[Mike_Young]

All the best to your Dad....

Dad is great thanks. He is just one of many elderly people living alone that could use a gatekeeper. I find myself living in a house on the ocean with a man who loves me unconditionally. Who could want more.

I understand. I did basically the same with my dad a few years ago and when the doc said he could eat whatever he wanted you should have seen the meals some days.  doughnuts,waffles,oysters, fried chicken and on and on...who culd want more?

[Steve Lapper]

Privately owned public play courses are doing just fine as Corona closes all the munis.  Why would a city or county subsidize a line item in order for that line item to compete with a tax paying entity who can and does provide the same service?  My gut says this will stop some of it, especially as sales tax revenues have decreased during this time etc.

  Your quote seems quixotic to me. As the owner of a public play course that normally faces serious competition from an array of very decent nearby munis, I live what you refer to, yet see it differently.


  Here in Central NJ, the county is eager to subsidize it's muni golf complexes. It's a very significant revenue generator for them. They set reasonable rates, discounted for county residents, attract and host events, enforces sales taxes and don't charge themselves any property taxes. We do the same, save for paying hefty property taxes!


  If we didn't have to compete with the nearby county and township munis. We'd probably make 5X what we do now. My partner, a former President of the National Golf Course Owners Association, has long vocally chafed at this dichotomy.


  Me..not so much. Although I may own a competitor, and another private course as well, I put a high value on Muni golf. It is too important for the long-term health of the game. For me, it's societal and recreational value is too important.

[Mike_Young]

Privately owned public play courses are doing just fine as Corona closes all the munis.  Why would a city or county subsidize a line item in order for that line item to compete with a tax paying entity who can and does provide the same service?  My gut says this will stop some of it, especially as sales tax revenues have decreased during this time etc.

  Your quote seems quixotic to me. As the owner of a public play course that normally faces serious competition from an array of very decent nearby munis, I live what you refer to, yet see it differently.


  Here in Central NJ, the county is eager to subsidize it's muni golf complexes. It's a very significant revenue generator for them. They set reasonable rates, discounted for county residents, attract and host events, enforces sales taxes and don't charge themselves any property taxes. We do the same, save for paying hefty property taxes!


  If we didn't have to compete with the nearby county and township munis. We'd probably make 5X what we do now. My partner, a former President of the National Golf Course Owners Association, has long vocally chafed at this dichotomy.


  Me..not so much. Although I may own a competitor, and another private course as well, I put a high value on Muni golf. It is too important for the long-term health of the game. For me, it's societal and recreational value is too important.

Steve,I can see what you say but IMHO muni golf should not go into an area that is already being served at a fair price by a tax paying entity and take rounds that create a problem for the tax paying entity.  I once built a muni for a city in Louisiana and it closed two other courses in that town.  And they knew they would do it. 

[Steve Lapper]

Privately owned public play courses are doing just fine as Corona closes all the munis.  Why would a city or county subsidize a line item in order for that line item to compete with a tax paying entity who can and does provide the same service?  My gut says this will stop some of it, especially as sales tax revenues have decreased during this time etc.

  Your quote seems quixotic to me. As the owner of a public play course that normally faces serious competition from an array of very decent nearby munis, I live what you refer to, yet see it differently.


  Here in Central NJ, the county is eager to subsidize it's muni golf complexes. It's a very significant revenue generator for them. They set reasonable rates, discounted for county residents, attract and host events, enforces sales taxes and don't charge themselves any property taxes. We do the same, save for paying hefty property taxes!


  If we didn't have to compete with the nearby county and township munis. We'd probably make 5X what we do now. My partner, a former President of the National Golf Course Owners Association, has long vocally chafed at this dichotomy.


  Me..not so much. Although I may own a competitor, and another private course as well, I put a high value on Muni golf. It is too important for the long-term health of the game. For me, it's societal and recreational value is too important.

Steve,I can see what you say but IMHO muni golf should not go into an area that is already being served at a fair price by a tax paying entity and take rounds that create a problem for the tax paying entity.  I once built a muni for a city in Louisiana and it closed two other courses in that town.  And they knew they would do it.

