An invitation for yet another reader-interactive WCF blogging experience
This morning's Standard-Examiner reports that last night's Mount Ogden Golf Course Committee (formerly Boss Godfrey's Secret Stealth Committee) went off as planned last night, with an apparently lively debate, pitting The "Skipper" and various other Godfrey clones, (who favor Godfrey's $8 million dollar course makeover) against against a number of "moderates," (who advocate a more minimalist approach... one that won't bust the Emerald City treasury.)
Aside from the fact that Jeff DeMoss informs us that the committee failed to fulfill its prime agenda, (putting Godfrey's multi-million dollar scheme onto a fast-track,) Mr. DeMoss's report is otherwise somewhat meager as to the facts. Accordingly, we'll take the opportunity to cultivate another reader-interactive blogging experience, and cordially invite any gentle readers who attended this meeting to supplement what Mr. DeMoss has written and to chime in with their own mini-reports.
Please fill us in, gentle readers.
The entire blogosphere is sitting on the edges of their seats, craving info on what really happened last night.
Whatever you do... don't let the cat get your tongues.
28 comments:
Rudi:
You wrote: The entire blogosphere is sitting on the edges of their seats, craving info on what really happened last night.
If you don't know what the facts are, how can you fairly conclude that the SE did not accurately report them, that the SE story is not a sound summary of what really happened at the meeting?
I wasn't there. Mr. Schwebke's story may well have accurately summarized what happened. Or it may not have. I'm just uneasy about assuming [with no reasons given] that it did not.
LOL, Curm. Feeling a mite cranky this morning, I see.
For the record, I didn't say that the reporting was "inaccurate." The word I used was "meager."
By way of background, I've already talked to several folks who attended the meeting who've privately reported to me last night's meeting was quite lively.
Consider this morning's latest article an editorial "setup." I anticipate several of our readers fleshing out the story during the ensuing day.
Mr. Schwebke was not the bylined reporter. It was bylined "Jeff DeMoss".
Thanks for the correction, Mono. Sadly, this is what happens when your blogmeister composes articles on the fly. I've now fixed the problem in the main article text.
S'alright, Rudi. We all make mistakes.
I want to follow up on the Washington Post article and electoral-vote.com commentary I put up yesterday, in that day's golf course thread.
Today on Politico, they're using a new feature called "The Arena" to debate a related question: why doesn't the press call out lying politicians anymore?
This, from Lawrence Lessig:
The press is trapped by the view that it can't say what's true if that would be seen to have an effect on an election. Think about the New York Times' decision to withhold what it knew about the Bush Administration until after the 2004 election, for fear that if it had revealed that before the election, it would have been called "biased." Somehow we need to elevate the idea that truth is a complete defense to the charge of bias. Armed with that complete defense, I suspect more would be willing to call the McCain campaign on this shameful misuse of what Obama said. Talk about a question of judgment: If a student of mine had read what Obama said in context, and then suggested he was really talking about Palin, I would seriously worry about whether we should arm that student with a law degree. But a law degree is a much less dangerous power than the Presidency.
[emphasis mine]
You can find The Arena feature of Politico here.
Mono:
Exactly.
I attended most of the golf course committee meeting. First time I'd ever been up to the 9th floor. The little conference room held only about 10 people, but there were about 10 more of us sitting just outside the doors, looking in. Attendees included council members Jeske and Stephens, former council member Van Hooser, and several folks who seemed to be quite knowledgable about the golf course. There were no administration staff present other than the secretary who took minutes. The mayor came out of his office at about 5:45 and made a bee line for the elevator, avoiding eye contact. John Patterson was sitting in his office for another hour or so, eyes glued to his computer screen.
The first portion of the meeting was basically spent going around the table and giving the committee members a chance to offer opinions on what sorts of improvements they think the golf course needs. Some said the main need is a full-fledged driving range. Others said the main issue is topography and layout of the fairways and greens. And so on. Although it was clear that the committee members had invested a lot of time thinking about these things, and talking to staff and the city's consultant, ultimately all they really had to offer were impressions. There was no evidence that they had done any serious analysis.
Then the committee's principal dissenter, Hoyle Sorenson, spent over half an hour reading a prepared statement summarizing the recommendations of his "subcommittee" (composed mostly of people who aren't on the main committee). They're recommending a specific list of detailed improvements to the course whose cost would total somewhat less than $400,000. Nearly half of this would be for improvements to the golf cart trails. Petersen, however, pointed out that upgrading the irrigation system is not included in the subcommittee's total cost. He and everyone else used a figure of $2.5 million for the cost of upgrading the irrigation system, although nobody said where this figure came from.
