News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
I write from the perspective of a Chicago area resident who has been involved in the administration of amateur golf for 20 years.  As everyone knows we have a large number of outstanding private clubs.  We also have some tremendous privately owned daily fee courses. Some are famous, e.g. Cog Hill, others less well known, e.g. Silver Lakes.  We also have a widespread network of municipally owned course.  Some have been around since the early days of golf like some of the Chicago Park District Courses e.g Jackson Park, Waveland (Marovitz).  The north shore has some old courses, Winnetka, Wilmette, Sunset Valley.  There are some outstanding middle aged courses like Village Links of Glen Ellyn.  There are even newer ones built in the last 30 years or so in towns like Elgin.  Somehow, they all seem to work together.  The courses that have failed, public or private, usually result from an economic problem in their particular area or alternatively, because they were bought out for housing developments.  Certainly nobody should suggest that long standing successful municipal courses which communities have grown to depend upon should be privatized or eliminated in order to protect someone who wants to compete.  I have greater sympathy for an operator who finds himself with new competition that enjoys competitive advantages due to tax breaks, ability to sustain losses and the like.  but I think that each situation should be judged on its own.  When Elgin built its courses, there was a real demand that was not being met in the private sector.  The park district stepped up and did an excellent job.


Finally a word about Jackson Park.  I have stayed out of the discussion which has largely consisted of individuals bashing a project based on lack of information and/or personal agendas.  The project is far from ready to go, in large measure because it will not move forward until the Obama Presidential Center receives final approval.  That approval is waiting for Washington which has more important problems right now although, I suggest that even before the current crisis this administration was not excited about any project related to President Obama.  Nonetheless, all of the infrastructure changes needed for roads, tunnels, etc. have already been approved by the state legislature so that they will be built when the Obama Center is constructed regardless of whether the golf course is modified.  As planned, all of the money to construct the golf course will be raised privately and administered by a private foundation with a blue ribbon Board composed of local residents, business leaders and representatives of the golf associations.  Cost of rounds will remain at municipal rates for residents while floating upward for non-residents. Each of the significant golf related youth and charity organizations will participate like the First Tee, Tiger Woods Foundation, Evans Scholars, and the CDGA Foundation. Budgeting is being reviewed to avoid the course from becoming a "money pit".  Assuming the operational issues are solved and the project is completed, it will provide recreational benefits and bring jobs to the neighborhood which badly needs them.  Moreover, the course would be a great venue for the tour with its proximity to the lake and downtown, bringing even more economic benefits.