Mike, I don't disagree with your above timeline. I too don't agree with a Muni going in atop existing reasonably priced public golf.

[archie_struthers]

 




I've been pretty vocal as to the municipal golf course and its role. Nine holes cheap, walking or pull carts only. NO need for anything else. If you want to give an entree to the young and or beginners that's all that is needed.   


Soda and vending machines for snacks yep that's the ticket.

[Cliff Hamm]

so, if a private individual opens up a new public golf course should the Muni close down? 

[Tim_Weiman]

I've been pretty vocal as to the municipal golf course and its role. Nine holes cheap, walking or pull carts only. NO need for anything else. If you want to give an entree to the young and or beginners that's all that is needed.   


Soda and vending machines for snacks yep that's the ticket.

Archie,


Cleveland, Ohio is a case worth looking at when discussing muni golf. For starters, it has two excellent courses built long ago:


Manakiki - Donald Ross
Sleepy Hollow - Stanley Thompson


Big Met - not sure of architect, once called the busiest course in Ohio


Then, Cleveland has two 9 hole courses:


Mastick Woods
Little Met


Neither is built on any special land. Both are perfect for kids to learn the game.


What should also be noted is that Northeast Ohio is well endowed with privately owned, affordable golf. I’m pretty sure most of these numerous courses were built after the Cleveland Metropark courses mentioned above.


The Cleveland area does, of course, have some well known private clubs, e.g., Canterbury, Country, Pepper Pike, Sand Ridge, etc. But, what never really caught on was the high end “country club for a day” model. Between the two best munis and the abundance of “mom and pops”, the country club for a day idea just didn’t have any appeal.

[Mike_Young]

so, if a private individual opens up a new public golf course should the Muni close down?

I'm in the same camp as Archie.  If a private individual tires to open a daily fee to compete with an existing muni that has a good track record then he most likely doesn't know what he is doing.  And then we have the courses owned by State or national associations which take dues from their member courses and then compete with them.  If I were in Dallas and owned a daily fee or semi-private course, I would not allow my PGA professionals to pay dues with the PGA building two courses that will compete with me and be subsidized by the very association that you are a member.

[Cliff Hamm]

If a town or other government entity decides to build a course what driving distance should it be from an existing public course?

[Jason Topp]

I understand Mike's point but suspect I would have never started golf without municipal/county facilities.   


In populated areas, I  have a hard time seeing a golf course as a good investment compared to a housing development.   Over the long haul, economic incentive will always favor closing such courses, moving the opportunities away from kids with modest means.


The situation varies so much from location to location making generalization difficult.

[Mike_Young]

If a town or other government entity decides to build a course what driving distance should it be from an existing public course?

Cliff,I think it is based on population density...and as Archie says:  9 holes with simple approaches etc where kids can learn the game.  We need more of those in many places.  But I see no reason for any municipality to build a golf course today.  One of the main reasons people leave golf so quickly today is because it is difficult to learn on so many of our newere courses vs. what we learned on.  And this is brought about as developers try to out do the others. 

[jeffwarne]

so, if a private individual opens up a new public golf course should the Muni close down?

If I were in Dallas and owned a daily fee or semi-private course, I would not allow my PGA professionals to pay dues with the PGA building two courses that will compete with me and be subsidized by the very association that you are a member.

Especially given their woeful record operating the courses they own in Port St. Lucie...

[SL_Solow]

A course opened by a PGA or other similar group is not the same as a muni.  In my area, almost all of the muni's have been in existence for well over 50 years and serve a wonderful purpose.  There are privately owned public fees courses , some of which are famous and others which have been around for many years.  No golf associations have built anything.  As I take it, what Mike is asking for is that everyone competes on an even footing.  A noble ideal but where does it stop?  I understand the unfair advantage that a taxing authority enjoys although I concur that a preexisting muni should be exempt. Where do we stop.  Does a private operator with very deep pockets have an unfair advantage over a dedicated individual owner?  Should such an operator be barred?  When is an area "saturated" and won't that vary from time to time?

