City to close golf course holes

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

The city ought to just sell most of its courses. I had no idea it had that many links under its control. But, then again, I'm not a duffer.

Has privatization been looked at, and would we talking about amusement investors like, say, Bells?

quote:Originally posted by teddy jack eddy

Frankly, I'm glad to see the City stop subsidizing golf courses when we badly need freeway lighting

The money we waste on inappropriate, misplaced and inefficient streetlighting is itself staggering.  You only need freeway/expressway lighting at interchanges (other states have been doing that for decades).  Continuous end-to-end lighting is intended for streets with pedestrians (and were not supposed to be inviting pedestrians onto expressways anyways).
If the city properly maintained reflective lines and Raised Pavement Markers you wouldnt even notice the difference.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

It's not a hard thing not to do at all....She's not looking at the big picture...Like the residual income that golf makes for the subsidy spent which is hard to measure....I dont golf but have alot of friends that do....And believe me when people golf they are out doing something they enjoy and spending money not just at the course....All over town....Not to mention the fact golf is something all ages of men and women can do....This is an extremely bad move...

I thought that the "big picture" is that we have something like 378 holes in the metro.

[Porky]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is no way the courses at Mohawk made money.

I played all summer long when the weather was super hot. We would not see more than a couple of other foursomes during the entire afternoon.

The cost that golf courses try to operate on is $600 a day. Unless the owners of the course have to make a loan payment on the course, it only takes about one hour of tee times a day to cover the cost.

IMO Mohack made a mistake but shorting up the front nine of Woodvine. They should of built a par 3 course for the youngsters to learn their game on.

[Porky]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

The city ought to just sell most of its courses. I had no idea it had that many links under its control. But, then again, I'm not a duffer.

Has privatization been looked at, and would we talking about amusement investors like, say, Bells?

They can't sell Mohack but Page they can. There have been developers for years trying to buy one of the courses (on Page) to put homes on. It wouldn't surprise me that this is what actually is going on and our Mayor wants to bring that revenue in to help her non-effort budget.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Porky

quote:Originally posted by teddy jack eddy


Frankly, I'm glad to see the City stop subsidizing golf courses when we badly need freeway lighting, and more money budgeted towards street repairs.

The City shouldn't be in the golf course business, and neither should the County, in my opinion.

My question is why are they subsidizing the golf courses, both these courses are money makers.

uh, that's completely 100% false. Take away the City subsidy from the general fund and the two golf courses would've LOST a combined $1.6 million last year.

They don't pay for themselves. Your tax money pays to keep them open, instead of paying for more police officers or fixing more potholes.

Funny, how the elimination of this particular government subsidy has the "small government" people crying foul.

[AMP]

Kansas pours money into their motorsports entertainment venues that are privatly owned!

All the tracks in the Tulsa area are free standing from the government after Tulsa Speedway #2 was evicted off the Fairgrounds.  

By the way it was a large money maker with 13,000 in the stands on most Saturday nights during racing season.  Not to mention the entertainment of the tax payers and tourist values it created for the area.  

Perhaps that 1.6 Million would of been better spent returning motorsports including autoracing to Expo Square versus mowing countless acers of grass every summer.  

Wonder what the numbers are on Fair Meadows for the past 5 seasons?

Topeka invests in entertainment venue

"A GREAT City provides entertainment for people with a wide variety of interests."

Topeka Kansas, the State of Kansas all provided massive funding for improvements at the Heartland Park motorsports facility in Topeka.  

"Raymond Irwin, who acquired Heartland Park in 2003, using his own money and some financial help from the city and the state, has made close to $20 million worth of improvements."

"The city recently provided $5 million for improvements at Heartland Park Topeka. If the improvements last 10 years, that means Topeka will have given an average of $500,000 a year to Heartland Park. That was an important project, but a great city provides entertainment for people with a wide variety of interests."

[AMP]

http://hpt.com/store/catalog/

[Porky]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by Porky

quote:Originally posted by teddy jack eddy


Frankly, I'm glad to see the City stop subsidizing golf courses when we badly need freeway lighting, and more money budgeted towards street repairs.

The City shouldn't be in the golf course business, and neither should the County, in my opinion.

My question is why are they subsidizing the golf courses, both these courses are money makers.

uh, that's completely 100% false. Take away the City subsidy from the general fund and the two golf courses would've LOST a combined $1.6 million last year.

They don't pay for themselves. Your tax money pays to keep them open, instead of paying for more police officers or fixing more potholes.

Funny, how the elimination of this particular government subsidy has the "small government" people crying foul.

Not false at all but the question is why the courses are losing $1.6 mil a year.

But seeing that it is ran by your city government of Tulsa, no telling where all the money is going. My guess is work has been done on the courses by the Good Ole Boys network and they are being overpaid.

As much as I like golf, I too think it is BS for the city to be losing money on these courses. But the problem isn't with the golfers but with the typical poor city management of Tulsa.