After Sorenson finished, Petersen took him to task for allegedly leaking the name of Jon Garner, the city's supposedly secret consultant. Sorenson replied that Garner never asked the committee to keep his name secret.
Then Petersen opened the floor for comments from the others in attendance. First to speak was Don Wilson, who firmly told Petersen that Jon Garner's name was no secret, as his initials had been on the map that was displayed at the mayor's open house in March. Many others spoke in turn, with most of the comments challenging the alleged need for a complete redesign of the course. There seemed to be general agreement that even if there is a major redesign, this would not guarantee the level of use needed for the course to break even, especially in the current weak economy. There was quite a bit of discussion about the course's outstanding debt and whether the city council could simply forgive the debt. In my own brief comments, I pointed out that the course once had over 60,000 rounds played per year, that its design hasn't changed since then, and that El Monte's use has actually increased in recent years as Mt. Ogden's use has declined. These facts seem to indicate that much of the current problem is a result of managment issues, not design.
The meeting was still going on when I left at about 7:45 pm, more than two hours after it began.
With the exception of Hoyle Sorenson's subcommittee report, the Peterson committee discussions followed predictable lines - bad design, blah, blah. Obviously, Kent Peterson was irritated by Sorenson's conclusions and accused him of violating the committee's confidentiality agreement with Mr. Garner and attempting to "hijack" the committee efforts. Soreson's report was anything but complimentary to either Peterson's leadership or the city's position.
The committee seems determined to dance around the edges of the real solution for a sensible fix of MO's problem, i.e., get rid of the yoke of indebtedness - pay off, write off, whatever, and put the course on a level playing field. With this as a starting point, some of the suggestions to make the course "profitable" take on a different meaning.
The committee philosophy seems to be "let's fix the course" so that it can make money and pay down its indebtedness. Simply stated, that ain't gonna work! The debt is self perpetuating and is compounding itself faster than any realistic net gain at the bottom line regardless of whatever approach is taken to "fix" the course, i.e. assuming it needs fixing in the first place.
As a municipal, mountain type course, a break-even outlook is a lot more realistic. The comments offered by the public were interesting and generally didn't seem supportive of the city's bulldozer approach. The committee studiously avoided mention of the obvious disconnect between the Golf Digest take on MO and the Garner/Nicklaus/Godfrey/Brenkman and K.Peterson mucho dinero approach.
Despite the fact that the peanut gallery exceeded the available space several times over, the powers that be were happy with the overflow crowd occupying the foyer outside the conference room - after all, they're only taxpayers and besides, who invited them anyway.
From my vantage point in a corner, I was pleased to see both Dorrene Jeske and Doug Stevens in attendance as well as the VanHooters and the other usual suspects - and the list goes on.
All in all, a good though predictable meeting thanks to the open meeting law. BTW it appears that Jeff DeMoss is a minimalist and also very good at following the dictates of his bosses at the SE - "don't give the suckers an even break".
DWilson:
You wrote: BTW it appears that Jeff DeMoss is a minimalist and also very good at following the dictates of his bosses at the SE - "don't give the suckers an even break".
Just re-read the SE story. Sorry, Don, but based on what folks have posted here so far, your criticisms seem off target to me. First, as for DeMoss being "a minimalist:" you need to consider how much space he had available for the story. The SE doesn't have unlimited space in its print edition. Posters on WCF can put up, and when I've been at Council sessions and posted on them here, I have put up much much longer and more detailed accounts that took up far more space than the SE reporter had to work with.
Second, DeMoss seems to have caught to gist of the meeting, and of the POVs contending, and the lack of any decision or resolution pretty well, and to have summarized them accurately. Nothing that's been posted here so far indicates DeMoss's story was inaccurate.
And it did contain the interesting information that one of the committee members wants to boost the greens fees at MOGC high enough to raise the six million plus to pay for the redesign... an action absolutely guaranteed to reduce rounds played annually even more.
While we might like the SE to devote more column inches to stories like this, seems to me the reporter did a decent job reporting the meeting in the space he had available to him.
Everyone misses the main issue:
Teeny issue:
What kind of job the paper did in their reporting for this story.
