[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric,

Mike, again, I'm not commenting on the main topic. Only the idea that a municipal course has to break even or turn a profit. That's all I've commented on.

[Jason Thurman]

Isn't it up to taxpayers in local municipalities to decide what they do and don't want their tax dollars to subsidize? As a property owner in my county, I joined the majority and voted for a property tax levy that funds our county parks, including six municipal courses. The levy passed comfortably, because I live in a community that gives a shit about having parks and recreation options, even though it's not particularly profitable to run golf courses, swimming pools, rec centers, boathouses, picnic pavilions, and other revenue-generating park amenities.


I'm pretty sure that's how local government is supposed to work - citizens decide what they want their tax dollars to go to. Back when I could still go to work, I rode a subsidized bus to get there. There's probably a Transportation Club Atlas discussion group full of cab drivers and parking garage owners who are upset that people like me chose a subsidized competitor of theirs instead of using their services each day, but I suspect the upcoming ballot initiative that increases funding to the buses and roads will pass comfortably too - assuming our rescheduled election actually ends up happening.

[Mike_Young]

Isn't it up to taxpayers in local municipalities to decide what they do and don't want their tax dollars to subsidize? As a property owner in my county, I joined the majority and voted for a property tax levy that funds our county parks, including six municipal courses. The levy passed comfortably, because I live in a community that gives a shit about having parks and recreation options, even though it's not particularly profitable to run golf courses, swimming pools, rec centers, boathouses, picnic pavilions, and other revenue-generating park amenities.


I'm pretty sure that's how local government is supposed to work - citizens decide what they want their tax dollars to go to. Back when I could still go to work, I rode a subsidized bus to get there. There's probably a Transportation Club Atlas discussion group full of cab drivers and parking garage owners who are upset that people like me chose a subsidized competitor of theirs instead of using their services each day, but I suspect the upcoming ballot initiative that increases funding to the buses and roads will pass comfortably too - assuming our rescheduled election actually ends up happening.

Jason,I don't have problem with public transportation being subsidized and I doubt the cab owners do either.  The problem comes when the public transportation subsidy provides the service in cars nicer than the cab and the cab is paying taxes to subsidize such.  OH...and by the way...in my town the buses are free to all( and electric now)

[archie_struthers]

 




I think it was Ben Franklin who said "when the people learn they can vote themselves free money the end of the republic is near" or something really close to that. Golf isn't a necessity its a luxury! Food is a necessity and in this day of Coronavirus it appears liquor is too, at least according to our govt. entities (note liquor stores open ..golf course closed)  If you put subsidizing these things to a vote and couched it correctly as politicians are wont to do I'm quite sure your community would vote in the affirmative to do so!

[Joe_Tucholski]

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...

Mike, neither of the two courses you specifically mentioned appear to be municipal owned.

Bobby Jones appears to be state owned and run by a non-profit foundation.  I last played Bobby Jones when I was a student at Tech and the course is where our club golf team played.  It was the best option for us.  It was close to campus and more importantly affordable.  At that time I believe the course was owned by the city.  I didn't follow the politics involved in the land swap with the state and why the city elected to stop running the course.  What once worked may no longer have worked, the world is a changing place.

The RTJ trail is owned by the Retirement System of Alabama.  As someone who currently lives in Alabama I play the majority of my golf on the trail courses.  I have to admit I've only read portions of the book "The Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail: Its History and Economic Impact" while staying at an RSA owned hotel but I felt the book made more compelling arguments for the trail than those I've read against it.  The topic of the trails in Alabama is a complex situation, but in my opinion pulling the 20 million loss a year figure may not be accurate and certainly doesn't capture the whole picture.  Here is the quote where the 20 million a year loss is mentioned: "In 2015, a conservative-tilting statewide news site pegged the Trail’s annual losses at $20 million (without explaining how it arrived at that figure)."

I've basically moved every 3 years of my life and the US is a large and diverse country.  What works in one place may not work in another.  I personally think there are places where municipally owned golf has it's place and then there are places where I agree municipal golf has no purpose.  The difficulty is there will never be total agreement on where municipal golf has a place and where it doesn't.  To complicate matters further, as you highlight, there are various levels of government involvement.

[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...

Mike, neither of the two courses you specifically mentioned appear to be municipal owned.

Bobby Jones appears to be state owned and run by a non-profit foundation.  I last played Bobby Jones when I was a student at Tech and the course is where our club golf team played.  It was the best option for us.  It was close to campus and more importantly affordable.  At that time I believe the course was owned by the city.  I didn't follow the politics involved in the land swap with the state and why the city elected to stop running the course.  What once worked may no longer have worked, the world is a changing place.