[Tim_Weiman]

I've been pretty vocal as to the municipal golf course and its role. Nine holes cheap, walking or pull carts only. NO need for anything else. If you want to give an entree to the young and or beginners that's all that is needed.   


Soda and vending machines for snacks yep that's the ticket.

Archie,


I assume you would like the Winter Park 9. It’s ideal, IMO. You can even enjoy a can of Coors Light after your round.

[Mark_Fine]

Isn't The Old Course at St. Andrews a muni or just public? 

[archie_struthers]

 


Great topic for an argument and we've been here before many times. I'm all in with Mike on the premise that a muni is for beginners and or seniors who just want a cheap place to enjoy this great game. I'm all in with $10-15 greens fees and conditions that at times are quite interesting to say the least. Do i hear hardscrabble?   


Anyone who builds into a market that is already supplying the needs of the local populace has to be really great or not have much respect for their money. If that's the case more so be it. But the idea of a government building or owning them has always been anathema to me. It's usually a loser or a place to hand out some jobs while hurting the taxpaying competitors. Again if it's a place to learn the game or enjoy the fresh air and camaraderie I'm all for it.


As to the Winter Park layout it is a wonderful testament to the talents of the guys who built it, my hats off to them from a GCA standpoint. However it's certainly on the border of what I perceive the government owned courses should be from a cost analysis. It was a fun golf course to begin with and a pleasant walk. it's much nicer now!


Surprising that my thoughts on government owned businesses hasn't evolved much in twenty years despite my new found appreciation of many things old and new. 

[Mike_Young]

Where do we stop.  Does a private operator with very deep pockets have an unfair advantage over a dedicated individual owner?  Should such an operator be barred?  When is an area "saturated" and won't that vary from time to time?

Shelly,I don't distinguish between the private operator and the individual owner owning public golf courses.  It's free enterprise.  As Archie says: amuni is to learn and is not to compete with private enterprise if there is no demand.  I spent a few months dealing with a muni in a town in Georgia where we reworked all greens, tees and bunkers and they spent around 1.2 mill.  They kept saying their goal was to be on the level of the to privately owned public courses in the area.  They were getting $400,000 each year subsidy from the county to operate the place.  All new equipment and new golf cars every two years.  Several of the commissioners wanted it where their voters could play for $5 on Tuesdays.  The town doesn't know if their pro and supt are good or bad. Many employees of the city play free.  No controls and the course shows it.  If it were privately owned it could be exceptional.  Because they try to go so low in pricing it is not a problem for the other privately owned publics.  I've seen another where the management company clears more than twice that of the top golf professional at the top private club in the area.  And the course looks like crap.  Those types will never be a problem for privately owned public competition but when one comes along that wants to have the conditions and pricing to compete with good privately operated publics at a reduced price while being subsidized by tax payers, then I have a problem...

[Sean_A]

I spose my line is the government at local levels ideally should provide good recreation and the facilities for such at a cost which is minimal to the taxpayer. I in no way believe golf should automatically be among these activities due to the obvious reasons of cost and land use. That said, if muni golf facilities already exist and can collect enough cash to more or less pay their own way, I see no issues. Private operators know going into their venture what they are up against regardless if it is considered fair or not.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I spose my line is the government at local levels ideally should provide good recreation and the facilities for such at a cost which is minimal to the taxpayer. I in no way believe golf should automatically be among these activities due to the obvious reasons of cost and land use. That said, if muni golf facilities already exist and can collect enough cash to more or less pay their own way, I see no issues. Private operators know going into their venture what they are up against regardless if it is considered fair or not.

I don't have a problem with a municipal golf course that operates at a small loss, either. Most public parks, etc. operate at a small loss. That's what taxes are for - to pay for recreational areas and such, whether they're pools, parks, tennis courts, etc. The local parks almost always operate at a loss (some host some events, occasionally); golf courses can as well, so long as it's a reasonably small loss.

[archie_struthers]

 


Eric the costs of running a golf club are so high that its really not akin to basketball courts, a park for the kids or even tennis courts. It's a large complicated operation that require lots of management and continued maintenance and cap ex. Given that there are many existing muni's that were there forever they should be grandfathered or in some cases sold to get them back on the tax roll.


