment these new community members would want?  No.  So why get into golf?  Why not follow the same template used for industry and perhaps give a private operator a tax subsidy to build a course in the community that can entice development?  A long time ago munis were needed due to the ratio of public to private club golfers and how things were set up but not today. 

Mike--


Sick own with the "socialist" remark, bro!


I know you think you're going for the jugular with the above, but the truth is we pretty much all favor socialism (and capitalism) to some extent. If you believe there should be any degree of government doing stuff with the taxes they collect that might give someone a boost somehow, you're technically a socialist. So your assertion that "A long time ago munis were needed due to the ratio of public to private club golfers" makes you a socialist, too. You managed to dunk on me AND on yourself, which takes talent.


(This, of course, highlights the problem with our society's tendency to use complex, nuanced terms as epithets.)


The always thoughtful Jason's point #2 is the salient one re: the position from which I'm trying to argue. Some of the heft behind your anti-muni (at least today, because you admit you were for it before you were against it) position seems to come from the notion that the tax burden that muni courses create is unpalatable. At "a few dozen dollars a year," in the case of Jason and his neighbors, it seems like good bang for the tax buck. Do you have some examples of municipal golf courses whose management is costing significant amounts of money per taxpayer? Or, put another way, can you provide a per-capita savings figure that would accompany your dream scenario of the total annihilation of municipal golf?


Then the bulk of your argument is about competition and, believe it or not, I don't like the separate-playing-fields-scenarios of the sort you have mentioned and that Archie laid out in his McCullough's vs. Twisted Dune example, either. We should look for ways to resolve that gap, but destroying municipal golf should not be the goal, because the service that muni golf is doing to the game is noteworthy and will help create more golfers not just for munis, but for privately-owned public courses, resorts and private clubs too.


A question: who was more responsible for generation of the glut of golf courses we now have: municipalities, or private developers? I have to believe it's the latter group, which is why your spirited defense of them seems like you're asking for bailouts from them. It's just that your bailout comes in the form of municipalities denying their taxpayers (and taxpayers' children) both a much-desired (in Jason's area and many other places) recreation opportunity and an amenity that increases their property values, rather than cold hard cash handouts to the operators of public courses that might or might not have been worthy business pursuits in the first place.


This is anecdotal and not statistical, but a lot of courses I've seen dismissed as irredeemably architecturally deficient and hugely disappointing relative to what could have been achieved are privately-owned public courses. Munis seem to be derided for a measure of neglect, which is different than inherent badness. You're a really good architect, Mike; don't you want some of those bad/never-should've-been-built-in-the-first-place courses to fall by the wayside in order that your designs should be stronger? Won't better muni courses in markets that house those bad courses help toward that end?

[Kirk Gill]

On a possibly related note, why are private golf clubs deserving of non-profit status, exempting them from corporate income tax? Is that a considered a government subsidy? Does this provide a competitive advantage over any other business?


Not trying to stir any pots, just wondering.

[SL_Solow]

Kirk;  not for profits go beyond charities.  Clubs do not attempt to make profits putting any excess funds back into the organization to benefit its members.  Some provide that excess is to be given to charity.  But in order to qualify, even if they could make a profit, they must forego that possibility.

[A.G._Crockett]

Do you think the municipalities should also have grocery stores for the people or maybe even pubs?  Hell no....12000 golf courses in this country are capable of competing with the munis and most do a good job of it...but it is an unfair competition that the government has no business being in.   Your BS regarding handouts has never come from me.  I have always placed people in two categories:  those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims.  I'm all for competition but make it an even playing field.  Give me one reason why a muni course should be providing a product for a loss or a breakeven point if there is a private business person in the community doing such.  There is not one.  And I'm not talking about $100 green fee public courses.  I'm talking 35-45 dollar guys.

Since municipalities compete with each other for tax-paying residents, why wouldn't and why shouldn't they would want to seek ways to make themselves attractive to prospective residents? Re: pursuing an ever-stronger tax base and therefore more prosperity, municipalities are in business of a sort, too. So it seems as if you're being awfully selective about who you want to allow to function on a free market basis.


One of the things lots of people want is for the value of their real estate to increase so that they (or their heirs) can sell their houses at a profit someday. One factor that influences real estate values is the quality of services on offer in the place where the real estate lies, is it not? And if we accept the pretty natural premise that golfers tend to be prosperous people with more disposable income and general wherewithal to own nice real estate, why would it not make sense to court (and retain) those people with a good amenity? That's how businesses seek to increase their own values for their shareholders. In my municipality analogy, the shareholders are homeowners. By shaking your fist and crying "Just say NO to municipal golf!" you are potentially injuring your own home value.


Now, of course government projects can get out of hand the same way that private enterprise can, and Archie's post points to an example of that. Which is why it's good that taxpayers periodically have the chance to fire the people in charge of making those bad decisions. Sometimes it may be too little too late, but I would offer that that's analogous to saying that that's the cost of doing business, price of progress.