[NellieBly]

Just because I like to play golf I am selfish? FORE! You sliced that one!

[NellieBly]

I would rather 'subsidize' a golf course or other recreational area for $10 than EMSA for $3.50. My taxes should be used for improvements to our ailing parks, streets, police, fire, etc. not to line the pockets of a private company.

If they wanted to make a profit or even break even on the golf course, it's possible. The courses are run down and with so much competition vying for players, it's difficult due to those poor conditions. Golf is at an all time high in terms of popularity. Look what the county did at LaFortune. They spent money, redid an old worn out course and now, it's hard to get a tee time there.

[rwarn17588]

<Porky wrote:

Not false at all but the question is why the courses are losing $1.6 mil a year.

But seeing that it is ran by your city government of Tulsa, no telling where all the money is going. My guess is work has been done on the courses by the Good Ole Boys network and they are being overpaid.

As much as I like golf, I too think it is BS for the city to be losing money on these courses. But the problem isn't with the golfers but with the typical poor city management of Tulsa.

<end clip>

I think the big problem is competition. Nearly 10 years ago, I remember an article in BusinessWeek or some other finance magazine (I can't remember which) that noted a high rate of new golf courses being built in the United States and that competitive pressures would force a number of them to close.

Someone said here that the Tulsa area has 372 greens in the region. When you've got the equivalent of more than 20 18-hole courses going against each other, something is bound to shake out. And the first casualties usually are public courses, which typically have to keep their green fees low to keep their customers. Hence, a subsidy that no longer is financially tenable.

Cut it loose. There are more important things to spend taxpayer money.

[TulsaSooner]

The City courses ARE run by private companies rather than City staff are they not?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

I would rather 'subsidize' a golf course or other recreational area for $10 than EMSA for $3.50. My taxes should be used for improvements to our ailing parks, streets, police, fire, etc. not to line the pockets of a private company.

If they wanted to make a profit or even break even on the golf course, it's possible. The courses are run down and with so much competition vying for players, it's difficult due to those poor conditions. Golf is at an all time high in terms of popularity. Look what the county did at LaFortune. They spent money, redid an old worn out course and now, it's hard to get a tee time there.

How'd you feel about the proposal to have the Fire Dept to take over EMSA's duties?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

Kansas pours money into their motorsports entertainment venues that are privatly owned!

All the tracks in the Tulsa area are free standing from the government after Tulsa Speedway #2 was evicted off the Fairgrounds.  

By the way it was a large money maker with 13,000 in the stands on most Saturday nights during racing season.  Not to mention the entertainment of the tax payers and tourist values it created for the area.  

Perhaps that 1.6 Million would of been better spent returning motorsports including autoracing to Expo Square versus mowing countless acers of grass every summer.  

Wonder what the numbers are on Fair Meadows for the past 5 seasons?

Topeka invests in entertainment venue

"A GREAT City provides entertainment for people with a wide variety of interests."

Topeka Kansas, the State of Kansas all provided massive funding for improvements at the Heartland Park motorsports facility in Topeka.  

"Raymond Irwin, who acquired Heartland Park in 2003, using his own money and some financial help from the city and the state, has made close to $20 million worth of improvements."

"The city recently provided $5 million for improvements at Heartland Park Topeka. If the improvements last 10 years, that means Topeka will have given an average of $500,000 a year to Heartland Park. That was an important project, but a great city provides entertainment for people with a wide variety of interests."

Tulsa Speedway hit 13,000 a couple of times when Hugh Finnerty was the promoter, and I believe those were during the fair during the early years of the 5/8 mile track ('74 to '76).  The Tulsa Sunday World used to have a great racing recap and they would publish crowd numbers- usually 7,000 to 8,000.  Finnerty was a great promoter, we had the nicest dirt track in the world at that time, and there was plenty of money available for racing.

Starting in 1982, in response to the deaths of Jr. Taft and Gene Daniel the previous year, they enlarged the 1/4 mile to 3/8 and moved the open wheel cars 100 feet or further from the fans.  Coupled with the oil bust, that dipped fans to an average of 3,500 to 4,000 and hurt the car counts.

If auto racing would bring more tourism dollars here other than the Chili Bowl, an investment in it might make sense.  Kansas Speedway and Heartland park bring in tourism dollars.  It's sort of apples and oranges in the context you are looking at it.  Weekly racing with weekend warriors really doesn't import money to a local economy, at least not nearly at the volume it does for touring series like NASCAR, IRL, or NHRA.

[Conan71]

I believe I mentioned the golf courses when we were examining the city budget on some threads under politics and suggested leasing.

There's no need to sell the property.  The city needs to get out of the golf and groundskeeping business.  They could lease the courses out to operators, let them run it for profit and the leases become a net income and remove all budgetary risk for the city.  Private enterprise seems to have a better track record at running profitable businesses than governments do.