Editorial on Huron Hills contained a number of fallacies
I see a number of fallacies in your editorial of Sunday, Feb. 13 (“City needs to give up operating Huron Hills”).
“The city runs other recreational facilities at a loss, but swimming pools or community centers are different, in that those opportunities wouldn’t exist if the city didn’t provide them.” Not true. Every high (school) in town and some middle schools have a pool.
School isn’t open in the summer. Swimmers could use those facilities and the city wouldn’t have to subsidize the other “seven pools’’ within 10 miles driving distance from Ann Arbor. Ten miles too far?? For young children and their parents?? Then why isn’t 10 miles too far for young golfers and their parents or grandparents?
My grandsons learned to golf at Huron Hills and as grandmother I was able to walk with them teaching the finer points of courtesy, scoring and respect -- not only for the game but for other golfers. Unfortunately, that’s something we don’t see often enough in other sports.
Where else can young men and women learn? Not Leslie Park, which is a very fine course but also a difficult course for even an experienced golfer or Pierce Lake (a mere 10 miles away).
You ask the question “What is the city of Ann Arbor doing in the golf business when the demand is being amply met by privately owned courses?” Privately owned courses don’t encourage young golfers unless they “belong.”
How many times have you been able to golf at a local course like Barton Hills, Travis Point or Polo Fields? The other 27 golf courses mentioned by the Golf Convergence, a “Colorado consulting company,” by the way, are mainly in other communities.
Huron Hills Golf Course has a long and loving place in the hearts of many Ann Arborites. Please don’t encourage those with no feelings to destroy it. Put your skills and media expertise to work in finding other ways to preserve this heritage.
Mary Anne Hudge Ann Arbor
Comments
mw
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
"I know I pay high Ann Arbor property taxes. I know that the Tee Fees should be much higher." I doubt the greens fees at Huron Hills need to be higher. If the city leased the course outright where the operator had no mortgage or property taxes to pay (because the land remains city-owned) and the operator also didn't have to pay bloated city labor and overhead costs (e.g. its 'share' of the IT budget), I don't think a private company would have any trouble at all operating HH with the current or even lower fees.
snapshot
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 11 p.m.
To Brad, I know it's losing about 400 Thousand dollars per year. I know I pay high Ann Arbor property taxes. I know that the Tee Fees should be much higher. What I don't know and Brad can't support is the economic status of the golfers. So Brad let's step up to the plate with a survey of income status for those users you say are not affluent. I already know it's losing hundreds of thousands of dollare every year. On that basis only it should be shut down. Let's also see how much per user taxpayers are paying for a tee time. I also know fees increased at the Recreation Center by 10% and the golf course tee fees by a dollar, or about 5.5% when they should be around 30 buck for 18 holes and 15 for 9 holes.
Stupid Hick
Tue, Mar 1, 2011 : 5:41 a.m.
Respectfully, you should just say "I don't like golf and I think the city should stop funding it", and leave it at that. That's a valid opinion. You don't need to give "rational" reasons for your recreational preferences! If you do give reasons, please base them on reality lest you misinform other readers: 1) Huron Hills doesn't "lose" $400k per year, not even close, and between 2003-2008 the net cost to the city was less than any of the four swimming pools. The "problem" of Huron Hills is an accounting gimmick that is not applied to other recreational activities. 2) Sorry but Brad is right. Everyone who plays Huron Hills knows you don't have to do an economic survey to know it's not in the same market as Barton Hills or Travis Pointe! Huron Hills is a simple, cheap, unpretentious, no frills place to play golf. It's the polar opposite of exclusive private clubs. 3) Raising the rates to $30 would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Again, Huron Hills is not the same product as Leslie Park or Stonebridge, let alone a Barton Hills! The Convergence Report's recommendation to bring Huron Hills' price down to market reality was the right decision, not the wrong one, and the significantly better than forecast financial performance of Huron Hills since adoption of their recommendation supports that.
Brad
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.
