12 Comments

1. Bill Bird

   woot!

2. Theresa Defino

   here’s hoping the mayor and council have the courage to do the right thing and stop subsidizing a golf course that isn’t in the main even being used by rockville residents.

3. Ryan Fleming

   Yahoo! Let’s play!I and everyone I’ve spoken to who has seen the ODP plan really supports the idea of developing a business, entertainment, and education destination. Let someone in private enterprise with proven results (at least, according to their own promotional materials) have stab at making it successful.Theresa Defino: Just because you don’t play golf doesn’t mean we shouldn’t subsidize golf and recreation. I couldn’t disagree more with your opinion on this topic. How much do we spend on parks, bikeways, and the arts that are not revenue generating? At least the golf course returns some of the cost in the form of user fees. Don’t be so myopic in looking at the fact that it doesn’t cover its own cost. It’s a fantastic leisure activity and a crown jewel of Rockville that is enjoyed by many. And those who don’t live in Rockville may well eat in Rockville after a round or fill up their car with gas or shop at our supermarkets. Open your mind to the possibility that it is more than a line item on a budget.

4. Theresa Defino

   how do you know that i don’t play golf?is it civil or accurate to accuse me of being “myopic?” it is not. in contrast, your position is myopic and does not consider any of the larger issues surrounding the golf course. this issue has come before the mayor and council, and many share my opinion. the golf course requires an annual tax-payer subsidy of $100,000 per year currently. the city isn’t doing enough for teens–ie, allocating a mere $6k for the skatepark–while a massive addition to the senior center is underway. the city is currently entertaining proposals to have the golf course become self-supporting. i hope good proposals are received.roughly 2/3 of the golfers do no live in the city, so why should my tax dollars go to support such a facility?i urge you to read art stigile’s excellent post that appeared here a year ago, and listen to his comments before the mayor and council on dec. 7, 2009, about 30 minutes into the meeting.http://rockvillecentral.com/2009/02/contributor-opinion-by-art-stigile-response-to-redgate-golfers.html/http://rockvillemd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=668

5. Ryan Fleming

   As I said, Yahoo! Let’s play golf! I’m ready for more lessons.You write for a living, so clearly I won’t win a battle of words, but let’s give it a try.A skatepark will never generate the revenue of a golf course, so you’re comparing apples and oranges. $100,000 annually would make it the most luxurious skatepark in the nation, on par with something Tony Hawk might have in his company’s backyard for testing. Drawing non-Rockville residents (are we Rockvillers or Rockvillians? maybe just Rockers?) is the most positive thing the course does (other than provide a place for Marty Johnson to teach — he’s a great teaching professional). I want to live in a city that is of interest to others. We subsize their use of our roads and parks and other facilities, don’t we, so why not golf? A couple hundred thousand a year is a pittance for the benefits of having that course.Art’s opinion is excellent and well-reasoned. It’s right in as much as he says that hockey is life, but beyond that I couldn’t disagree more with most of it. The first problem is that he doesn’t account for the economy the past couple of years, as people have struggled and are spending less on recreation. It’s been 10 years in the red, according to Art, but the last few years are an issue for him and golf rounds have declined. There are a number of factors at work here, not the least of which are the skyrocketing cost of resources given commodity prices over the past decade and the decline in rounds played because of the economy. The second problem is that he’s using cumulative numbers. I find that to be an argument lacking substance in that he’s only quantifying the negative part of it that way. He’s not quantifying the millions in support for parks and recreation that we spend. Sure, one could argue that “free to all” support is better than subsidizing “middle-class adults who can afford to play,” but I am arguing that they’re both important. Whether you like it or not, lots of deals are sealed on the golf course or because you played a round of golf with someone who saw your character in a 5 hour, relaxed setting. There is no better place to get a sense of someone’s character. If we win business for the city because someone spent a half day in our city playing golf, it probably pays for the full deficit. If someone moves here because of the setting, it’s a huge benefit.I’m going to agree and disagreee on another point of Art’s — raising fees doesn’t automatically translate into the equivalent amount of additional revenue. You’ll lose some people along the way. One solution could be to raise the non-resident fees significantly more than the resident fees in order to address your concerns about paying too much to subsidize outsiders. But you have to think about how much it costs to play Needwood, its closest competitor.You and I will never agree on this because I think recreation is as important as education and healthcare. And subsidizing the former along with the latter is okay for me.Finally, if you take myopic to be as negative as it sounds you do, you probably take the word ignorant as a negative, too, which it’s not (I’m ignorant on many issues, as many responders, my wife, friends, coworkers, etc. will be pleased to point out). Google definitions defines myopic (type “define: myopic” in a search box) to be “lacking foresight or scope.” You are clearly being myopic on this issue in that you’re not looking at the greater good — bringing new people to our city to spend money, not just at the golf course. Art points out that these are typically people with money and you point at that 2/3 of the rounds played are by non-residents. If I can pay $10 per round to have someone spend $100 while they’re in Rockville on goods and services from local merchants, I’m going to do that all day long. Maybe they decide to move their business to our city. How do you quantify that? I can’t, but I also can’t quantify how much my donations to the girls basketball team at RM help. Only problem I have in this argument is that I can’t support my side of it because I don’t know the first thing about researching something like that — polling every golfer who comes to the city to find out what else they’re spending money on. Calling your view on this issue myopic is part of my argument and I don’t find it to be disrespectful or uncivil if we go by the definition.