It is a ways from fruition.  But rather than taking uninformed cheap shots, I suggest it would be best to sit back, see how we come out of this crisis, wait to see what the plan ultimately looks like and whether the private money gets raised.  The one thing I know for certain is that the information exchanged on this site has been singularly uninformed.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Shelly and Jim,
I understand your points about existing munis and privately operated publics knowing what they are getting into if they go there.  I got that and don't disagree.
BUT, golf course are living things.  When that muni that has been there for 60 years decides they wish to upgrade to where they can compete with a privately held public who is doing a good job and serving the market then I have a problem.  An unknowing commissioner can have a muni supt. tell him he needs a 2 million dollar irrigation system, 1.5 million greens upgrade and whatever else and they go for it.  The privately held public can't do that..  that's just not right...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,  the argument seems to be shifting.  Before you objected to muni's competing with private daily fees.  Then exceptions were made for preexisting well established munis.  Next munis that provided basic services for beginners.  Most recently a well established preexisting muni is not allowed to improve its facility because it has access to public funds and the officials may engage in a boondoggle?  What if the town residents want the improvements?  What if there isn't a viable private public fees alternative?  What if that privately owned course is a newcomer?  Do you have examples of the problem you have identified?  My home, Highland Park Illinois has a municipally owned course Sunset Valley a/k/a the Bumps dating back to the 1920's.  The town had 2 munis after taking over a less successful privately owned semi-private which it closed because the town wasn't supporting 2 public options.  Facing demand from the playing public, the town undertook a significant renovation which has resulted in significant improvements. It was necessitated because, as you noted, golf courses are not static and change overtime.  Should our town have let the course deteriorate because of some notion that munis might botch the job or make it harder for (non-existent) privately owned competitors?  The plan was subject to public hearings, the jobs were bid out etc and the first year of operation was very successful.  Like everyone else, this season is going to be quite difficult.  So again, these issues have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.  I have a lot of respect for the individual operators having spent a lot of time with them in our local golf association.  But condemning municipal golf in such a generalized manner doesn't match reality and in many areas, isn't good for golf.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2020, 02:18:21 PM by SL_Solow »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,  the argument seems to be shifting.  Before you objected to muni's competing with private daiey fees.  Then exceptions were made for preexisting well established munis.  Next munis that provided basic services for beginners.  Most recently a well established preexisting muni is not allowed to improve its facility because it has access to public funds and the officials may engage in a boondoggle?  What if the town residents want the improvements?  What if there isn't a viable private public fees alternative?  What if that privately owned course is a newcomer?  Do you have examples of the problem you have identified?  My home, Highland Park Illinois has a municipally owned course Sunset Valley a/k/a the Bumps dating back to the 1920's.  The town had 2 munis after taking over a less successful privately owned semi-private which it closed because the town wasn't supporting 2 public options.  Facing demand from the playing public, the town undertook a significant renovation which has resulted in significant improvements. It was necessitated because, as you noted, golf courses are not static and change overtime.  Should our town have let the course deteriorate because of some notion that munis might botch the job or make it harder for (non-existent) privately owned competitors?  The plan was subject to public hearings, the jobs were bid out etc and the first year of operation was very successful.  Like everyone else, this season is going to be quite difficult.  So again, these issues have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.  I have a lot of respect for the individual operators having spent a lot of time with them in our local golf association.  But condemning municipal golf in such a generalized manner doesn't match reality and in many areas, isn't good for golf.
Shelly,
I don't see that any of my argument has shifted.  As I stated earlier my problem is subsidizing of munis so that they might compete with a privately owned public paying taxes.   There is a place for the muni.  Privately owned publics really don't want to deal with some of the muni players and their nuances.  And I understand not building a new privately owned public where there is a sucessful muni but it is wrong for the muni to upgrade to the standards of the taxpaying golf course if it is meeting demand.  Let me put it another way.  I'm all for public transportation.  In my town buses are free to all and we subsidize.  OK..fine by me.  But if the commissioners decided to go to 8 passenger limo type buses with leather seats and  bar while there was a private vendor providing the same and paying taxes and the county was subsidizing such....well that would be wrong.  Same for golf...stay safe...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 :D ;)


SS....I'm still on the same train, believing that municipal golf is for the beginner/ bargain hunter and at the lowest economic end of the spectrum in our world. Once it exceeds that I'm all for privatization. No reason to operate a business that competes with tax payers and has to be subsidized, even a little. Once there is supply the government owned operation should be removed, sold or retrofitted for another use that is less capital intensive and a benefit to the citizens.


As to the Chicago project it's way too much money for my taste , as are all the presidents libraries!

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
:D ;)
SS....I'm still on the same train, believing that municipal golf is for the beginner/ bargain hunter and at the lowest economic end of the spectrum in our world. Once it exceeds that I'm all for privatization. No reason to operate a business that competes with tax payers and has to be subsidized, even a little. Once there is supply the government owned operation should be removed, sold or retrofitted for another use that is less capital intensive and a benefit to the citizens.



Screw that... municipal courses were paid for by We the taxpayers; grants or gifts or exchanges of land were/are frequently engaged for the benefit of the people (as in "We the people"); to whatever degree, it's a unique civic asset and can be a healthy, safe center for a community of any size.  And one reason We the people can and ought to improve, modify or their own courses irregardless of how it hurts ONE taxpayer in town, is so that our local golf is not subject to ONE PERSONS market...who told an owner to make their business public recreation anyway?   


