Posted on 01/13/2019 6:34:45 AM PST by dennisw
When Mitch Steller first moved into his house on a lush 117-acre golf course in Southern California, this was like the Garden of Eden, having a golf course in my backyard, he said.
Today, his Poway, Calif., home overlooks dry, dead grass in place of a once-verdant fairway. The golf club closed in 2017. The fairways are brown, the greens are gone, the buildings are being vandalized, says Mr. Steller, a 70-year-old maritime-management consultant.
Forty years after developers started blanketing the Sunbelt with housing developments built around golf, many courses are closing amid a decline in golf participation, leaving homeowners to grapple with the consequences. People often believe a course will bolster their property values. But many are discovering the opposite can now be trueand legal disputes are erupting as communities fight over how to handle the struggling courses.
There are hundreds of other communities in this situation, and theyre trapped and they dont know what to do, says Peter Nanula, chief executive of Concert Golf Partners, a golf club owner-operator that owns about 20 private clubs across the U.S. One of his current projects is the rehabilitation of a recently acquired club in Florida that had shut one of its three golf courses and sued residents who had stopped paying membership fees.
(Excerpt) Read more at outline.com ...
We live on a former golf course. While it was functioning, it was great. We live in a smaller community and knew many of the players, so it was wonderful to see them, many of them older veterans of WWII, every day out on the course. The golf club doubled as a community center and restaurant and bar for the locals, and it was the heart of our neighborhood. The course shut down over 3 yrs ago. Many of the residents are cutting the grass on what was the golf course now. We don’t have water issues, so the grass remains green. Now we all use it as an informal recreation area and park. We are surrounded by federal land, national parks and wildlife land trust lands, so the local deer population has grown exponentially. Not sure what will happen with the land eventually, but many of us have gotten together with plans to try to fight off development.
And yeah, ridiculously high HOA fees are not an option. I won't pay any more to be governed. d;^)
Yes, seems about 1/2 the time, anymore, “couples” are selected that will push the liberal narratives in one form or another.
Yes, a lot of gays it appears. Which is why I pretty much stopped watching it for many months now. Same kind of stuff on virtually all HGTV shows. They definitely have an agenda.
[I like these people buyING ]
aaargh....
To us outside the Ozarks it’s the real deal! OK just messing with you but I like the TV show.
On 95 there is a PGA Boulevard exit that always amused me. It might lead to to a dead golf course these days.
So then, not all collective ownership is “another take on socialism”, and a successful corporately run golf course would not be “just another take on socialism” even though collectively owned?
“So then, not all collective ownership is another take on socialism, and a successful corporately run golf course would not be just another take on socialism even though collectively owned?”
The article definitely describes “another take on socialism” with these failing golf courses owned collectively by HOAs.
Do you disagree? If so, why? What would have made them successful?
Previously, you wrote "The bottom line is that socialism never works, and collective ownership of a golf course is just another take on socialism.
I question the all encompassing statement "collective ownership of a golf course is just another take on socialism.
I wouldn't have a problem if you'd written "the collective ownership of this golf course is just another take on socialism or "this collective ownership of a golf course is just another take on socialism.
A number of people could have invested their capital as partners or shareholders in a golf course, operating it as a business, and it still could have failed but not been "another take on socialism.
Failure of this golf course may be a case where collective ownership is "just another take on socialism" but that does not mean that collective ownership of any and all golf courses, failed or not, is "another take on socialism", as I see implied by your previous statement.
Well for me it depends which way shes facing.
If a golf course, or any other enterprise for that matter, is run without regard for placing costs on users so that a rational demand response can occur that follows actual demand, then you have a recipe for disaster.
Socialism fails because there is no reason to limit costs to the user, hence, no rational demand response occurs.
Sure some socialist enterprises continue for a long time if they are able to extract capital in ever increasing amounts from a captive collective (think Social Security)
But eventually socialism always fails. There can be no other outcome.
I never said a privately run non-socialist enterprise would never fail - that is a necessary part of a capitalist economy.
To the articles point. These courses failed because their purpose was detatched from their ability to sustain operations. They ran out of “other people’s money”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.