Welfare for Golfers


By DIA, Section News
Posted on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:39:40 AM EST

It's a good day for seeing the true Mayor Jennings. Calsolaro proposes that we shouldn't borrow money to subsidize golfers.
Common Council member Dominick Calsolaro says for every club that swings at the Capital Hills Golf Course in Albany, taxpayers are paying for it. The course, he says, isn't making enough revenue to cover operating costs so Albany taxpayers end up footing the bill.

“I don’t know, at this time when the city is borrowing 8 million dollars from the fund balance to balance next year's budget, if the taxpayers should be supplementing the golfers at the golf course,” said Calsolaro.
To the mayor, that is "crazy talk".
“That sounds crazy what Dominick is proposing, plain and simple he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,"
So, Calsolaro wants to look at ways to cut expenses and the mayor says that is crazy. Meanwhile, taxes went up this year and the mayor still is borrowing more than $8 million in the budget and increasing our debt load. The budget is a financial disaster. It is unsustainable. Not so says Borrow and Spend Jennings.
“I put a responsible budget together with the least amount of impact on the taxpayers in the city.”
According to Jennings this is a responsible budget. He proposed NO cost savings. He refuses to cut jobs of current unfilled positions. We are borrowing money to subsidize golfers. And yet anyone who proposes cuts in the budget is "crazy" according to the mayor.

Go read the article. See how Troy and Schnectady actually make money with their golf courses. Listen to the mayor accuse Calsolaro of being a hypocrite because his kids go to the Lincoln Park pool (nice of Jerry to bring Calsolaro's kids into the discussion, classy).

PS. Jennings says maybe Calsolaro should recommend cutting down the size of the common council if he wants to save money. Despite being a lame attack by the Mayor as Calsolaro has made many recommendations on how to cut the budget, is a weak attack because Calsolaro has proposed reducing the number of common council members in the past.

You can share your thoughts on the budget with the council members tomorrow night at city hall.

< Convention Center Forum | Jennings Republican Support Returning to Haunt Him (and us)? >

Menu

+ create account
+ faq
+ search

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Related Links

+ read the article.
+ Also by DIA
Display: Sort:
Welfare for Golfers | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)
Something going on there (none / 0) (#1)
by kateb on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:01:32 AM EST
When the only response is "crazy talk", something is going on there.

Great info with the fact other municipal golf courses increase revenue for their cities.

The golf course is a funny place.  I used to buy leaf bags there, but they put it all in pencil, a whole bunch of penciled pages with a lot of erasures, people paying for leaf bags.  I changed my mind about that, since I buy in bulk, and actually walk to city hall to make my purchase.  They ring it up.

Golfers are special people......

quality of life (none / 0) (#2)
by albany layman on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:27:43 AM EST
is certainly an important concern for a city.  But in this case, it's just a dodge by the mayor.  The golf course is in the red.  The other Capital District cities don't have this problem.  Why does Albany?  What is Albany doing to get the golf course in the black?

And, as Calsolaro points out, why does the golf course get subsidized by the taxpayers when things like youth centers are underfunded?  Why doesn't The Tan One consider that a quality of life issue?

Download the budget and show up tomorrow night (none / 0) (#3)
by Tom Paine on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:41:49 AM EST
The budget is available on the city website. There is a lot of good info in there, although the organization of it isn't the best.

It might be productive for lots of people to show up with lots of specific questions, e.g., "Why do we have X Clerks in Y office?" "What planning options have been considered for golf course revenue?" "How come only about 8% of the stuff going into the landfill is curbside pickup? What's the rest of it?" "Why does the city spend so much on the IT operation?"