The entire premise of this thread is bunk...has been so called and proven bunl by mutliple intelligent posts.


Not a dry eye in the house for the owners against the mean ol' munis.



"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Governments should only exist to prop up, and support, private business....LOL


Taxpayers want schools, roads, police and fire, clean water, parks and golf courses. It's their tax dollars. Private business has NO businesses deciding how that taxpayer money is spent. Private ownership has spent years trying to convince everyone that using taxpayer money to provide what people want, especially anything that a private business can also provide, is some big bad thing.  Ohhhh.....like say socialism? Jesus H Christ...get over it and compete on all those things capitalist like to toss around like cost, efficencey, better service....
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
It sounds like folks are getting the wrong end of the stick. Mike and Archie are arguing about no new munis or significant upgrades to old munis when the local need is already met. That sounds a very reasonable position. That said, it's a catch 22. When a local government facility becomes a tax payer burden folks say what do you expect? When the same local government attempts to run a facility with profits as a high priority, they are accussed of unfair business practices.

Part of the problem arises when a local government has a deteriorating asset which is losing too much money. While not always possible, in such cases it may be best to work with private initiatives to hopefully make the asset profitable rather than a 100% gamble of tax payer money.

There are no easy answers when government entities and private business collide in the market place. Generally speaking, local governments should not be looking to get into the golf business if it can be shown the market need is met. Golf is a risky proposition at the best of times. Because a few hundred people stick their hands up to vote for such projects doesn't mean its a good use of public funds.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
It sounds like folks are getting the wrong end of the stick. Mike and Archie are arguing about no new munis or significant upgrades to old munis when the local need is already met. That sounds a very reasonable position. That said, it's a catch 22. When a local government facility becomes a tax payer burden folks say what do you expect? When the same local government attempts to run a facility with profits as a high priority, they are accussed of unfair business practices.

Part of the problem arises when a local government has a deteriorating asset which is losing too much money. While not always possible, in such cases it may be best to work with private initiatives to hopefully make the asset profitable rather than a 100% gamble of tax payer money.

There are no easy answers when government entities and private business collide in the market place. Generally speaking, local governments should not be looking to get into the golf business if it can be shown the market need is met. Golf is a risky proposition at the best of times. Because a few hundred people stick their hands up to vote for such projects doesn't mean its a good use of public funds.


Oh stop with these fig leaves...they deserve both ends of the stick with such a ridiculous notion. Who determines when the local need has been met?  Them?  There is no problem...the people will decide what and where and when and how much about their assets, vibrant, deteriorating or otherwise, through the civic structure in place, with or without regard for the private initiatives.


Yeah, there IS an easy answer here... the number of instances where the muni is doing something to hurt the poor owner is infinitesimal. and as has been stated OVER and OVER again, most of the time they should've exercised caveat emptor... While hundreds of people sticking their hands in the air to vote doesn't mean wisdom in the use of public funds, it's far superior to one or two particularly loud ones who think the world owes them a living because they put out a shingle.
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
It sounds like folks are getting the wrong end of the stick. Mike and Archie are arguing about no new munis or significant upgrades to old munis when the local need is already met. That sounds a very reasonable position. That said, it's a catch 22. When a local government facility becomes a tax payer burden folks say what do you expect? When the same local government attempts to run a facility with profits as a high priority, they are accussed of unfair business practices.

Part of the problem arises when a local government has a deteriorating asset which is losing too much money. While not always possible, in such cases it may be best to work with private initiatives to hopefully make the asset profitable rather than a 100% gamble of tax payer money.

There are no easy answers when government entities and private business collide in the market place. Generally speaking, local governments should not be looking to get into the golf business if it can be shown the market need is met. Golf is a risky proposition at the best of times. Because a few hundred people stick their hands up to vote for such projects doesn't mean its a good use of public funds.