The RTJ trail is owned by the Retirement System of Alabama.  As someone who currently lives in Alabama I play the majority of my golf on the trail courses.  I have to admit I've only read portions of the book "The Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail: Its History and Economic Impact" while staying at an RSA owned hotel but I felt the book made more compelling arguments for the trail than those I've read against it.  The topic of the trails in Alabama is a complex situation, but in my opinion pulling the 20 million loss a year figure may not be accurate and certainly doesn't capture the whole picture.  Here is the quote where the 20 million a year loss is mentioned: "In 2015, a conservative-tilting statewide news site pegged the Trail’s annual losses at $20 million (without explaining how it arrived at that figure)."

I've basically moved every 3 years of my life and the US is a large and diverse country.  What works in one place may not work in another.  I personally think there are places where municipally owned golf has it's place and then there are places where I agree municipal golf has no purpose.  The difficulty is there will never be total agreement on where municipal golf has a place and where it doesn't.  To complicate matters further, as you highlight, there are various levels of government involvement.

Joe,You are correct.  they are not munis.  I was just noting that privately held publics often have such places that don't have to make a profit vying for their player.  Also, a state golf association type "foundation" running a course is much like the auto unions owning an automobile manufacturer.Thx for the comments.

[Jason Thurman]

Archie, you're right that food is a necessity. So are roads, water, healthcare, fire departments, law enforcement - we could easily agree on these things, and indeed, most are subsidized in most communities to varying degrees.


Other things are commonly subsidized in most communities to varying degrees despite NOT being necessities, really. Are parks a necessity? Land-grant universities? Public transportation? Museums? Recycling? Firework shows on 4th of July (or Labor Day in my town)?


I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian at the federal level, but I get more liberal as I move down to the state and local levels where my tax dollars are more likely to directly impact my own quality of life. Like Joe, I've moved around a bit as an adult. I've lived in four towns in four different states in the last 15 years. All of them had great parks, a land-grant university, public transit, great museums, free recycling, and a good fireworks show once a year. I can't see moving to a town that only subsidized necessities, personally. I like to think I'm the type of citizen a town should be trying to attract, but not every location is built for me to thrive any more than every location is built for daily fee golf to thrive.


Most businessmen understand that environment, location, and market factors matter. If you want to run a daily fee golf course, I'm rooting for you. But like anybody else opening a business, you probably need to be prepared to analyze local markets and find the right one. A town with a strong parks system that includes municipal golf might not be the right place to open up shop, any more than a town in Alaska with a population of 34 people and a two month grass growing season is. Golf is hardly the only industry where market analysis matters. If you're not willing to do it, you need to at least be prepared to get online and whine about it every now and then. That won't improve your business prospects either, though.

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey Jason  I'm not looking to own a daily fee golf course. Perhaps if the government wasn't in the golf business in my neighborhood I might find it more appealing. Luckily or unluckily for the taxpayer most of the subsidized government golf has been an abject failure and is less a problem than it was twenty years ago. If the governmental agencies tasked to run theses "recreational facilities" were more transparent than almost no taxpayers would buy in. If the market was there someone would supply it.


How can you be a libertarian and want a big government agenda for your local town but not the federal government?  I can't speak for  Mike Young but many people who risked their life savings developing golf courses were blindsided by bond issues floated to support high end golf courses ostensibly for the public good. As stated I'm all for basic introductory facilities that provide those less fortunate than many of us a place to learn or participate in this great game but as far as a right to grandiose courses to compete with existing tax paying citizens I'm against it totally. Remember the golf course owner already has to compete with non-profit private clubs owned by the membership. Why should we jump on the pile ?




p.s.   lol maybe the most business people understand this stuff got me

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am probably close to MY in believing that everything that can be accomplished in the private sector should be left in the private sector.  Seems like minimal govt control and centralization was the whole point of our new Republic and it's constitution.  That said, the Constitution does allow some level of regulation of commerce.  And, in the 70's and 80's, when governments were struggling, thing previously thought to be non-profitable, like electricity were farmed back out to the private sector.  Now, of course, the general sentiment seems to be moving back to bigger government being involved in everything.

As it applies to golf, courts have ruled over and over again that public entities are entitled to build, own and run public golf courses.  So, anyone contemplating being in the public golf biz needs to accept that and move on.  In practical terms, I sincerely doubt many cities are contemplating any new golf courses for a long while.  They may buy a few struggling ones that may have closed, believing public golf is in the best interest of their city, and probably lease it out to some private management entity while taking all the downside financial risk and paying subsidies.  So, at least it's not likely to get worse.


