[archie_struthers]

 


Jim S in my world it would be fine to fix up the course you refer to and make it easy to play and fun. The bunkers surely could be fixed and drainage would be my personal priority. A good superintendent can do these repairs in house and often is overlooked so some one who is owed a favor gets a plum job without the experience doing same. Maybe not in your neck of the woods but   Irrigation replacement is a huge cost and must be considered with great care. If you are interested Don Mahaffey does a wonderful interview on the way to design and replace in this forum.


If the course isn't relevant for lack of maintenance over the years shame on the caretakers they should be removed. Again it's just my opinion

[Mike_Young]

Other local courses in the price range can't compare.

Why can't they compare?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim/Mike,
I don’t get involved with too many muni’s but Bethlehem GC happens to be one that I am working on.  I hope we don’t do too good a job fixing it up     Actually, I am amazed at what we have been able to accomplish on literally a shoe string budget (relative to what we spend at most of the private clubs I have worked on).  In some ways this will be a real story for what you can accomplish without spending a gazillion dollars to fix up/improve an older golf course.  I hope the public loves the transformation.
Mark

[archie_struthers]

 


Good luck to you on that one Mark, do a bang up job. It's too close to your neighborhood if you mess up. Good news for you  Jim!

[Mike_Young]

Good luck...I smell some characters lurking there.

[Mark_Fine]

Archie - LOL yes I hope we don't mess it up.  Our friend Tom Doak once told me very early on (wonder if he remembers or still believes this), "if I can satisfy 70% of the golfers who will play the course, I have done really well."  I have always remembered that and tend to agree with him as there will always be those who won't like the changes or any change for that matter.  Time will tell, but if you saw BGC before the work started, I think you will be wowed by what has been done.  But like Mike says, hope we didn't improve it too much 

[Lou_Duran]

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.

I can give three examples right of the top of my head in north Texas, one who still owns the shop and reportedly nets over $500k annually.  Another built a large muni complex while being a senior city exec and then retired after awarding the management contract for 10+ years to an entity he controlled.  Another who ran two city courses and in addition to a large compensation package, was found to have embezzled at least mid-six figures over the years but was only fired and not prosecuted because of "sensitive" issues in the community


Archie,


If the elected leaders of a thriving community such as the one I described earlier determine that it is in the public interest to have a golf course serving that area and the private sector is unwilling or unable to meet that need, do you think it should buy or build a course?   The privately-owned daily fee courses in surrounding communities could feel the pinch, but it does get old having to beg for access so at least the school kids have a place to play and practice.  I know that the members at my home course complain when the course is closed on four or five Tuesdays each year for junior and high school tournaments.

[Mike Schott]

Other local courses in the price range can't compare.

Why can't they compare?

The other local courses aren't as architecturally interesting, in as good of condition or as good a value. It's not a great course, at best a Doak 3 but it offers some shot options, a good short par 4 and a variety of par 3's.

[archie_struthers]

 




Lou, I never knew you to be one who poked the beast. 


A definitive NO to said county building or buying a golf course. In a rare case NJ long ago passed a law where they would buy development rights from large landowners, mostly farms but included were some golf courses to fight urban sprawl. I would say the program is fairly successful. Quite sure that some places that had no value were bought to the benefit of the ruling class.


 

[Lou_Duran]

Nah, I don't get a kick out of stirring the pot or, for the most part, telling people how they should conduct their lives.


With the caveat that golf as a business tends to be localized- even within a large city, the various parts face very different realities- there are many areas where the price of land and regulation (interesting how the two run in tandem) makes it prohibitive for a profit-seeking entity to build a golf course.  I live is one such area that has enjoyed high growth for quite some time, fueled in good part by high-paying jobs created by companies with strong sales and earnings relocating here.


I am in the minimalist camp not only in golf architecture, but even more so when it comes to government, especially at the federal level.  Closest to the people, with local government, in theory but certainly not in practice (reference typically dismal voter participation in local elections), at least a good portion of those paying the bills have an indirect say on how the money is spent.


So, if a wealthy city, with ample resources after having met all the needs of the community (as determined by its leaders and eligible voters) is keen to spend $10+ Million for public access to a local golf course that less than 10% of the population will directly enjoy, then I guess that it can be said "Well Done!" (tongue-in-cheek, but we're talking about a 1st World problem, right?).


I understand that the city under this scenario could lower its tax rates and allow property owners and consumers to directly spend their own money in better ways, but that would be too much out of character- you know the story of the hammer and the nail, just as the hammer must pound nails, the government must govern.  If not a golf course, would a money-losing concert hall or miles and miles of wide, beautifully landscaped, manicured medians with ornate street lights be a better use of "the people's" money?  Or better yet, how about "investing" in the most expensive building in the town- city hall!  Might a golf course which is not otherwise competing directly with a taxpayer be Ok, maybe?