Oh stop with these fig leaves...they deserve both ends of the stick with such a ridiculous notion. Who determines when the local need has been met?  Them?  There is no problem...the people will decide what and where and when and how much about their assets, vibrant, deteriorating or otherwise, through the civic structure in place, with or without regard for the private initiatives.

Yeah, there IS an easy answer here... the number of instances where the muni is doing something to hurt the poor owner is infinitesimal. and as has been stated OVER and OVER again, most of the time they should've exercised caveat emptor... While hundreds of people sticking their hands in the air to vote doesn't mean wisdom in the use of public funds, it's far superior to one or two particularly loud ones who think the world owes them a living because they put out a shingle.

Steep stuff.  I am no business rules the planet type of guy, but where government can reasonably encourage private enterprise to provide big ticket recreation such as golf, I am all for it.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 ;D ???


Why is it the altruists who argue for the public good tend to get personal and nasty? My opinion is that the government should not support one business over another unless it protects the citizens or provides a need that won't otherwise be there. Note need!


Golf is a wonderful sport. When I was very young it provided a job for me as a caddie at a local golf club. My only interest then was making money to buy a better pair of sneakers or a new baseball glove. The game eventually gave me so much more and has opened doors previously closed to me. It is one of the reasons I'm here on the site and able to learn from many of you when time permits. Hopefully my experiences building , owning and working at times in the business of golf give someone else some new insights. I've shot 63 and now struggle at times to break 80 and still love the game. I've been blessed to play some courses that many more deserving will never see and I wish they could share the fun some day.  I'm not angry at the muni around the corner or that people play there. At this stage of my life they have little impact on me but it doesn't change my philosophy about government and business. As I've said ad nauseum more people like drinking than golf why not have bars that charge less and drive us home after the party? Why not make sure they are subsidized to keep the price down for citizen voters?


Golf is a luxury item in our lives. Like buying that pair of Adidas sneakers I wanted at 12 years old. My mom and dad gave me a wonderful life, I miss them daily. However, Adidas sneakers weren't in the budget so I got a job as did most of my friends in the neighborhood. We had paper routes and cut lawns.  When I was eleven and somehow convinced the caddie master at Woodcrest to let me work there it was the best job a kid could ever have. Walk outside in a place where we got paid to exercise! It allowed some of us to buy not only sneakers but our first car.


Again,  golf is a luxury!  That's why we are blessed here in America. You can express your opinion, because perhaps the majority isn't always right or understands. I believe that is the case here. If most people knew how much the real costs of high end muni's cost the taxpayers they would definitely vote no.




 I can't speak for Mike Young and others but I think we are kindred spirits in this regard as to the government subsidizing one business over others. It's that simple and if someone can convince me of the inherent fairness in that I might change my opinion. Have at it. But please don't make it personal unless you really know me well. This forum is better than that.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 09:50:59 AM by archie_struthers »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
VK,Don't get so upset.  Any privately owned public can out perform the muni and give you more bang for your buck if it has the same playing field.  You are missing my point.   But let me ask you a couple of questions.  Would it be acceptable to you for your local muni to buy Titleist drivers for $500 and sell them in the pro shop  for $300?  Would it be acceptable if the muni golfer paid $10 bucks for a caddy and the muni paid another $90 out of it's budget so that the golfer could have a caddy experience like that at privately owned places?   Don't worry about an explanation just a yes or no is all I need.  Stay safe...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Dave Doxey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Local citizens decide how their tax money is spent.  A lot of services provided by municipalities could be sold by private business. Where the line gets drawn is up to the local voters.  If they vote to fund public limo services, so be it.

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike... why should I respond to a hypothetical that has nothing to do the thread title and doesn't exist!?

That's the very definition of a straw man...all of a sudden those who desire our extant or planned munis to be as good and cheap as they can are paying 60 - 800% over/under market to beat Mike Young's idea of his business?

You show me a muni, or muni pro (often a business man/proprietor/who owns his shop and doesn't execute inventory decisions from a muni authority) which did that and I'll answer. Though course policy isn't set that way, at some level, as DD's post indicated, the voters decided...that's the way we ALL agree to do it.