Small issue:
The staggering, torpid "Skipper" Kent Peterson, sans his little buddy, Gilligan or Godfrey take your pick, is following predictable lines.
Big issue:
Don, Dorrene, and Dan were there, and Dan wrote it all up for us.
HUGE ISSUE:
Susan VanHooser was there. Susan, tell us it's in your blood, that you want your old seat back and you intend to take it from the appalling, sleazy, corrupt, condescending, vile, diabolical Godfrey subordinate demon Blaine Johnson!
Say it IS so, Susie!
(Think about it, next election Dorrene wins, Susie wins, you got 4 decent council members right there. Add Jesse and Doug, or pick up someone else decent in those seats if they don't run and Beelzebub Brandon is alone. Otherwise, Blain wins, add two, and we are screwed.)
A thank you to committee member Mike Mathieu for his voice of truth and sanity:
Committee member Mike Mathieu, son of local golf legend Henry Mathieu, said poor initial design is the main reason the golf course is more than $2 million in debt.
"That's the main reason the masses of golfers don't play there," Mathieu said. "We wouldn't be here if it was designed properly in the first place."
He didn't say the only reason. He said the MAIN reason. Sure MOGC needs improved cart paths, wider fairways, more carts, and a new irrigation system, but these improvements alone won't bring the golfers back.
Why do Ogden City golfers drive an hour to Smithfield to play Birch Creek? Why do we drive 20-30 minutes to play Valley View or Davis Park? Why do we drive 10-15 minutes to play the Barn when Mt. Ogden is in our backyard? Because we spend our money on courses we enjoy playing.
When asked about why Valley View was chosen as the next site of the Utah State Amateur, UGA director Joe Watts said among other reasons:
"Our best amateur players love Valley View."
Yes, they had to add on to the clubhouse to receive consideration, but not even a new, bigger, more accomodating clubhouse at MT. Ogden would put it on the short list of courses considered. With the exception of a few (literally) local loyalists, MOGC is not revered by our best amateurs, nor by most of the general public. That's why we don't play it given other options. Valley View, on the other hand, is well respected for its challenging AND playable layout.
What qualifies the Skipper to chair a committee evaluating a golf course? I know two things about this unrepentant and unabashed Godfreyite: he made a pile of money when he sold his dealerships to Bob Garff; he lost a shitload of money to Wayne Ogden and over $5 million in a diamond mine scam. Apparently, he's also been astute enough to make the Garff conglomerate lease his property, rather than buy, which is why they're moving to the digs formerly occupied by Willie's, run by Billy H., he of the pectoral and calf implants. Does this Petersen clown know how to pick up, or has he ever picked up, a golf club and, if so, was it used as a substitute scepter when he and Cavendish used to get all dolled up in gold lame paint, colonial costumes and wigs, in order to reenact a certain scene from JFK by Oliver Stone?
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
What's your rationale for attacking MOGC, Garner, one of his subordinates, or a Godfreyite who calls himself Boo? Oh, yeah, I get it: a hefty contract. Look, you already pay dues to that shithole OG&CC, so stay there and let the people of Ogden enjoy our fine municipal track at reasonable rates, and let the public at large keep hold of our course property that is part of a larger park complex. Of course, please come play the Monster whenever you feel capable; we even let douchebags in slacks join us F-dudes.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Totally off topic here, but Jason, you are so darn eloquent in your posting! ;)
Thanks for the art of stating the obvious, and in the EXACT manner I would if I were so blessed!
I'm almost jealous of your ability, my friend! YOU ROCK!
I'm an F-dudette wannabe, I guess!
Well Churm, I couldn't agree with you less. You're usual apologetic rationalizations concerning the local rag seem to lack a certain degree of perspective since to my knowledge, you didn't attend the subject meeting.
As far as I'm concerned, your excuses for DeMoss and his employer are way off the mark. In typical SE fashion there is one POV expressed in the DeMoss piece. Available space and be damned. Either its worth reporting and reporting correctly-without bias, or it isn't. I don't often post on the WCF but I read the blog diligently and frankly old boy, I believe you are overdoing the contrary, curmudgeon schtick to the point of becoming tiresome.
BTW, I don't believe I said that DeMoss did a bad job. As a matter of fact, he did a very good job of reporting only one side of the story. I call that bias. What do you call it Churm.
