[Forrest Richardson]

"Entitlement" is a development term for the process of getting a new course approved and, thusly, able to be built. When a course is entitled it generally occupies acreage "forever". Although occasionally a course will be rendered away, this is rare compared to the total number. This group "boos" the famous and celebrated courses which have died, but rarely cares when an average course bites the dust. Perhaps this is bad practice?

My feeling is that entitlement is much more important than we might all realize. Especially on a great site — even when the routing and design is not what we might prefer. Even if it's outright awful.

The Old Course stands because it was entitled and has evolved to a point no one present at its inception would recognize it at all. TOC, of course, was never awful. At least so we believe.

What do you think? Are there merits to seeing courses built — no matter how awful this group might consider them — knowing that they will probably be there "forever" and at least have the chance to be bettered at some later era?

[peter_p]

If the entitlement process is allowed to continue, probably not in the long run. It is an economic decision by the current owner who has a more profitable use for the property. These may become more prevalent as the estate/death tax window remains open.
The losers are those who lose some convenience as newer courses are built further away, and are of dubitably better design than the bulldozed course. Plus the newer courses will be costlier to play. Would this mean fewer players take up the game, or more people quit?

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

Forrest

Interesting topic and thank you for the education.
Now, like all difficult subjects requiring delicate decision making and consensus building...I will make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Factors that go into the decision will remain secret. I will generically state that my economic interests will be heavily veiled, as well as disdain for the architect, should i choose to render/raze/reclaim the area.

Thank you.

 

[Forrest Richardson]

Peter,

If an historically entitled golf property translates to less costly rounds, then isn't it wise that we entitle as many properties as possible — now? Within reason, of course.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest,

Pat Ruddy has made a career of this in the past few years in Ireland ... convincing clubs to go ahead and build in the dunesland now, even if they can only afford something primitive, so golf is entitled there before the E.U. environmental laws make it impossible to do so.

This was his sales pitch at Ballyliffin, at Portsalon, and at Rosapenna, and it earned him the first crack at some great links sites.  (I haven't yet seen the results, but Rich G. was MOST enthusiastic about Portsalon.)

Pat may well have been right ... we've been working on the environmental stuff on an Irish project for a year now, and still have no idea whether it will be permitted or not, even though you could literally go out and MOW half the course tomorrow ... it's all there, a lot of it in fine turf and not marram grass.  But, as you understand, you still can't turn it into a golf course without entitlements.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I'm not real sure what exactly you mean by saying "entitlement" is a 'new development term for getting a course approved and thusly able to get built'.

I thought that was what we've always called the "permitting process".

And I'm also not sure what you mean when you say some courses 'have been rendered away'.

Unless a course is sold and its property is sold off to another use I thought the only way a course could be 'rendered away' (sort of against its will) is something like the legal process of "eminent domain".

But "entitlement"? By that do you mean that when a golf course is build the regional authorities view that land to be forever land that will be occupied by a golf course and not developed?

The latter is what I call "conservation easement". A golf course and its underlying land that would fall into that unique category would be something like Applebrook G.C.

[Tom_Armstrong]

Forrest, are you talking a course aways remains a course, or  that the land can always be used that way? Are you talking a muni must always be a golf course? Private land can always be a golf course? What if they demolished it and wanted to build again 20 years later?

Toms Doak and Paul, same question basically, can land be taken away for enviromental reasons? If a course is built under lax rules can it be taken back under new regulations?

Tom

TIA boys, always a pleasure to read here.

[Tom_Armstrong]

Tom Paul, reading your post again, if property is sold for another use is it an absolute you would lose whatever you gained (permits) getting it certified?

I can't type so I'm trying to be brief.

Basically, aside from the chemicals a golf course in an ideal landscape. It conserves, it recycles, it drains and is built on a good foundation.

Would anything change because the purpose changed? If they put in some roads and buildings would they significantly change (structure wise) what was built originally?

Tom

[TEPaul]

"Toms Doak and Paul, same question basically, can land be taken away for enviromental reasons? If a course is built under lax rules can it be taken back under new regulations?

"TomA:

Possibly it could be technically and legally but basically I've never heard of such a thing happening. The reason why is what I suppose is what's always been referred to as "grandfathering".

In other words, when some new restrictive law is instituted it basically only affects what comes after the law is enacted not what happened before the law was enacted.

[Tom_Armstrong]

Thanks, Tom Paul.

What do you think about the architecture?  If the land was developed for another use would they have to make significant changes to the infrastructure?

Tom

[Tom_Armstrong]

If they DIDN'T would the premits(?) have to be fought over again?

Sorry guys, I find this topic intriguing. I called my friend but he is a corporate lawyer. Had no clue, said refer back to GCA.

Tom

[TEPaul]

"What do you think about the architecture?  If the land was developed for another use would they have to make significant changes to the infrastructure?"