"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 8)


The only muni near me is McCullagh's Emerald Links. Oops Ocean City has one too, very basic. Neither make money.


McCullagh's got a free liquor license (250k), bought new golf carts under a line item in the budget that was at best misleading, and developers knew that you better buy memberships there if you wanted a permit to fly. There's much more but for now I'll keep my powder dry. What I could say in the affirmative is that it isn't the worst use of a closed landfill though I would have much preferred walking trails and a park. 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 10:03:57 AM by archie_struthers »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
VK,I'll just leave it at this.  Some of the highest paying pro jobs in the business are at the munis.  Of course the city, county or IRS doesn't realize this.  Have a good day ... :)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0

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...

Mike--


What kind of fee do you have in mind? And could you clarify the words I bolded above? It sounds like you're implying that the low-cost/muni golfer does not deserve access to interesting golf, the implication being that that's only the right of an operator of a non-muni facility. Is that your position?


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.

Archie--


Can you provide any real-world examples of the type of facility you're idealizing here?


Though I haven't been there, one place that seems to fit these parameters you've imposed on municipal golf is Schoolhouse Nine in Virginia, which seems to be a big hit since opening a few years ago. It's a thoughtfully and minimally designed 9-hole par-3 course that is easy and compulsory to walk.


But Schoolhouse Nine happens to be privately owned. Would you agree that that type of golf is fair game for private enterprise?


If so, doesn't that imply that your acceptable version of a municipal course could theoretically compete with a private undertaking somewhere?


Why is that level of competition between muni golf and private enterprise implicitly acceptable, but competition between "big course" muni golf and a similar private undertaking unacceptable? That distinction seems arbitrary, though perhaps I am missing something.
Senior Writer, GolfPass

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
8)


The only muni near me is McCullagh's Emerald Links. Oops Ocean City has one too, very basic. Neither make money.


McCullagh's got a free liquor license (250k), bought new golf carts under a line item in the budget that was at best misleading, and developers knew that you better buy memberships there if you wanted a permit to fly. There's much more but for now I'll keep my powder dry. What I could say in the affirmative is that it isn't the worst use of a closed landfill though I would have much preferred walking trails and a park.


Archie-I’m not trying to rile you up but I did like the adaptation of the Lido hole. Number 7? ;D

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 8)


Not riling me at all Tim, there is some pretty cool stuff there. Stephen Kay did some nice work out there. ;D  I could deal with Emerald Links but what they did to me at Twisted Dune just because they could would boggle almost anyone's mind. I would safely say it would scare the beejeezus out of almost anyone. I was lucky to escape that one alive. People like you have helped me recover :-*


To answer Tim G's query my muni boundaries are pretty rigid. It shouldn't be built if other options are already in neighborhood. If needed it should be rudimentary in terms of operation and provide the basic necessity for those not blessed with the financial ability to play and enjoy this game.


We once owned a nine hole golf course Hamilton Trails that was profitable and very nice for under $20 a round. That might be stretching the budget for some less fortunate so I'm going to say under $15, no carts (push ok) limited food and beverage, a hot dog stand owned by some entrepreneur is great! 


Yep pretty rigid but that's my feeling and I'm sticking to it unless somebody is really on point and persuasive!
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 10:55:36 AM by archie_struthers »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0

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...

Mike--


What kind of fee do you have in mind? And could you clarify the words I bolded above? It sounds like you're implying that the low-cost/muni golfer does not deserve access to interesting golf, the implication being that that's only the right of an operator of a non-muni facility. Is that your position?