I am sympathetic to the notion that it may be too easy for municipal golf to get implemented, but I don't think calling for its elimination is a good tactic at all.

Tim,
I am going to assume you are a Socialist from your above statements.  No problem withme if you are...I just have to assume that.  Anyway, everything you mention above requires a subsidy.  It makes no sense to me.  If a municipality wishes for more industry they create a development authority, which can issue bonds, and they usually create an industrial park.  They entice industry to move there via help with bonds, deferred property taxes and even tax credits for each job etc.  They don't take over for the "new tire plant" and manufacture tires.  No.  All they do is create an environment that industry would like.  Do they build the movie theaters and the malls and the restaurants that create amenities and environment these new community members would want?  No.  So why get into golf?  Why not follow the same template used for industry and perhaps give a private operator a tax subsidy to build a course in the community that can entice development?  A long time ago munis were needed due to the ratio of public to private club golfers and how things were set up but not today. 

A.G.,
While munis may not have caused the problem I do think if all munis were to close or be required to break even or somehow compete with the local public course then enough courses would close to solve much of the golf problem in America.  I wish Chris Cupit would chime in....(he may be entirely different from me, not sure) but I guarantee you he would pick up members if some of the Atlanta Munis closed.  The inefficiencies in munis is astounding and then these carry to the bottom line for all the tax payers to absorb while the competent owner is having to fight to compete with them and they just start a new year clean....

Having lived and worked in Roswell and Alpharetta from 1980 until September of 2015, I know Chris Cupit's market reasonably well.  It's possible that he would pick up a member or two if all the Atlanta munis closed tomorrow, but it's also possible he wouldn't.  Chris is competing in a very tough market, but not with munis.  There is a very strong Club Corp presence on the north side now, plus a company out of Virginia that has bought a couple of courses, plus a number of other private clubs that are owned by individuals.  There might be a lot of golfers trying to decided whether to join Rivermont or to go with the Club Corp network, or play their golf at a semi-private like St. Marlo, but I doubt that there is any significant number trying to decided whether to join Rivermont or keep playing at Chastain.

But all of that aside, I think you and I just view this differently.  You refer to "the golf problem" and viewing government involvement in the golf business as a key to solving that problem.  With all due respect, if munis didn't keep a zillion new courses from being built during the boom (and we KNOW to a certainty that they didn't, right?) then it seems a stretch to blame the munis now that courses that were never on sound financial footing in the first place are closing.

And the "socialist" label in reference to munis is a red herring.  The paved public road in front of your course is socialistic, as is the water supply, as the fire and police departments that service your area; the list goes on and on; I'd even include the utilities commission overseeing Georgia Power so that your energy bills don't become prohibitive as an example.  That you choose to draw a line at golf is a matter of perspective and self-interest, which I certainly understand and sympathize with.  But the local government provides baseball/football/soccer/basketball facilities as well, and presumably a private company could fill those voids, too, if the local government got out of those businesses as you advocate that they should get out of the golf business.  Would the public be better served by for-profit youth baseball or basketball, instead of a subsidized version in which participants pay a small user fee?  I don't think so, but that's MY perspective, I suppose.

[Mike_Young]

AG,
I don't blame the munis for the growth problem in golf.  I just see them as the solution to cleaning up some of the overage.  And I agree with you on municipalities providing needed services but providing golf is not the same as a highway or water.  I have no problem with team sport fields which are often part of the educational system and their team sports. 

And not to single out Chris Cupit's place but anytime a course closes that is being subsidized it helps all of the courses around it both private and public.  But all of that is my opinion. 

Have a Merry Christmas,'
Mike

[archie_struthers]

 




Seems like our think tank here on GCA breaks rather interestingly on the side of socialism when it comes to golf . It's not necessarily a bad thing because its empathetic. Wanting to avail what most here love , access to golf , or better golf , isn't radical .


Everyone here would like access to Cypress, Pine Valley and Seminole , or most would . Should it be a right in a perfect world, absolutely. Most share a love of good golf, and even bad in good company! So the desire to bring golf to the masses at a low price point is genuinely noble.


The disconnect for course owners comes in trying to balance our love for golf with pure economic facts. You have to survive first , and to improve you have to kill it financially . You can't put the public owned competition out of business by being more efficient , caring , nurturing  or innovative. They don't have to compete equally , they are subsidized if they fail at doing these things.


So maybe Mike and I aren't golf curmudgeons to the nth degree. We just have a different station than most on the train .


We picked up about  twenty members a couple of years ago from a local competitor. They have been an excellent addition and I am lucky to consider many of them my friends today. But of course ( love Clouseau ) I have picked their brains as to why they loved their previous club so much .


Seems they had it all , they were crown princes of golf . The membership was quite small as the developer overestimated the market, and the members he recruited had a perfect storm of a nice course with no play and decent dues price. For a few years he subsidized the losses but in the end lost the war and was forced to sell at a big loss. The new owner took it semi public and soon came 5 hour plus rounds and no free reign for my guys . For a while though they lived the dream of low cost golf with great benefits. Their loss was our gain in this case.