I realize that you are legendary on the WCF and a force to be reckoned with but I would like to request that before you pontificate on matters of which you have no first hand knowledge - a good deal happened in over two hours of this meeting - you spend a few minutes and researh your subject a bit
Don:
You wrote: In typical SE fashion there is one POV expressed in the DeMoss piece.
I'm beginning to wonder if you read the DeMoss story, all the way to the jump page? He gave four paragraphs to describing Sorenson's objections to Peterson's plan, including Sorenson's objections to the Nicklaus firm's planned butchery of the course. Hardly counts as including only one POV, now does it?
Second, you wrote "Available space be damned." Easy for you to say. You weren't the reporter filing the story and you weren't told how much space you had available to you, nor were you the editor deciding how much space to reserve for a story about a meeting that was running well after the paper's normal deadline. Editors and reporters work under restraints regarding space that, happily, you and I don't work under posting here at WCF. [Thanks again, Rudi.]
Of course I wasn't at the meeting. Said so in my post. Also said, and you've given me no reason to change my mind , that based on what those who were there have posted here.. mostly you and Bill... the SE story seems to have been a reasonably good summary of the main points of the meeting [given the space available]. Other than claiming, falsely, that DeMoss reported only one POV expressed at the meeting, you offered nothing to support your claim that the reporter, on this story, was biased and towing the administration line. Nada. Nothing.
As for this: I believe you are overdoing the contrary, curmudgeon schtick to the point of becoming tiresome. Well, Don, I could... and will... simply reply that the endless and often [but not always] unreasonable bashing of the SE also gets pretty tiresome. I pile onto the SE hard when I think it has screwed up... and it does. But the sometimes mindless bashing of the SE reporting that goes on at WCF at times is, well, tripe. And when tripe is served up... by the SE or by a fellow poster at WCF... then tripe it shall be called.
[Think Hizzonah was overjoyed to see this morning the Geiger/favoritism story on the front page of the paper you seem to think he has in his pocket? I don't.]
The Standard is a third rate rag
with fourth rate hacks posing as
first rate reporters. Any one that has spent any time at all reading good newspapers knows that.
Curmudgeon is just trying to live up to his nom de plume "curmudgeon" which I believe means a mean old contrary man. From what I have heard from a former student that is opposite of what he really is - a gentle and kind teddy bear as well as a very bright and agile debater.
Sara:
And anyone who has read rally bad newspapers [as I have], knows that the SE is not one of them.
Look, it's not a great small city paper. It's not the paper it could... and should... be. But it is a long long way from the bottom rank of small city dailies.
As for the former student's comments... Lies! All lies!
My, Dear friend Curm, I was surprized at your most recent mistake, I have yet to weigh in on this post, so far you ain't heard nothin yet.
Don's charaterzation of the SE story is quite accurrate. Without your being there you should know better than to blindly defend Mr. DeMoss so whole heartedly. That said, I don't know what transpired at the SE, but this write up was pretty much BS. Oh, and Garner, we figured it was you posting as Boo. You should have been there as well, you might have choked on some of Mathiu's comments that didn't make the paper.
It's taken most the day to calm down from hearing some idiots working with bad information supplied by the lying little mayor, and a preordained conclussion dictated by the same lying little mayor, and verified pretty much by members of the skipper's own committee, badmouth our golf course.
There was a whole bunch of very interesting and pertanent things that were ommitted from the report.
How about the fact that 2 of the committee members questioned their own validity of being on the committee, and it wasn't skipper or Lindquist.(why he's there is anyone's guess) And the funny thing is, I liked those guys, honest, unlike Mathiu and skipper.
How about the obvious conclussion that there's nothing, I repeat nothing that even hints at validating the idea of spending 8 million dollars and ruining what has been a very successful muni golf course,(till lying little matty got in) could ever pay off, the burden of the all ready exsisting questionable debt is too much to handle. But this is the direction lying little matty instructed the skipper to pursue. Anyone that still has doubts about that needs to know that not only was moving the clubhouse mandatory in skipper and Boo'S, I meant Garner's directive, but now they've included a snowboarding halfpipe to be built somewhere on the golf course. I don't know if the skipper has considered the fact that making artificial snow would be required and would add even more to the proposal. Sounds pretty godfrey to me. I thought this committee was about the golf course.
Here's a real good one left out of the paper, the president of Ben Lomand spoke, their course numbers almost mirror Mt.Ogden's in terms of declining rounds. Had some great reasons for it and none were course design related, ecconomy and market forces. Lots of golf courses nearby, all of them hurting.