BTW, besides taxes, I think water rights will be a bigger cost savings, at least in some cases.  While governments at all levels will impose greater water restrictions or costs on golf, many still provide their own courses water either free or at very low rates.  I would bet that in some cases, they overlook other environmental regulations, as is often done by governments who have exempted themselves from wetland or other rules, because its in the "public interest" or if you are cynical, because they believe the rules are for suckers, but not themselves.  LOL.

[SB]

A couple of points:

1.  For the most part, NEARLY EVERYONE stopped building golf courses in 2003.  Everyone whining about munis building courses today are wasting their time because munis are not building courses and have not for nearly 20 years.2.  Most munis were built prior to 1990.  Most privately owned public courses were built after 1990.  If you built a public golf course after the local muni was built, you don't get to complain.  It has been a well established fact since Van Cortlandt Golf Course was built in NYC that munis price below market and do not pay taxes or respond to any market forces.  So, if you built a course with a muni as an existing competitor, you should have accounted for that.3.  The same thing goes if you bought a golf course any time in the last 20 years.  Nobody forced you to buy.
4.  Therefore, the only people who get to complain are people who built or bought golf courses and then SUBSEQUENTLY had a municipality build a golf course to compete against them.  And that is a VERY small list of people.  Archie happens to be one of those people.  He got screwed.  Not sure about Mike.5.  The course I own competes against Bobby Jones.  Bobby Jones was built in 1932.  I bought my course in 2012.  I do not complain that they had a big renovation because that was always a possibility (or even a probability, it was a mess).  It was a competitor before the renovation and they are a competitor now. 

[archie_struthers]

 


SBusch   great attitude and solid post...wish you all the best luck. Hope we can find a way to protect our folks and still allow the courses to give our customers some recreation, exercise and fun in these difficult times.


Hope everyone is careful but unafraid this too shall pass !

[Mike_Young]

A couple of points:

1.  For the most part, NEARLY EVERYONE stopped building golf courses in 2003.  Everyone whining about munis building courses today are wasting their time because munis are not building courses and have not for nearly 20 years.2.  Most munis were built prior to 1990.  Most privately owned public courses were built after 1990.  If you built a public golf course after the local muni was built, you don't get to complain.  It has been a well established fact since Van Cortlandt Golf Course was built in NYC that munis price below market and do not pay taxes or respond to any market forces.  So, if you built a course with a muni as an existing competitor, you should have accounted for that.3.  The same thing goes if you bought a golf course any time in the last 20 years.  Nobody forced you to buy.
4.  Therefore, the only people who get to complain are people who built or bought golf courses and then SUBSEQUENTLY had a municipality build a golf course to compete against them.  And that is a VERY small list of people.  Archie happens to be one of those people.  He got screwed.  Not sure about Mike.5.  The course I own competes against Bobby Jones.  Bobby Jones was built in 1932.  I bought my course in 2012.  I do not complain that they had a big renovation because that was always a possibility (or even a probability, it was a mess).  It was a competitor before the renovation and they are a competitor now.

SBusch,I have to agree with your post also.  Im not a fan of venfors who expect me to lease the golf cars or buy their irrigation or equipment would donate such to my competition.  JMO.Cheers Stay safe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Does that actually happen, i.e. donating equipment?  I know about 2000, many courses were billed as environmental demonstration or youth courses and asked the bigs for donations.  My experience was that it happened a few times, and then said suppliers realized it was going to continue to happen if they didn't say no at some point.


For that matter, it seems to me (and I don't really know) that almost everyone gets those "national discounts" the big management companies supposedly get.  Some cities with multiple courses might have similar negotiation power, and even small owners with one course probably can play the mfgs. off against each other to make the sale.  They probably need the cost relief more than anyone.

[Lou_Duran]

see below.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff and Scott,


The unfortunate thing is that in many parts of the country with sufficient population, about the only entity who could build a course with affordable ($50) green fees is the government with creative, opaque subsidies.


The City of Frisco paid $160k+/acre for a large tract of land to house NTSU and to draw other job generators.  The imputed per acre price of the PGA land is, as I recall, north of $140k gross (included wetlands and flood plain).  And even though it is mostly a "private" venture, without a large public component and greasing of the skids, it would not have happened (Frisco will own the golf facilities).