[ Parent ]

Simple answers... (none / 0) (#4)
by makome on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:51:04 AM EST
Folks, the reason the golf course runs in the "red" is because the city puts a significant amount of $$$ into maintenance and improvements to this course. They have to do this to maintain their relationship with the LPGA Futures tournament that is held there each September.  As someone who plays there often, I simply love the course.  The course gets more difficult as the summer goes on as they ramp up for the tournament.  Which is wonderful.  Now, the simple solution...if golfers in Albany want a LPGA-level quality golf course in their city then they should be willing to pay $$$ to play the course. Currently residents pay only $30 for 18 holes and a cart, which is ridiculously cheap for a course of this quality.  Visiting golfers only pay $43 for the same.  Both greens fees, golf carts and revenues from Martel's should be increased to pay for LPGA-quality golfing...or else drop the tournament and the costs associated with maintaining the course to hold such an event.  SIMPLE ANSWERS!!!!!!

Peace,
Mak

[ Parent ]

How does that compare? (none / 0) (#5)
by Tom Paine on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:28:22 AM EST
How does the quality/cost of the Albany course compare with other courses in the area, both public and private?   I'm not a golfer so I wouldn't have a clue.

[ Parent ]
Albany's course is less than most in region... (none / 0) (#6)
by makome on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:01:12 AM EST
Town of Colonie is $46 for 18 and a cart for Residents in 2007, but they have 36 holes. Schenectady Municipal was similar in cost (about $40-45 for residents for 18 + cart), but only has 18 holes.  Frear Park Course in Troy is $42 for 18+cart.  So it appears that Albany's greens fees for NON-RESIDENTS is approximately what other municipalities are chargings for their RESIDENTS!!!  If we could afford it, Great, but obviously we can't!  Or, perhaps bump up all the fees for Non-Residents to allow the fees for Residents to stay the same or only with a little bump???

[ Parent ]
Simple Math... (none / 0) (#12)
by makome on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:07:30 PM EST
ok, so I took the revenue numbers from the TU article, i.e. $1.008M and divided it my an average cost per golfer of about $35 per round.  Yeah, I know there are other sources of revenue in there, like Martel's, driving range, pro shop, etc.  but just trying to rough it here.  This brings annual number of rounds of golf to about 28,800.  Let's be conservative and say 25,000 rounds per year.  If the city raised green's fees to match similar muni courses in the area to an average of $55 per round (this includes residents and non-residents) that increases the course revenue by $500K per year!!! Which exceeds operating costs and opens up all sorts of opportunities to use that money elsewhere!  

[ Parent ]
All the numbers are suspect (none / 0) (#7)
by wredlich on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:22:27 PM EST
You can't trust the numbers on any of the local courses. It's too easy for a mayor or other official to include golf course expenses in other budget lines. Maybe Schenectady spends $200K on course maintenance through its Parks Department but doesn't include those numbers in the golf course budget lines. It's really impossible to tell unless the Comptroller does an audit.

Perhaps the bigger question to ask is why towns and cities should own golf courses at all. There are plenty of private golf courses around. I am a golfer and play at some of these courses. It is a benefit to me personally and I still think this is a business government should stay out of.
Albany Lawyer Warren Redlich Blog: Albany Lawyer Blog

Quality of Life (none / 0) (#8)
by makome on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:58:11 PM EST
I see it as a quality of life issue. Municipal golf courses are an amenity that looks good on a city's "resume" much as cultural arts and other attractions are for potential residents.  

Also, access to golf and golf courses are becoming more and more expensive and thus becoming limited to only those that can afford it (lawyers??), much as the skiing/mountain sports industry has done.   These facilities offer quality golfing at a reasonable price.  So rather than offering a service for only the "elites" that can afford it, it allows schlubs like me to play a decent course and still have money left at the end of the round to have a couple of beers.

If you've ever golfed on Long Island or NJ you know very well that most of the Public Courses are terrible (yes, there are exceptions) and all of the decent courses are Private Clubs or impossible to get a tee time for.  We have quite a luxury up here in that we are offered these decent courses at good prices. So go stick to your country clubs and stop complaining that the municipalities should not support their own golf courses and thus providing their citizens with an less expensive alternative to for-profit courses.      

Mak    

[ Parent ]

Fiction (none / 0) (#13)
by wredlich on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:01:44 PM EST
If you are suggesting that there are no affordable courses in the Capital Region other than the municipal courses, you are living in a fictional land. There are plenty of reasonably priced golf courses in the area.