By their own admission none of this committee even considered the state of the ecconomy or the fact that every other new recreational activity cuts into someone elses slice of the pie. Alot of golfers have taken up fishing due to costs.
Curm, I could go on, but it's getting late and my blood is begining to boil again. Good night.
Mike Mathieu is a chickenshit mayoral kiss ass. He's only looking out for his sweet retire in place job the the little lord has given him as long as he continues to kiss the midgets ass.
Mathieu wont even stick up for what is right when it comes to public safety, he swings right to the Mayors ass fo some more ass kissing. The only interest Mike Mathieu has is for himself, the publics best interest is not in his sights.
Bill:
When you write things like this... How about the obvious conclusion that there's nothing, I repeat nothing, that even hints at validating the idea of spending 8 million dollars and ruining what has been a very successful muni golf course,(till lying little matty got in) could ever pay off... I wonder if what you wanted was an editorial, not a report on a meeting.
As for my allegedly blindly defending Mr. DeMoss, you should have noted that I defended the article as an accurate summary based on what those who had been there, including you, had posted here on WCF. You have now added a great deal to your former account of the meeting, containing much neither you nor Don nor anyone else had mentioned before. Mind reading is not among my limited talents, Bill.
Second, to have included summaries of all you think should have been included would have taken an article at least twice, and probably three or four times, as long as the one that appeared. Again, the meeting ended well after the paper's normal deadline. In such cases, I think the editors reserve a fixed amount of space for a late filing. And that's all the reporter has available.
What you wanted, I think, was a long analysis of the meeting, the various views and arguments expressed. I agree, that would be interesting to read. But that was not Mr. DeMoss's job, which was simply to summarize the main points of the meeting rapidly in the space available to him. I don't think he did a bad job of that, still.
I do agree that committee members questioning their own placement on the committee was newsworthy, and I would have found a way to include that.
Want to push the SE to do a long probing and analytic piece on the MOGT matter? Let me know. I'll chime in. But that was not DeMoss's assignment last night.
I want to personally thank the subcommittee for their detailed forensics on the needed improvements at Mt. Ogden. They obviously put a lot of work and thought into it and I felt came up with excellent suggestions to fit the course. The subcommittee’s suggested improvements can be accomplished for about $400,000 and that is without doing any work to the sprinkler system that appears to be on barrowed time. The sprinkler system will cost between 2 and 2 ½ million dollars in either scenario (modification to the existing course or total rebuild of the course). In addition to the modest improvements to the course itself the subcommittee suggested improved signage to the course and advertising.
One of the full committee members suggested that the original course was poorly designed and that the only way to fix it was to start over again. Unfortunately the redesign will most likely cost a lot more money that what we are even being told it will cost at 6 to 8 million dollars and moving the club house alone will cost over two million dollars and it wont help the playability of the course one bit. Most in attendance felt the current club house location was perfect and there was no need to relocate it. By moving the club house to 36th Street would be counter to the just approved Mt. Ogden General Plan. When Golf Digest gives the course a 4 star rating you have to ask yourself, how bad is it really?
Susie Van Hooser suggested that we use channel 17 to promote the course which was an excellent idea.
Another gentleman suggested that the existing club house start selling more to the soccer and tennis players and the attendees to those events. Suggesting that the concessionaire could actually establish a facility closer to the soccer fields that sold cold drinks and hotdogs. He also suggested that we find a location to develop a driving range so that people could hit a bucket of balls before they tee off or so that lessons could be taught at the course. These were excellent ideas as well.
It was suggested by another resident in attendance that the City cope with (or continue to bandage) the existing sprinkler system for a couple of years and that we immediately institute the suggested improvements to the course that the subcommittee came up with to see if their modestly priced improvements to the course yielded the improvements to the bottom line. I personally thought this was a great idea. If after a couple of years the course does not financially improve then at that time the City could look at more drastic measures.
One of the gentlemen in attendance was a very successful financial business individual and was on the board of directors at the Ben Lomond Golf Course. He pointed out several facts about the golf industry as a whole and provided specifics about the local market. I don’t think he made anyone on either side of the discussions particularly comfortable with his observations of the local golf industry and the transition that have taken place in the recent years to all operators of golf courses. He did suggest that the redesign of the course with a price tag of 6 to 8 million dollars probably was not a wise idea. He felt that the one immediate thing that the City should do is raise their fees by two to four dollars per round. Another thought to consider.