I doubt that the PGA courses will compete with those referenced by Mike Young.  And I am nearly sure that the courses will not be operated by the PGA, but by the Omni organization and its partners.  Residents of Frisco are supposed to get a large discount at non-peak times, but I don't see too many repeat customers at $125-$175 "with a coupon".


I agree with Scott that if you buy or build with full knowledge of the competitive environment, it's on you.  But, say, if the City of Prosper comes in and buys Gentle Creek for $10 Million, or 3x the price it is worth as a golf course in its current condition, privately-owned daily fees like Frisco Lakes, Trails of Frisco, WestRidge, The Bridges, etc. might have a fit.  I doubt that Scott in his most aggressive posture could come close to that number as an investor or operator, but for a high-growth, great-demographics area, $10 Million is a small line item for a "needed" asset that the marketplace can't provide.


For the record, I have no knowledge that Prosper is considering buying GC, but the rumored asking price is feasible only for an alternative use such as single and multi-family residential.  Frisco ISD is a partner in the PGA complex and the high schools will have access to the practice facilities and courses, which, I hear, is exclusive.  The CCFAD competition in DFW among the various suburbs (Tangle Ridge, Tierra Verde, Texas Star, etc.) might suggest a precedence.  I love playing after high school tournaments at GC- loggoed tees and ProV1s all over the golf course to replenish my supply; it is obvious, pre-Covid 19, that some local governments weren't pinching $20 bills.

[SB]

I agree with you, Lou.  In that case, a municipality changed the game by overpaying for a golf course and then (probably) dropping the rates.  There's now a new competitor that doesn't play by the rules.  That's the same as a new muni being built.
I would be shocked if a municipality paid that much for a golf course.  There is so much data available showing the market value being less, municipalities everywhere losing money, etc.  But I am often surprised by the stupid things done in this business.

[Tim Gavrich]

Two questions:

1) What are the most successful privately-owned public courses when judged by how well they do the things that we all seem to agree municipal courses should do best? Namely:


- Low-cost, high-quality golf experiences
- Minimizing barriers to entry into the game for newcomers
- Promotion of healthy lifestyle (i.e. walkability)


In other words:

...basic introductory facilities that provide those less fortunate than many of us a place to learn or participate in this great game

2) What would be a real-world example of the best "basic" muni golf facility? In other words, what's the line above which a golf facility becomes too nice to be able to be a muni.


2a) If you impose some sort of upper limit as to how nice a muni can be, will you also impose that same limit on private operators and tell them that any course they open must be nicer than the nicest muni?

[Mike_Young]

Two questions:

1) What are the most successful privately-owned public courses when judged by how well they do the things that we all seem to agree municipal courses should do best? Namely:


- Low-cost, high-quality golf experiences
- Minimizing barriers to entry into the game for newcomers
- Promotion of healthy lifestyle (i.e. walkability)


In other words:

...basic introductory facilities that provide those less fortunate than many of us a place to learn or participate in this great game

2) What would be a real-world example of the best "basic" muni golf facility? In other words, what's the line above which a golf facility becomes too nice to be able to be a muni.


2a) If you impose some sort of upper limit as to how nice a muni can be, will you also impose that same limit on private operators and tell them that any course they open must be nicer than the nicest muni?

Tim,A privately run public can always do it cheaper than a muni if it doesn't have one of those management companies.  The muni has to pay too much to employees for benefits, retirement and payscale and usually a percentage for corruption.  They need to be able to provide a fee that needs minimal subsidization for beginners and people that don't wan to pay more.  Less bunkers, open approaches to low greens that let you learn and then maintenance practices that match the fee.  Mow greens three four times week etc...not much architecture to them at all....   AND then the privately held publics can do as the market will bear.  Trying to impose a limit upon a privately run operation is bullshit...A good privately run public doesn't want the player that wants to play for $15 on GolfNow or at the local muni.  They don't need his hassle or the work such a player requires.

[archie_struthers]

 




Dying to play some golf but they have us shut down here in Jersey, even here in the deep south.


Tim to answer your question I feel that any golf course that is more than a basic facility with little in the way of clubhouse carts etc is my limit. To me that was the original intent of the municipal facility and given that the marketplace  will provide anything nicer for the consumer. It's the idea of subsidizing the facility with tax payers money that gets my goat. Why not municipal bowling alleys or bars? 


Yo comprende that there is a history of municipal golf in America but reality was they were done when no one else could afford or wanted to supply a facility. This has been bastardized by crazy expenditures in this arena, sometimes over $20,000,000 for a "muni".
Really?   We have a thread here about the Chicago proposal that Tiger Woods is involved with that looks like the biggest pork barrel deal ever. Take that back as I'm sure someone has a bigger and more grandiose example of golf for the masses.