Tim,I would think a $10-$15 fee would be good.- "not much architecture to them at all."  when I was growing up we had places like our munis where we could learn to play golf and progress.  I think one of the issues in new markets today is where all of the course are "more architecture" with features that help to sell and market either resorts or homes and it is almost impossible to learn to play golf on elevated greens with bunkering that is 6 ft deep.  Our munis growing up provided a learning experience.  They had maybe 10 bunkers or less and the greens were almost fairway elevation and you could hit the ball almost anywhere and still find it and play.  No one wants to build that now.  But that is whats needed. 
-
-It sounds like you're implying that the low-cost/muni golfer does not deserve access to interesting golf, the implication being that that's only the right of an operator of a non-muni facility. Is that your position?  No.  He is entitled to interesting golf but most munis can't provide such without being subsidized and the ones such as Bethpage or TP charge more than most privately owned publics.    BUT here is how the muni often works.  1. The commissioners or council members have no knowledge of how the golf course operates.  They rely on the golf pro and the supt.  They tell them they need new irrigation or golf cars etc each year and they tell them they need to be cheaper than is required.  You figure how it works from there.  2. I built a muni course a few years back that was built for one reason.  A councilman had been on the board at the local club and had gotten in an argument on how the club needed to go forward.  He lost the argument.  He got a proposal to build a very nice muni passed and voila...his old club is no longer in existence, the city subsidizes the very nice muni for about $300,000 a year and the management company does well.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
First, to those who objected to some of the change in tone and language, I agree.  At least for me this is a discussion among friends who are entitled to their own point of view.  That said, much of what has been presented is anecdotal which may vary by location.  As I noted, most of my experience is with older munis operating in areas where they were formed to provide public golf and where there are few alternatives other than private clubs.  Additionally, there is very little land for private competitors.  The residents of the towns are pleased to have their courses and generally support them.  They are usually pretty well operated.  Close by me we have an outstanding private botanic garden which charges admission and raises private funds.  I have yet to hear that organization lobby for the closure of competing public parks.  Citizens are free to determine what amenities they believe their town should provide through the use of tax dollars.  We are all free to disagree; that is why we vote.


Archie, returning to the Chicago issues.  I suspect that you haven't reviewed any factual data.  It is pretty clear that the Obama Center will eventually be built.  Given that he was the first African American President and for that reason alone, an historic figure, the center is likely to have significant numbers of visitors.  This will require some significant changes to the local infrastructure, the cost of which should be offset by the revenues generated from the influx of visitors.  This should also give a needed boost to the surrounding depressed neighborhoods which, even in my lifetime, used to flourish and sits next to a beautiful part of the lakefront.


Immediately adjacent are the 18 hole Jackson Park golf course and the 9 holes of the old South Shore Country Club now owned by the Park District.  They are both rundown and in need of significant improvement.  As part of the overall redevelopment of the area it has been proposed that the existing property be reconfigured into a first class 18 hole facility with a short 9  hole course and practice facilities.  The funds for this portion of the property will be privately raised.  Additionally, steps will be taken to model the project so that it will not be a cash drain on the Park District.  There is a lot more to get done but, under those circumstances, there is little to suggest that this project would run counter to Mike's ideals as there are no competing privates and there is no land to build one.  So absent some theological objection, the questions remaining are can the money be raised and how good will the economic modelling be?  The economic benefits to the neighborhood should not be hard to predict.  Environmental and other issues can be resolved.  So while there is much work to be done, and the fall back alternative will be a smaller effort to improve the existing facility, i ask again, where is the harm?  As a born cynic I can understand the inherent distrust of a large governmental body but beyond that concern I do not understand the opposition absent  a philosophical  opposition to government operation of golf courses.  If that is the basis, we can agree to disagree.


« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 10:17:27 PM by SL_Solow »

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
I grew up in Bethlehem, PA and learned to play at Bethlehem Municipal GC. A good brawny William & David Gordon that in all honesty probably had too much architecture and length for the clientele. Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's my junior pass was $185 per year. There was a couple of privately owned publics in the Lehigh Valley back then and none of them would have had a junior rate that matched that. Since that time I can think of multiple new publics that have opened while only one and a half  marginal publics have closed.


Bethlehem is currently getting a face lift due to 60 years of decent but not great maintenance. Based on the chatter in this thread I'm assuming that some would believe that there should be a governor on how good the bunker rebuild should be allowed to be or how functional the new irrigation system should be. Maybe they should only be allowed to buy bunker sand one grade worse than the worst privately owned public?