TomA:

Applebrook G.C. would be a good example of this. Originally the land was farmland. Perhaps 30 years ago it was rezoned for a corporate office building use. Although the corporation who had the land permitted into corporate office building use regraded parts of the land for office buildings (building pads) they never built office buildings and eventually the land was sold to Applebrook G.C. as a golf course who put some underlying "conservation easements" on the land through a local conservation entity. Basically this was the first time I've heard of a golf course starting up and putting their underlying land into conservation.

I'm sure Applebrook G.C. went through the township permitting process but in this case for a use that was less dense than the previous use.

It was interesting to see how Gil Hanse routed and used parts of those building pads in his golf holes. But now the land will never be able to be used for much other than a golf course due to the "conservation easements".

But none of this has anything to do with "entitlement". It has everything to do with Applebrook's "conservation easement" covenant which is an agreement between the club and a local conservation organization that essentially monitors the covenant under a Federal law structure including a tax abatement law.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Entitlement" is more than zoning. It encompasses the entire range of permission hoops that a golf developer/architect must jump.

Very often such permission will come with stipulations: Certain management practices, water restrictions, and even setting aside a certain percentage of tee times for area residents at lower green fees. We are involved in a project where the developer must build a city park and a few trails before he will receive approval to open the golf course.

So, what does this mean? Tom D's illustration of the Ireland situation is abolutely a perfect example. Courses entitled BEFORE the E.U. laws become in place will "live happily forever"...so long as they adhere to whatever rules were imposed at their birth.

A golf course "rendered away" is one where an owner (usually new) decides that the use of the land is better as something else. If there are lots of golfers or adjacent homes this is a difficult ordeal for the owner because people will complain usually. Besides, if there are golfers it is usually thriving and creating revenue.

I realize this is somewhat technical. My hope was to solicit some thoughts on where and whether entitlement made sense.

[BCrosby]

Normally easements "follow" the land. They are - legally - an attribute of the land and not a right held by a particular owner at a particular time. Thus, if I sell a piece of land with subject to easements (this includes easements that benefit and easements that burden my land), those easements follow the land into the hands of the next owner. He buys the land subject to existing easements. (This assumes such easements were properly recorded in the appropriate public recordation offices.)

If I sell land that has all the easements necessary to build a golf course, the buyer will enjoy all those same easements. Normally.

Forrest -

There is an interesting situation right now in St. Augustine. The old Ponce de Leon course (Ross, 1924) will be closed and the land sold for development. The owner understands the historical significance of the course. He says, however, that the course is losing money and he can't maintain it. He sought the highest and best bid for the land. He has said he would favor any bid that will preserve the Ross course if it came within shouting distance of the highest bid.

There were no such bids. He will sell the land to a housing developer. The course "entitlements" will be - effectively - lost forever.

What would you say to this owner? That Ponce de Leon's golf entitlement is more important than his net worth? That he continue to incur losses to preserve the golf course? Do those arguments ring as hollow to you as they do to me?

It's a real shame this course will be lost. But the notion of preserving entitlements - as laudable as the idea may be in the abstract - rarely has any purchase when faced with economic realities. Put differently, entitlements must have an exploitable market value. If they don't, they will go poof. Like Ponce de Leon.

Bob

P.S. The alternative is to lock-in golf entitlements so that an owner can't sell land for inconsistent uses. In other words, once land was used for a golf course, it couldn't be sold except to people who maintained it as a golf course.

My guess is that such an idea would be a non-starter politically and a very bad idea on policy grounds in any event.  

[John_Cullum]

Let me throw out some random thoughts.

I suspect this term of art "entitlement" as it relates to golf courses is not seen in the United States. I note T doak's examples are in Ireland, and another mentions the Old Course. (which I always believed to be public land managed by a Trust, but I never made any inquiry.)

In the US property is "owned," either publicly or privately. (Indian lands might have some exception). The concept I see discussed here of entitlement sounds foreign to laws we have in the US. I do not know of any golf course in the USA, or any other property for that matter, that isn't owned by either a government or a "person."(natural or legal, i.e. corporation).

For these US lands to become "entitled" as I am reading here would require that the owner enter into some sort of covenant with another person or government that would be somehow enforceable, and this covenant would have to be purchased for value.

Our public policy in the USA is to not tie property up in perpetuity.

The use of the concept of eminent domain has been attempted on several occasions to prevent a professional sports franchise from leaving a US community. To my knowledge, it has never been successful in this regard.

I may post some more thoughts on this if interest continues.

Sarge

[Forrest Richardson]

Ponce de Leon is an interesting story. I have followed it for the past few years. This owner acquired the rights to the land and those rights are not restrictive to a golf course. If the local authorities slapped a zoning/use permit overlay requiring golf — this would certainly be a property taking and the owner would prevail for damages.

This is one of those rare "rendered away" cases.

Another in Illinois involved Pulte Homes taking an old private club and building a housing development. Pulte's Henry Delozier, a good friend, commented at a conference I attended, "It's amazing how well suited older core course layouts are to being converted to housing...the fairways are just right for streets and lots to either side...we hardly had to clear any trees..."