Just don't see it as a necessity. Golf to me remains a luxury for most as much as I've lived and breathed it for over 40 years now. It's a unique pleasure when I get to play a Merion or Shinnecock, or Galloway in our area. Don't think anyone has an inherent right to play places like this at a discount , myself included. It's a nice thought but so is a 20 hour workweek and giant pensions for all. It's either not sustainable or unfair to some poor guy (girl) that has to pay taxes and try to make a mortgage payment based on their ability to turn a buck. That used to be the American dream !

[Lou_Duran]

Scott,


The City of Arlington spent some $14 Million to build a new course in the mid-1990s and completed a $24 Million total renovation- really a new course and infrastructure- last year of its existing low-cost/affordable muni in the north part of town.


Prosper just spent $48 Million for a new football stadium for its high schools not far from my home course.  One of my playing partners just put his expensive house for sale- post virus- and it sold in less than 24 hours after the sign went up for the asking price (earnest money is hard, so he might be up the creek if work on his new house is stopped because of the shutdown).


A church I am familiar with bought an 18 acre tract of land a a few miles west of the course for $1.8 Million in February.  The golf course is on 235 acres and there appear to be no legal impediments for re-purposing to residential.  Say we adjust for the large size, some flood prone areas, and tight boundaries, maybe it yields 135 acres at the market price.  I can easily see the $10 Million price tag.


Hypothetical- a city flush with cash and a history of spending money generously, is confronted by some 1000 angry voters in the affected residential communities surrounding the golf course.  It can undertake a protracted fight for development which it will likely lose, or sees that it can be the white knight by buying the golf course and opening it up as a semi-private.  If my broker's license was still active, I would be pitching the deal to both parties.

[Mike Schott]

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. 

Except the market for that kind of course is tiny and it would fail in a year. Most of my play over the years has been at local muni's as ours offer good golf and conditions at reasonable prices. $32.00 to walk 18 holes for residents and not much more for guests. There's a full driving range and a restaurant in the clubhouse. They course has been very successful and it's an easy walk.

[Mike_Young]

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. 

Except the market for that kind of course is tiny and it would fail in a year.

Mike,
Explain why you say that....thx

[Mike Schott]

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. 

Except the market for that kind of course is tiny and it would fail in a year.

Mike,
Explain why you say that....thx

In the US we expect decent conditions and except municipal courses to be 18 holes. There's an entire genre of golfers who play 18 holes on weekends at muni courses and they aren't just seniors. In fact before my son was born in 2010 I was one of them and started playing this way in my late 20's.  I'd agree there's a need for easy 9 hole courses for younger golfers like my 9 year old but that's a small market.

[Mike_Young]

In the US we expect decent conditions and except municipal courses to be 18 holes. There's an entire genre of golfers who play 18 holes on weekends at muni courses and they aren't just seniors. In fact before my son was born in 2010 I was one of them and started playing this way in my late 20's.  I'd agree there's a need for easy 9 hole courses for younger golfers like my 9 year old but that's a small market.

Would you play that same course you play if it were not a muni?

[Jim_Kennedy]

A couple of points:  1.  For the most part, NEARLY EVERYONE stopped building golf courses in 2003.  Everyone whining about munis building courses today are wasting their time because munis are not building courses and have not for nearly 20 years.2.  Most munis were built prior to 1990.  Most privately owned public courses were built after 1990.  If you built a public golf course after the local muni was built, you don't get to complain.  It has been a well established fact since Van Cortlandt Golf Course was built in NYC that munis price below market and do not pay taxes or respond to any market forces.  So, if you built a course with a muni as an existing competitor, you should have accounted for that.3.  The same thing goes if you bought a golf course any time in the last 20 years.  Nobody forced you to buy.4.  Therefore, the only people who get to complain are people who built or bought golf courses and then SUBSEQUENTLY had a municipality build a golf course to compete against them.  And that is a VERY small list of people.  Archie happens to be one of those people.  He got screwed.  Not sure about Mike.5.  The course I own competes against Bobby Jones.  Bobby Jones was built in 1932.  I bought my course in 2012.  I do not complain that they had a big renovation because that was always a possibility (or even a probability, it was a mess).  It was a competitor before the renovation and they are a competitor now.

One might think that the  points raised in this post by SBusch, and the enumeration of the benefits that populations and businesses receive from the existence of municipally owned golf courses in Jason Thurman's post, might put an end to the whinging about such facilities..........but I wouldn't take any bets that they will, no matter the odds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()