In a lot of high population density areas the munis are the only game in town other than the occasional very expensive CCFAD. I wonder what Mike would do if he was given an offer for his land like Faxon's group up at Metacomet. As a businessman he would likely sell out and leave his customers bemoaning the free market.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
 8) ;)


Sl Solow....posted like a real gentleman, I appreciate your insights and opinions. You might be surprised that I'm familiar with many of the courses in Chicago as my good friend was captain of the Notre Dame team. Lived in Elk Grove as a very young child and have family all over the area. Took a couple special trips to see Chicago Golf, played Butler Onwentsia etc etc and have a real appreciation of the Cog Hill story. Of course as a youth caddied for lots of Chicago guys at PVGC and learned a lot about their clubs particularly Glenview. This being overstated I'm not familiar with the area where the library is being built and the surrounding neighborhood. I think there are better things than spending hundreds of millions for them but certainly President Obama deserves one if the others Presidents do.


Would think if the demographics work some private money will step up for the Chicago project, but if not it would not fit my rigid opinion of what taxpayers should pay for with their hard earned money. But we can agree to disagree !


I can tell you and many here that the power of government scares me because of my personal experiences building Twisted Dune where they literally shook me down. They destroyed my other business going so far as to threaten my wife with arrest for having a few dishwashers that were Mexican. I had no recourse or chance to fight without putting my family in jeopardy.  So i capitulated and got out. Some people swear that Atlantic City under mob rule was a gentler, kinder place. Given we provided 250 acres of open space that could have been tract housing they should have sent a limo to pick me up every morning. Instead they sent a hearse.


So it's personal for me. My experience galvanized my distrust of how government does business and probably has "twisted" my opinion beyond what would be considered healthy. But that doesn't stop me from listening to my fellows here on GCA. Particularly in a down time like we face now. Hope this leaves us all very soon and God Bless to all!
« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 06:35:16 AM by archie_struthers »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
I grew up in Bethlehem, PA and learned to play at Bethlehem Municipal GC. A good brawny William & David Gordon that in all honesty probably had too much architecture and length for the clientele. Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's my junior pass was $185 per year. There was a couple of privately owned publics in the Lehigh Valley back then and none of them would have had a junior rate that matched that. Since that time I can think of multiple new publics that have opened while only one and a half  marginal publics have closed.


Bethlehem is currently getting a face lift due to 60 years of decent but not great maintenance. Based on the chatter in this thread I'm assuming that some would believe that there should be a governor on how good the bunker rebuild should be allowed to be or how functional the new irrigation system should be. Maybe they should only be allowed to buy bunker sand one grade worse than the worst privately owned public?


In a lot of high population density areas the munis are the only game in town other than the occasional very expensive CCFAD. I wonder what Mike would do if he was given an offer for his land like Faxon's group up at Metacomet. As a businessman he would likely sell out and leave his customers bemoaning the free market.
Jim,
Sounds like Bethlehem has a fairly healthy public golf market.  I'm all for the public having that type of junior rate.  And if it's time to rework the place then fine.  The only governors I think should be on golf courses is to not do more than your market can handle.  I guarantee you the privately owned publics will not be charging 40-50 dollar green fees and placing the top bunker sand or ultra sophisticated irrigation system in their course.  And I think the muni should act accordingly.  It should not rework the place to the level of a $100 round of golf and then charge $25.  And if they do then the privately owned publics should be getting some type of tax abatement or something.As for Metacomet, I would sell the sell out of it.  I saw the entire deal and have all the estimates for repair etc that the membership had done and most people who looked at it knew it was a pretty tough deal.  The members were not behind it or it would have never gotten to where it was.  I see nothing wrong with them selling.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
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?


If the price was the same, yes. It's a good public course in nice condition and as I mentioned, an easy walk. And it's 10 minutes from my house. Other local courses in the price range can't compare.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back