Open discussions needed on the future of Ann Arbor's Huron Hills golf course
Our Ann Arbor citizens need to be better informed regarding the commercialization and repurposing of parklands e.g. most recently an RFP (request for proposal) on Huron Hills (golf course). There is a compelling need to get this on the Ann Arbor Council agenda so that the citizens and council can speak out in an open and transparent manner.
If, indeed the City Council is moving toward initiatives that propose to re-purpose parklands and thereby setting a dangerous precedent, then any such proposals need to go before the citizens for a vote - anything less is contrary to the spirit of the city Charter, PROS plan, Greenbelt millage and sentiment of many in our community.
Our citizens need to be informed and vote on any such changes so that they can vote in an informed manner. The implications for not doing this will have important consequences. Let our mayor and council know such open discussions are essential.
Harvey R. Kaplan Ann Arbor
Comments
Sharon Donovan
Mon, Oct 4, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.
I don't golf, and do not like the impact golf courses have on the environment, such as chemicals, water usage, and energy for maintenance. However, I do enjoy the beautiful sight of all that open space, and people utilizing our parks and being active. Whether they are wealthy, retired, or any other type of person is irrelevant. I am always dismayed when I hear of the outrageous fees paid to "consultants" for projects that would be better suited to public discussion. The comments by Keegan only illustrate how little his opinion should be valued. It is important to retain open areas for wildlife, like the deer I have seen this summer grazing along Huron Parkway. What so many seem to forget is that land can always be developed in the future, if necessary. Or NOT. I disagree that partnering with commercial companies is an appropriate use of public parks. The privatization of government entities, whether it is parking, parks or prisons is not my idea of good management. I agree that the Greenbelt funds would be acceptable for the maintenance and improvement of Huron Hills. Let's put it up the people who pay the bills-us.
jack gorine
Tue, Sep 28, 2010 : 5:05 a.m.
Nobody complained when you had to actually make a tee time to get on Huron Hills. Perhaps with proper marketing etc. those days will return again and the course could hold it's own. Recent improvements to the course have increased play at the course. The sale of this seems short sighted. I do not know Mr. Keegan or his interests however, I do question why an asset is recommended for sale/lease etc. in such an economic downturn. Buy low sell high applies especially right now. I viewed a council meeting where a parks rep. mentioned most rounds at the course were started on the tenth hole. Having played many rounds at the course I found this odd. Call me silly but I think the first hole is called ONE. Is is also right outside the clubhouse as opposed to across Huron Parkway. Then there was discussion of perhaps having a driving range on the first seven holes of the course. That could qualify as the larges range in America. Of course a little retail mall including a golf center might be in the works. Really, do we need another corner with a bank and gas station?
Harvey Kaplan
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 8:19 p.m.
Mr. Keegan, a Colorado-based golf consultant hired by the City in 2007 rendered his opinion in response to my letter to the editor. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, albeit inappropriate and mean-spirited, but not to misstate the facts. To state that my letter merely represents a classic example of a group of well-to-do, mainly retired individuals with lots of time on their handsacting as gadflies trying to protect their unfettered views is absolutely wrong. Making personal and inflammatory attacks on those who disagree with him is not the way to have a civil discourse. Moreover, he missed the essence of the letter that calls for open and transparent discussions by Council with its citizens. My letter also calls for our citizens to become better informed about the consequences of commercializing and repurposing of parklands and then give them the opportunity to vote in an informed manner on the forthcoming proposals. We understand that our citizens are busy, largely with work, school, family and other demands on their time. To criticize those (of us) who are trying to get information/facts out to those in our community who care dearly about the preservation of our parklands is wrong. I would direct Mr. Keegan to www.A2P2forparks.com, this is a good first step to getting sources of information. To characterize those in our community against the commercialization/privatization or repurposing of parklands as a small group of Ward 2 citizens clearly is not true and offensive.
Thomas J Schriber
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 5:59 p.m.