 

[MCirba]

If it wasn't for municipal.golf in this country I dare say that over half the privately owned public access courses would be unsustainable.


Having grown up in a lower-middle-class community I would say that 90% of the people I knew who played golf would never have done so if not for access to reasonably priced Municipal Golf. They are the ones who pony up a little bit more to play the higher-end privately-owned public courses. The municipals are the feeder system  that creates playing golfers who would otherwise never be exposed to the game in many areas. Their downstream affect are your customers.

[MCirba]

I would add that both our current president and our president elect, both clearly golf fans, each were exposed to the game and grew to love it on Municipal courses. I hope I haven't defeated my own argument.

[Thomas Dai]

If it wasn't for municipal.golf in this country I dare say that over half the privately owned public access courses would be unsustainable.

Thinking in reverse on this one, and from the UK perspective, I wonder if less folks would actually play if all golf were municipal or pay-n-play rather than private club. Maybe it's a cultural rather than financial thing and that 'clubiness' is a core aspect of the UK culture.


Atb

[archie_struthers]

 


Its just so hard to get people to see the difference between a true "muni" that provides access otherwise not available to a 5/ 10 or $20 million public works program for golf.


It's like the basketball courts in the schoolyard and Madison Square Garden ! 

[BCowan]

Location and region is something that is a big consideration. I can name 5 publics privately owned that charge less then munis in Toledo.  The munis are managed by a public couse owner. Thus creating a middle man.  So if one lives in the Big cities of the US, u can say that's life in the Big city.  The notion that inexpensive  privately owned public can't or doesn't exist is completely false. You have a guy on here earlier arguing for increased housing prices which hurt new home buyers and give them less purchasing power for golf. Artifically Higher home prices and below market golf on poorly maint courses seems very unlogical. Private course owners lower the price like Lyft and Uber do for their consumers.  The mistake privately owned publics make is not blocking off hr or 2 a day for season pass/members. This also ensures more of a chance of 4hr or less rounds.They need to receive a break for COMMITTING to the course. We have a generation of uncommitted in the US.  Belvedere and mid pines/pine needles do this perfectly, wouldn't want to emulate success. 

[Mike_Young]

There are approx 2500-2800 private courses in the USA.  The rest are public, resort or muni.  I know plenty of good solid well run privately owned publics who charge the same or less than their local muni competition.  I have seen some where they began to take rounds from the muni and the muni then turns around and spend four million on improvements without having to generate revenues to cover such bond.  Next thing you know the privately run public course is gone.  That's BS. 

I know there are some good muni courses out there which guys here are attached.  If they are worthy of saving (such as CC that MC is involved with) then it should be donated to a concerned group and be allowed to stand or fall on it's own merit.  No where does it say a luxury such as golf should be provided to those who wish to play it at the expense of all taxpayers.  Roads, schools, medical, water and such should be the concerns for the municipality.  Team sports fields are part of education and parks.  I have not seen one person give me a good reason why a muni should have a golf course.  Across the country there are plenty of us who grew up on public courses which were not munis.  Using the "munis gave us a place to play" may fit in a few places but not country wide. 

The other thing is that munis can't hire the best people for the job in most cases.  How would it go over to have a supt making more than the mayor?  Thus enter the management companies who love the munis.  Their MO is to have a staff who does not fall under the muni benefits and who is non union and who can be paid competitive salaries and all they need to do is justify losing less money than the city would lose. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Mike Young thanks for some insightful facts and figures . I'm going to give up on this one as for some reason common sense doesn't ever seem to apply in discussing subsidized golf.  Doesn't matter if its built into an area with supply or not or at huge costs to taxpayers.


Don't get it , but that's it . Best to all

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young thanks for some insightful facts and figures . I'm going to give up on this one as for some reason common sense doesn't ever seem to apply in discussing subsidized golf.  Doesn't matter if its built into an area with supply or not or at huge costs to taxpayers.


Don't get it , but that's it . Best to all

Archie,
I'm with ya.  Think I will too.  But I am thinking of asking my local municipality to build a couple of grocery stores and pharmacies because it would be nice to buy those items at less than what Publix is asking down the street...and just think what we could save on autos if we could have the muni own an automobile dealership...    All of the money saved on groceries, drugs and cars would more than allow for the citizens to pay more for golf at the greedy privately owned public golf course.

[Cliff Hamm]

 Is higher education a government function? Should public colleges compete with the privates?  Isn't Berkeley a competitor with Stanford? 


 

[Mike_Young]

Is higher education a government function? Should public colleges compete with the privates?  Isn't Berkeley a competitor with Stanford?

Education is for all...it should be a government function.  Bad comparison....

Private schools can still suck in the student loan program...let the private public golf courses use the muni bonds that can be paid back by the taxpayers....

[Ian Andrew]

note to self: stay out these conversations

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()