The course fees at Western Turnpike were reasonable before the Town bought the course. Orchard Creek, a privately owned public course, is not much more expensive and is a much more challenging course.

Evergreen in East Greenbush/Schodack is inexpensive.  The course in Rexford (Mohawk? Used to be Riverview) is inexpensive. The list is far too long to even get started.

I don't know what Long Island and NJ have to do with it. The privately owned public courses in the Albany area are comparable in quality and price to the municipal courses.

On a related note, I don't see why people feel free to cheap-shot lawyers all the time. I know plenty of lawyers who do not make a lot of money. I do not belong to a country club and I tend to play at the relatively inexpensive courses - when I have time to play at all. I managed maybe 3 rounds of golf this year.

It's true that I can afford to join a country club, and that I can afford to play expensive courses. So far I have chosen not to do either.

But if you are going to have a couple beers at the end of your round, be sure to remember my phone number when you get your DWI charge. If you think golf gets expensive, wait'll you see my fee - after all I have to pay for my country club, fancy car, etc. --Warren
Albany Lawyer Warren Redlich Blog: Albany Lawyer Blog
[ Parent ]

Non-fiction... (none / 0) (#15)
by makome on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 04:25:40 AM EST
Yes, there are plenty of reasonably priced courses in the area.  However, they are not close to the quality of the Albany course.  The one's you mentioned Turnpike, East Greenbush and the one above the Rexford bridge are all pretty crappy courses, comparatively.

Not taking a shot at lawyers at all, in fact my golf-partner is a lawyer,  simply pointing out that lawyers as a group tend to have higher income levels to be able to afford things like playing at expensive golf courses, joining country clubs, etc.  Ultimately my point is that we have a very nice course in Albany that is accessible and affordable to the great "unwashed masses."  If we can make the course revenue neutral or even revenue producing then why the problem?

[ Parent ]

the numbers (none / 0) (#10)
by DIA on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:25:44 PM EST
when i went through the budget this year they had the golf course debt service and lease for the food joint over there both buried in other line items.  

It is interesting how Jennings' likes to never consider "debt service" in anything.   Wouldn't it be nice to just pay your "operating expenses" each month?    

"Honey, did you pay the bills?"

"Sure did.   Heat.   Water.  Electricity.   Balloons.   All paid".

"What about the mortgage aka debt service?"

"This is Albany, dear, Jerry and the tax payers are picking up the tab..  We are in the clear this month!!"

Always be wary of something that says it made money but didn't cover the debt service (eg. Golf Course, Times Union Center, proposed Convention Center)

[ Parent ]

Quality Welfare (none / 0) (#9)
by Roscoe on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:18:45 PM EST
When this city attends to the quality of life of its citizens in all the neighborhoods, and properly maintains the city streets and sidewalks, properly attends to its police and public safety responsibilities, properly budgets the disbursement of its income streams, properly levies real property taxes and encourages the growth of tax paying businesses in the city, and a host of other statutory responsibilioties not cuurently properly discharged, THEN, it can attend to the quality of life of golfers, mak, in my humble opinion.  

Not my point... (none / 0) (#11)
by makome on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:57:00 PM EST
If they can make the course revenue "neutral" why should it matter?  I completely agree that there are higher and better priorities than sinking any money into the golf course beyond the revenue that it brings in.  That's why I advocate increasing green's fees and lease fees.  My argument to the lawyer above was re the idea of not having any municipal golf courses.  I don't think that's the answer, the answer is to make the course revenue neutral to the city.  What would be even better would be if the course made a PROFIT and actually added to the city's treasury!!  Which could then be used for things like beefing up Youth programs, etc.  or for whatever... The course really is an ASSET for the city (well at least it could be an asset, not a liability), why not use it to our advantage????  