Pulte is now thinking about all their golf projects with an eye toward an "exit strategy". I.E., what do we do if this golf course becomes non-performing and useless? For this reason you will see more core routings where it is easier to convert the center 150 acres to housing or some type of development. It is virtually impossible to convert single fairways to housing due to the long spans of required streets without connections for emergency access.

Is this bad? Yes and no. Core routings are good. Rendering courses away for an exit strategy is bad — but not financially.

All points to one common theme: MAKE SURE THE GOLF COURSE MAKES SENSE BEFORE YOU BUILD IT. For me and many other architects who post here this is good news as a majority of us build within the means of financial success. That is, we build at $2, $3, $4, $5 million, and our clients can make $$ on this investment...usually.

[Forrest Richardson]

What are the thoughts here about entitlement for the sake of simply "banking" a future golf course? Would this make sense on Long Island, the Oregon coast, the sand dunes between California and Arizona?

[TEPaul]

As interesting as this subject is to me I can't quite understand what Forrest is referring to exactly when he uses this apparently new developement term "entitlement".

The first three paragraphs of his post #12 are confusing to me. When he says this in the first paragraph though;

""Entitlement" is more than zoning. It encompasses the entire range of permission hoops that a golf developer/architect must jump.",

That I can understand but that's no different from what local entities have always dealt with and ultimately required particularly if the political atmosphere in those local entities is such that there's resistance to building some type of golf course that needs rezoning or a variance to existing zoning to get built. If that political resistance exists the local entity (township in my area) will ask for concessions from a developer---eg golf course developer. This is no different than it's always been.

But if the land being used for the development of the golf course is such that the zoning on that land does not restrict a golf course use--in other words, if the golf course use is "conforming" to present zoning then the golf course should get permitted--obvously given a number of resolutions regarding environmental impact issues.

I'm just not exactly understanding what's new about this idea of "entitlement".

[Forrest Richardson]

It's not new. But the formaility is much more intense today than ever before. Especially in the west where water is of key concern.

Eventually there will be communities where the only golf EVER to be enjoyed will occur on previously entitled courses. The ability to entitle new land will be "lost" forever. What is interesting is that even an unliked course which is entitled may be trandformed into something wonderful.

[TEPaul]

And with the example of a golf course in Ireland (a potential Doak project?) it seems to me what's being said here is the present owners or perhaps even the buyers are simply trying to create a form of a golf course on land BEFORE that land becomes further restricted (for a golf use?). If somehow they manage to do that what they've in effect accomplished is a land use (golf course?) that's likely to be "grandfathered" when those new restrictions are finally enacted.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes.

[TEPaul]

"Eventually there will be communities where the only golf EVER to be enjoyed will occur on previously entitled courses. The ability to entitle new land will be "lost" forever."

Forrest:

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that land that has never been used for a golf course will never be able to be used for a golf course in the future? Do you mean if any land never was used for golf it never will be "permitted" for golf use?

Thankfully, in my area that will never happen. In my area, like most everything else, it depends on the sentiments in any local entity regarding various land uses when it comes to asking for rezoning or a variance on zoning. Potentially golf courses on land never used as such around here generally isn't looked at as the best use nor the worst use. And as such potential golf courses on land never used for golf have as much chance of being permitted as anything else.

[TEPaul]

Forrest said:

"Yes."

Forrest:

Yes, what? Do you mean the Ireland example? That's nothing new. All that is is establishing a use when you see some restriction coming down the pike BEFORE that restriction gets enacted. And if you manage to do that in effect you've managed to "grandfather" what later may be viewed as a "non-conforming" use in that local entity.

We have a ton of that in my own township. My township has a minimum of 4 acre zoning but there're a number of lots in this township that are all kinds of sizes UNDER four acres because their deeds preceded ZONING. So as such they've been "grandfathered" as "nonconforming uses". I guess as such you could say they've been "entitled" as "non-conforming".

Of course no one could possibly subdivide them down further or use them for a use other than residential without some type of variance permission!

[Forrest Richardson]

There is a likely scenario in many western and environmentally sensitive locales to restrict land use — effectively eliminating golf potential. Regardless, an entitled golf use/plan is "money in the bank" if golf is a desired use.

By "yes" I was referring to "owners are simply trying to create a form of a golf course on land BEFORE that land becomes further restricted". Yes, this is sometimes what is being done. In Ireland I believe that is what Tom D. refers to. Pat R. doing just that: Obtaining permission for golf even if the course is not built. In essence: OBTAINING ENTITLEMENT.

[Forrest Richardson]

I believe on another thread "Pebble's Forest Course" we are seeing the results of previously entitled land. There would be little chance in today's climate to see any new course planned at Pebble. But, because the process was started many years ago, we now see the possibility for a new course there. Also, what do we see happening at Pebble? A "new" course popping up where an old and tired layout has existed for ages. This is made possible due to the original entitlement.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()