Imagine owning a business where you have to pay taxes and the state/ county opens one right next door that is favored by the local politico's and has minimal  pressure to make a profit. They can cut their price to beat you and lobby the locals to frequent their establishment. If they need money they just ask the taxpayers to pay it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric the costs of running a golf club are so high that its really not akin to basketball courts, a park for the kids or even tennis courts.

I didn't say the COSTS weren't higher. The potential to make revenue is also higher.

Erie Golf Club was just leased to a new owner. They'll pay the city around $35k/year plus a percentage of revenue past $215k or something like that. I was involved with the bidding for Millcreek Golf Course, a 6-hole course on a SuperFund site. That site, when it was nine holes before the airport expansion, was profitable, too.

All I'm saying is that basketball courts aren't "profitable," and golf courses shouldn't need to be, either. They just can't lose MUCH money. Losing a little is fine - it's a service to the taxpayers.

That was my only point. I'm not talking about the pressure on a local private club or anything like that.

[archie_struthers]

 


Eric, love your stuff here at GCA. It's well written and often amazing as to the detail work you put in. Quite sure you love the game and help many enjoy it more. So we can disagree respectfully.


Why not public bars or restaurants where the government keeps the price of my draft beer or favorite dinner more economical. Maybe even keep the price of my friends craft beers under $5 a pint. It's just not good business for them to own the assets in my opinion though it appears more and more people would embrace a socialistic model.  As Mike Young says either they are bad at it or they put hard working taxpayers under tremendous pressure or out of business.


After twenty years digesting the pro and cons of this issue I really feel muni's should be basic introduce the masses to golf that are as simple as possible to maintain and access. From personal experience I can tell you that the golf course owned by the local government can be abused in many ways, despite some great employees that may work there.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric, love your stuff here at GCA. It's well written and often amazing as to the detail work you put in. Quite sure you love the game and help many enjoy it more. So we can disagree respectfully.

Thanks. I'm not even sure we disagree, because again, I'm not commenting on the role of the muni in the greater landscape. Only that munis can occasionally operate in the red, and I think that can be fine. They're public amenities, just like parks and tennis courts and pools.

I was only addressing a small point made by Sean, and as it's somewhat tangential to the main topic (on which I don't have much to say), I'm probably done.

[Mike_Young]

Eric, love your stuff here at GCA. It's well written and often amazing as to the detail work you put in. Quite sure you love the game and help many enjoy it more. So we can disagree respectfully.

Thanks. I'm not even sure we disagree, because again, I'm not commenting on the role of the muni in the greater landscape. Only that munis can occasionally operate in the red, and I think that can be fine. They're public amenities, just like parks and tennis courts and pools.

I was only addressing a small point made by Sean, and as it's somewhat tangential to the main topic (on which I don't have much to say), I'm probably done.

Eric,
I'l give you a small loss if they are trying to provide basics with simple golf courses and very small pro shops etc.  But check this out:  https://www.bobbyjonesgc.com/    This is a "feel good" foundation that competes with all privately owned public and semi private courses in the area.  The funds were from ANGC, CocaCola Co, Knox Foundation and many other sources and it is ongoing. The Toro distributor and the golf car distributors were asked to provide the equipment.  They pay the golf professional much more than the average course pays.  The goal is to house the GSGA, Ga PGA and HOF in a new clubhouse etc.  About 85 bucks to play and a nice place....but it is subsidized..  Would a privately owned public wish to purchase equipment from a supplier that gave free equipment to a place like this?  Hell no.  But here is the gimmick, all of the guys trying to put this venture together are from the more prominent private clubs and they are not affected....it's "feel good" for them.  Why would  a state golf assoc expect a privately held public course to support them when they are competing against them.  The dude playing Peachtree or East Lake as his course thinks this is a great thing....

[Mike_Young]

At least 25 privately owned public courses deal with this deal everyday...https://www.lyingfour.com/conversations-blog/2019/11/28/too-big-to-trail      losing 20 millon a year...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()