[ Parent ]
Assets and Liabilities, Albanystyle (none / 0) (#14)
by Roscoe on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 01:16:09 AM EST
Look, mak, I like golf.  I like that part of town. Having a potential PGA course here is fine. But for all the swells golfing there, how about 200 times that many kids with crappy parks? This is a city that can't pick up and dispose of its trash properly, let alone maintain its parks. It is fighting a century of governmental and political ineptitude and corruption. Do we even have a Parks Department, and an accountable manager for that aspect of the city's assets?  No. Do citizens have any input on that?  No.  We can't even get a copy of the goddamn budget online in a timely manner, and that's saying the budget offered is useful.  It isn't. If a proper budget and transparent management were available to the citizens, we would see how corrupt and stupid and overladen with patronage and waste and outright theft the city really is.

How about this: Sell a long term lease to a nationally recognized golf course company, make some money, and everyone who uses it can pay fair market price. Put the revenue into a Parks Department. Create a position of Commissioner of Parks, answerable to the people. Make well-maintained green space available to all citizens, whatever their station in life.

Run a city instead of a Principality.

[ Parent ]

not bad...but wary (none / 0) (#16)
by makome on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 04:29:27 AM EST
ok, decent ideas, however, when left to "fair market value" we all know how that works out for us working stiffs...eventually we get priced out of the access to the course.  Why not just make the course part of the overall responsible for the Parks Department and make the thing a revenue producer so the extra money can be used to beef up attention to the cities other parks?  It's all about proper management. If managed correctly then there should be no reason this can't work.

[ Parent ]
Make it accessible for residents (none / 0) (#17)
by Tom Paine on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 08:43:24 AM EST
Although there are higher priorities, let's face it, here we all are, owners of a golf course. Let's make the best of it.

Keeping fees low for city residents makes perfect sense to me. Maybe the fees could go up a few bucks so that costs are coming close to getting covered. But a huge increase might not be necessary. It is worthwhile to have below-market rates for leisure activities in the city.  

On the other hand, charging higher fees for nonresidents makes perfect sense too. Every one of those players should be profitable customers or they shouldn't be there at all.

Finally, if we can't make a profit running a bar we really have our heads up our butts.

[ Parent ]

mak & Tom P. (none / 0) (#20)
by Roscoe on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 12:43:08 PM EST
I appreciate your enthusiasm and optimism, I really do. If your proposal were part of a larger scheme to fix things around here -- new charter, new council, new mayor, etc., I would agree it'd be a positive thing for the city.  Standing alone, defended as the city is in ruin, defended in the old Albany manner, i.e., I want mine, screw everything else, the hell with priorities, the hell with anything other than repillian thinking and con-man budgeting, I'll take a pass.

Understand that my characterization isn't personal as to either of you; I like each of your posts.

Unless stern measures are taken, the looming deep recession is going to blow this whole shebang out of the water. Clear vision and clear priorities are necessary. Transparent and open good government is the only way out.

I've read in other DIA threads what others think about the current State money - Albany local government nexus.  They're all wrong.  Smart politicians, and even somewhat smart politicians, stay away from Albany city politics because they don't want to be splashed with shit. That's what we have to clean up.  Do that and I'll buy you a couple and pay for your cab after the 19th hole.

Peace be with you.

[ Parent ]

I don't golf.. (none / 0) (#18)
by hawkny on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:39:45 AM EST
so I don't know why I should have to subsidize other city residents who do!! Golfing is not a municipal service. Raise the green fees!!!!!

I don't swim in Lincoln park pool... (none / 0) (#19)
by Tom Paine on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:24:47 AM EST
...but I am very happy to subsidize those who do. I don't skate at swinburne any more but again, I have no problem paying my share to enable others to do so. It makes for a better city.

I think the issue here is not so much subsidies for city residents - we all subsidize each other in a number of ways - but the fairness & extent  of those subsidies.

[ Parent ]

yup (none / 0) (#21)
by kateb on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:39:19 AM EST

and no one related to me is using the schools.

Just kidding.

I completely agree:  golfers should cover the expenses/costs of golfing.

[ Parent ]

Welfare for Golfers | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:
create account | faq | search