And No, this tiger has not changed his spots.  I often wonder what would happen if all property owners without regard to profit motive had to pay property taxes.  Might the base be much larger thus requiring substantially lower rates?  Would the use and costs then be more congruent with the benefits?  Just saying, the Taj Mahals we build on humongous sites for public schools down here are incredible.

[archie_struthers]

 


We got back a long way Lou, and I'd say we agree on most things relative to governmental intervention. Given I'm not totally privy to your info on the community in question I'd still be surprised if even you could persuade me the pitfalls outweigh the benefits. Having seen so much rank corruption and lack of discipline in developing and operating like courses it's really hard to get even a little fuzzy despite my love of the game. In the end golf remains a luxury to me and not a right. Better to spend  the public funds on less fortunate than ourselves.


Our city built a new high school about fifteen years ago for around $40,000,000 dollars. We are a wealthy community in the most part given that the majority of the residents live here part time in second homes. It's a barrier island so construction isn't cheap and has to respond to various building codes that impose lots of extra costs. So I think the $40m number was pretty good given the vagaries of construction. Kudos to the engineers. A town about 50 miles away was proposing building a similar one in size and scope on the mainland where costs should be lower and workers more accessible. They were proposing a $153 million dollar construction budget....over $100,000,000 more.   Seems a perfect place for John Stossel to land !   

[Ian Mackenzie]

All courses, regardless of classification, are closed in the state of Illinois, Michigan, New York, etc.


Yes, I believe it to be extreme when 1000 sq ft liquor stores and 500 sq ft cannabis dispensaries are open but golf courses on 125 acres are closed.


There’s a line around the block to get into the Sunnyside Dispensary. (Two blocks from wrigley field.)
Fucked up world when the Gov’t says you can go out, buy booze and weed and get toasted. But, you can’t tee it up with your pals or ride a bike in a park.

[Tim Martin]

Easy on the Mary Jane. It’s a time of crisis

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes, I believe it to be extreme when 1000 sq ft liquor stores and 500 sq ft cannabis dispensaries are open but golf courses on 125 acres are closed.

Someone posted yesterday that because grocery stores often carry alcohol, by allowing liquor stores to open, you could actually be lessening the density of people going to grocery stores if they need alcohol or tobacco or something. HIs argument made some sense, but of course only if people would otherwise be going out. If they're making extra trips just to buy the alcohol, that's not really helpful.

Plus the states tax those things fairly heavily, I think… so it may be benefitting them as well? I don't know. I'm not very political to say the least.

[Jason Thurman]

Nah, I don't get a kick out of stirring the pot or, for the most part, telling people how they should conduct their lives.


With the caveat that golf as a business tends to be localized- even within a large city, the various parts face very different realities- there are many areas where the price of land and regulation (interesting how the two run in tandem) makes it prohibitive for a profit-seeking entity to build a golf course.  I live is one such area that has enjoyed high growth for quite some time, fueled in good part by high-paying jobs created by companies with strong sales and earnings relocating here.


I am in the minimalist camp not only in golf architecture, but even more so when it comes to government, especially at the federal level.  Closest to the people, with local government, in theory but certainly not in practice (reference typically dismal voter participation in local elections), at least a good portion of those paying the bills have an indirect say on how the money is spent.


So, if a wealthy city, with ample resources after having met all the needs of the community (as determined by its leaders and eligible voters) is keen to spend $10+ Million for public access to a local golf course that less than 10% of the population will directly enjoy, then I guess that it can be said "Well Done!" (tongue-in-cheek, but we're talking about a 1st World problem, right?).


I understand that the city under this scenario could lower its tax rates and allow property owners and consumers to directly spend their own money in better ways, but that would be too much out of character- you know the story of the hammer and the nail, just as the hammer must pound nails, the government must govern.  If not a golf course, would a money-losing concert hall or miles and miles of wide, beautifully landscaped, manicured medians with ornate street lights be a better use of "the people's" money?  Or better yet, how about "investing" in the most expensive building in the town- city hall!  Might a golf course which is not otherwise competing directly with a taxpayer be Ok, maybe?


And No, this tiger has not changed his spots.  I often wonder what would happen if all property owners without regard to profit motive had to pay property taxes.  Might the base be much larger thus requiring substantially lower rates?  Would the use and costs then be more congruent with the benefits?  Just saying, the Taj Mahals we build on humongous sites for public schools down here are incredible.

+1

[archie_struthers]

 




"as determined by it's leaders"




and therein lies the problem


stay healthy...archie

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()