Mr. Keegan's use of argumentum ad hominem (in this case, the dissing of people who perhaps have the luxury of a bit of discretionary time to be civic watchdogs and in that sense to be responsible citizens, which we arguably need more of)reveals a good bit about the character of Mr. Keegan, IMHO. Beyond that, Mr. Keegan's unsupported (in his comments) allegation that the City of Ann Arbor loses $200,000 per year in maintaining the operation of the Huron Hills Golf Course needs to be put under a magnifying glass by those versed in the fine art of Accounting. Do the direct costs of Huron Hills exceed the Huron Hills income??? And even if they do, does that justify the likely visual pollution resulting from installing driving-range support structures and paraphernalia at Huron Hills and the emasculation of an 18-hole golf course, perhaps reducing it to a 9-hole course that then truly becomes a financial burden? What are the pros and cons for the use of greenbelt funds to maintain what we already have within the city rather than sacrifice what we have in favor of adding to the greenbelt outside the city? Let's hear it for open discourse, not decisions made behind closed doors with minds already made up.
Jerry M Gray
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.
I concur with Kaplan, Dombey and Blaske. In fact, both Huron Hills Golf Course and Leslie make money for the city. When the annual financial statements are audited, it becomes apparent that indirect costs for administrative expenses, assigned to the Golf Courses account for any "losses" in the Golf Course annual statements. The direct expenses of the Golf Courses are offset by their revenues by many thousands of dollars. Both course make a good deal of money for the city.
thomas h blaske
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 2:09 p.m.
Huron Hills does not lose money. Many activities in many parks are subsidized by City because they serve recreational needs of citizens. Money is not the real root of this plan by the City, at least not sensibly so. Political opportunism is.
BobbyJohn
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.
In my humble opinion, the city does not need 2 municipal golf courses, especially not one that loses money. On top of that, a golf course is not ecologically correct, with all that grass. Our city is in dire financial straits, and that is very valuable land. We need to improve our tax base. I feel that some of that land should be sold off. Maybe that would improve our dismal city services.
Stuart Dombey
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.
It is sad that the City spent between $50,000 and $100,000 with Mr Keegan in 2007 and he feels compelled to rejoin the debate without disclosing his identity. It is sad that he tries to reach his conclusions by inflammatory language. In addition to the comment above he wrote me this e mail on 28 September 2007 so he is at least consistent. " But as for closed minds, it is certainly individuals like yourself who badger and bait believing only your way is appropriate that is disheartening. You will recall that the failure to be included in the initial distribution of the survey was solely through your own inability to send an email to the correct address on a timely basis. How sad that in a community of intellectuals, free discourse cant occur and the alternative positions cant be explored. I would have expected more than inflexible self-interest that seems to dominant about 50 citizens in a town exceeding 100,000. Note we were hired to do a statistically valid survey not to engage in dialogue with every citizen ad infinitum. " I would hope we could have a discussion as Harvey Kaplan suggests without reverting to this type of behavior. I suspect that the City got the value it should expect from this type of Professional. Stuart Dombey
burlington
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.
In the interest of disclosure, Mr. Keegan was the outside golf consultant hired by the city 3 years ago who issued the "doom and gloom" report on Huron Hills and Leslie. He is based in Colorado.
Jj
Mon, Sep 27, 2010 : 7:22 a.m.
A small group of citizens in Ward 2 continue to place their personal self interests over the financial welfare of the City. This issue has been discussed for over three years. Now is the time for a decision to cure a $200,000 annual loss. This is a classic example of a group of well-to-do, mainly retired individuals, with lots of time on their hand serving effectively as gadflies trying to protect their unfettered views from their homes. The City has committed to using the land as open park space. Finding its highest and best use within that context is the City's goal. When City Council was elected, the vote was cast in a demographic process for them to serve as stewards. They should be accorded the respect to fulfill those roles.
SillyTree
Sun, Sep 26, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.
I'm not certain if there is a correlation here, but history is important. There was a time when the land where the new transit center parking garage to be built on Fuller was a municipal golf course. It was one at least into the mid 70's. Some people don't see the land along the river as important, but this is one of the few areas in Ann Arbor where development is low enough to allow a wildlife corridor that extends from the west side of North Campus to St. Joseph Hospital. Wildlife corridors are important because they allow animals to move to fresh ground for feeding when one area becomes over grazed or seasonally less desirable. Even a small development could form an effective barrier to prevent this movement. It could cause decimation of many species that people like to see at Gallup Park. Gallup is big, but it is just part of their home.