Several people mentioned that the City should eliminate the debt but Mr. Peterson indicated that the mayor had told him that because of the type of debt that it was on the City books that the debt could not be written off. I personally find that hard to swallow considering the mayor recently wrote off 6 million of debt from the RDA that was loaned to the RDA from several different departments within the city. If the City wants to write off the debt I assure you there is a way. Even if the course is loaned money to payoff the debt from another internal city source and then that source writes off their debt to the city (Council should be aware that the City is moving money around through various departments all the time and some for just this type of ultimate purpose).
If the debt were to be removed, if the course received the subcommittee recommended modifications, if additional carts were to be added to the operation, if green fees were modestly raised and if the concessionaire sold to more that just the people that walk up to their existing counter, I think it would go a long way to achieving the financial goals for the course that the City would like to see. All of these actions for the most part could be taken with very little money (debt elimination aside) and within a short period of time.
Curmudgeon the cuddly teddy bear! You sound like my kind of man. I'm too old for new children, but would you consider being the father of my puppies? I'll wear a teddy if you'll be my bear;-)
Why won't the city administration show the residents a copy of the proposed new golf course?
Let the residents, the people that are being asked to pay for it, have a look at it.
Og Resident:
Thank you for the detailed account of the public comments at the meeting. Interesting and informative.
Some questions, and a few thoughts:
How much are the current green fees at Mount Ogden? How much are the cart fees? Perhaps the combined rates have become too high for many of Ogden's residents to justify. A cart is almost mandatory because there’s too much distance between greens and tees on many of the holes. The price of lost golf balls is another concern. “It takes a lot of balls to play Mount Ogden Golf Course”, should be a bumper sticker, or lapel button.
How many rounds are played in the afternoons, as compared to the mornings? Does the ratio change on the weekends? If there is a lack of golfers in the afternoons, maybe the fees could be reduced. Say, after 1pm or 3pm. That strategy works in other locales, and additional earnings are produced. It was used at El Monte, for morning tee times, in the past. The extremely windy mornings used to keep many golfers away....until the prices were lowered in the mornings. My apologies if El Monte and Mount Ogden are currently using the above tactics.
How much revenue does the MOGC snack bar generate, per player round? Compare that amount to The Barn, Riverside and Valley View. The snack bar should be producing a good cash flow for the golf course. Many golfers eat and drink, before and/or after golf. A snack bar with easy access would be more conducive to producing a good income. The aroma from fresh coffee, cinnamon rolls or burgers and onions, wafting through the air, could help. The current snack bar’s location does not take advantage of the aroma gambit, or easy access.
A good driving range is a definite money maker and useful amenity. Warming up with a small bucket of balls, prior to teeing off, is smart golf, especially at a tough course. Many golfers frequent driving ranges without playing golf. A round of golf takes a lot of time that many golfers don’t have. Hitting a bucket of balls, at a nice golf course, is a reasonable alternative.
The layout of the holes at Mount Ogden is questionable. Golf Digest’s opinion has merit, but many local golfers aren’t buying it. Factual information, plans and details, should be reviewed objectively. Perhaps by outside professionals. Their recommendations could then be considered.
The existing club house is perfect....for soccer and tennis, maybe some hikers and park users. A more useful golfers facility, properly designed and built, should be located in an optimum location. A commanding view of the mountains, city, and lake, should be completely utilized. The current club house is Bush League, and Bush has performed poorly. It's a good thing his reign is almost over. The existing club house could certainly be remodeled, but that would be like putting “lipstick on a pig.” Please don’t foolishly twist my words if you are a McCain/Palin devotee.
Early in MOGC history, a local contractor offered to design and build the original club house. He would provide his own financing. Upon completion, the new club house would be leasedto the city. Unfortunately, the city refused and had inexpensive plans drawn up. The resulting club house was then built, cheaply and poorly. The results are evident. It's conceivable that a similar lease situation could be negotiated, and realized.
Thank you for your time, and consideration. I’m somewhat sorry for the political references, but not much. It is, after all, almost November.
caddyhack is that you boo radley. sure sounds like you just with a little lipstick on.
still trying to drive home the same points just with a softer sell.
only new point. is the course overpriced. just the opposite.
Five reader Comments moved to new thread
Post a Comment