Is Huron more accessible for younger golfers? Absolutely. Does that make it a "youth program". Hardly. Anyone that has golfed there or has knowledge of the mix of golfers there knows that it attracts a wide range of people - youth, seniors, beginners and advanced golfers alike. Secondly, anyone that thinks Huron's typical player is somehow particularly affluent is sadly misinformed. The one constant in the Huron debate is that people are not letting lack of knowledge stand in the way of having opinions about it. And that includes AnnArbor.com in my opinion.
Stupid Hick
Tue, Mar 1, 2011 : 4:52 a.m.
and your point about misinformed commentary is immediately proven.
snapshot
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
Sounds like this opinion promotes the fact that property taxes should go to subsidize what the author admits is a youth program because another golf course is too tough. Oh, Wah. Not a good deal for tha taxpayers. I am particularly vocal for shutting it down after reading this letter. Youth programs outside of schools should be funded by parents. If parents don't want to fund their child's personal activities then why should the general taxpayer be forced to fund them? Let's get real. These are real dollars we're talking about that benefit very few, and those few may be the most affluent.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 6:29 p.m.
By way of disclaimer I am not a golfer. I golf maybe once every 4-5 years and usually find more fun at the "19th hole" than the previous 18. I just don't see a city of our size owning two golf courses anymore. Its not financially practical unless they can operate in the black. One wonders why this isn't possible if the privately owned open to the public courses do? As to your swimming pool argument it is more an argument to close pools than to keep a golf course open in my opinion. While various segments of "government" fight to protect their little piece of the pie we the people collectively own the swimming pools at our schools as surely as we own the swimming pools at our parks. Maybe we the people own too many swimming pools.
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
Actually this is the fallacy of "operating in the black". The city gives a portion of certain departments to all programs. If you cut Huron Hills out of the equation it now spreads those same costs on to fewer programs, therefore increasing their expenditures. This happens in every business. In fact, I run a business unit for a company that loses money based on allocation of resources, BUT if they shut down my business, the corporate overhead of the CEO salary, the rent of our headquarters, the utility bills to keep it running would not go down. Once those items are taken out of the equation, I run a very profitable business, which allows other business units to remain even more profitable.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
"What is the city of Ann Arbor doing in the golf business when the demand is being amply met by privately owned courses?" Privately owned courses don't encourage young golfers unless they "belong."....... How many times have you been able to golf at a local course like Barton Hills, Travis Point or Polo Fields? " "Privately owned" and "private" are not quite the same. Many privately owned courses are open to the public. A "country club" is of course both privately owned and "private to play", not so with most privately owned courses.
limmy
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
Great point about the pools sitting empty. It is not just pools, and it is not just in the summer time that the recreation facilities in our public schools sit empty and unused. There is a demand for using the space, but the schools (now rec ed) set the price so high that community groups cannot afford to use them. I have rented a gym a few times and the price per hour for the gym is $25. But, in addition, one pays $30 and hour for a custodian and is required to hire the custodian to come in early and stay late which adds an additional 3 hours of custodial costs. It is completely ridiculous and as a result, the buildings that we pay for through our taxes are sitting empty.
Are you serious?
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
I agree with everything said in this Letter to the Editor. To date I don't think I have seen an analysis of the "overhead costs." If HH is no longer a golf course and cannot be charged things like IT overhead then who exactly pays that? I don't think it goes away. I too have wondered why the public school pools could not be kept open in the summer. I suppose since there are not outdoor it makes a difference, but if one wants an outdoor pools in the summer then pay for what it is worth (and including the IT overhead).
Stephen Landes
Sun, Feb 27, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.
Well said. The city doesn't expect to make money from parks and other recreational opportunities. They put the golf courses into a different category likely thinking they could make more money that way, or they could drain some parks funds for use in the city budget by charging unrelated costs to the parks, or, cynically, when they operated at a loss thinking it would be easier to sell them off. And before anyone asks, yes, I believe they could be that devious in their thinking. I vote for parks milages and expect the funds to be used for parks. I don't expect the city to syphon off some of the parks money by charging the parks some sort of overhead that doesn't relate to their actual operation.