6. Theresa Defino

   there is no proof of your statement: You are clearly being myopic on this issue in that you’re not looking at the greater good — bringing new people to our city to spend money, not just at the golf course. there’s also no proof that i don’t value recreation. i do NOT value a money-losing golf course, owned by the city, that caters to non-residents.and clearly, neither does the city council–the more important piece of all this.

7. Theresa Defino

   also, not sure what my being a writer has to do with anything, but you’re a financial planner, so perhaps you could help the city find ways to make the golf course self-supporting.

8. Deb Stahl

   I’d actually be willing to bet that lots of people don’t know Rockville even HAS a golf course, Rockville residents or not. I didn’t until I drove by it one day on my way somewhere else. I’m not a golfer myself, but if I don’t know about a golf course literally a mile from my own home, that’s going to greatly reduce my chances of ever becoming one, or at least patronizing the local course. When non-residents come to Rockville to play golf, they’re spending money here same as residents. Hopefully the visitors will also be spending money at Rockville restaurants as well, maybe doing some shopping while they’re here.I will admit that the few times I’ve driven past or even driven up the driveway, it never seems even half-full full, and I have to wonder if it’s a shortcoming of the course (remember, I’m not a golfer, so go easy on me!) that people come and play and don’t come back, or simply that it’s not well-enough known.

9. Ryan Fleming

   Deb — it’s an okay course. Reasonably well-kept for a single municipal course (as opposed to MoCo, which owns and operates nine or so courses). It’s a hilly course, so it’s a challenge to walk it comfortably. There’s a baseball stadium proposal for the site that is fascinating and one the city should seriously consider. Interesting that you hadn’t heard of it. I’ve known about it forever, but that’s probably because, as a golfer, I look for such things. I wonder what kind of advertising they do. I know their golf pro is exceptional (he took 10 shots off of my game in 6 lessons) and it’s just a few miles from my house in Rockville.Theresa — unfortunately, my clients have to deal in real money, so my help is of no use to governments who use creative financing. Re: lack of proof — that’s okay, I’m not a researcher or an editor, just an obnoxious commenter and a pretty good baiter.Frankly, I think it would be more efficiently run if we gave it to the County. The people at Red Gate are great, but the efficiencies and economies of scale achieved by combining the one with the many of MoCo Golf, in this case, have to be significant (a guess on my part). I know the county and city looked at it, but I’m not sure who turned it down.

10. Theresa Defino

    When part of my mortgage every month goes to pay local taxes, that’s “real” money to me. If you want to make the claim that the golf course is worth subsidizing because the patrons support the city in other ways, you’d want to have facts to back that up. I find it disappointing that rather than having a discussion based on facts, you choose, again, to make it personal. I’m not taking the bait, but thanks for pointing out what you were doing.

11. Ryan Fleming

    Can’t wait to get my first round of golf in this year on Rockville’s jewel!I’m neither a researcher nor a writer, as I pointed out in my first post, so not interested in going head-to-head with you on that — I’ll lose that argument every time to a professional wordsmith.Once again you fail to see humor and sarcasm (in the baiting comment), just as you do on the listserv we subscribe to together, so I’m going to cut off my argument here and end this pleasantness before it violates the comment policy.Thanks to Brad for announcing the opening. Hopefully, we can get those rounds-played up in 2010 to dampen the criticism and eliminate the subsidy, which is something we can all agree would be the perfect solution.

12. Brad Rourke

    Comments on this thread are now closed.

• Tags
• Recent Comments
• Most Active (6 month)