Taxpayers to Pay Others to Golf.
Taxes are serious business--don't pay them, and you go to jail or lose your property. Even so, voters in one Minnesota town have decided that the power of government should be applied so that some people are able to ... golf.

As the wealth and geographic scope of metropolitan areas expands, owners of golf courses often find it more desirable to trade lawn mowers, fertilizers, and sand trap rakes for cold hard cash from a real estate developer.

The usual reaction can be predicted. Golfers lament the loss of a favorite spot, neighbors get upset at the prospect of new housing blocking their views, and, and some people want to get other people to pay for their pleasures.

Mendota Heights is a southern suburb of Saint Paul. It is also home to the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, a par 3 golf course (1,277 yards).

The course has been the subject of a protracted legal dispute, with owners wanting to sell and the appropriators wanting city government to use private property for their own gain.

At last the matter was put to a vote. The result? Residents will pay $50 a year--for the next 15 years--to satisfy the pleasures of a few.

According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press:

After a hard-fought, four-month campaign, golf course supporters won 53 percent of the vote - 1,865 to 1,611, a difference of 254 votes. About 42 percent of voters in the St. Paul suburb participated, "a phenomenal percentage for a special election," City Clerk Kathleen Swanson said.

[snip]

Robert Bonine, an opponent of the measure, said "This money is going to pay for a ragged golf course that's going to fail in three years."

Fail? Lose money, perhaps. As a government entity, it won't simply go out of business. On the other hand, residents could easily see their taxes go not only to pay for the golf course, but to subsidize its day-to-day operations.

John Huber, mayor of the city, supported the referrendum:

He thinks the golf course will turn a modest profit, as it has for much of the past decade. Between 1995 and 2005, the course ended only one year with a slight loss. In all other years, it was in the black. Its best year was 2001, with $253,689 in revenue and $167,410 in expenses, for a net operating profit of $86,279.

If the course is self-sustaining, it competes with other, privately owned courses. If it is not self-sustaining, it gains the demerit of becoming a government white elephant.

On the other hand, the mayor thinks there is an upside:

If the course fails to generate enough revenue, the mayor noted, the city could sell the land for a profit, citing its appraised value of $3.2 million.

Government arbitrage. Great. Another government speculating in business.

Mendota Heights / Voters OK city's purchase of golf course, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, April 25, 2007

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

The era of big government lives on in municipal services.
A few weeks ago, the governor of Minnesota, previously hailed by some people as being the most conservative governor of the state since ... well, perhaps ever, made news by announcing that "the era of small government is over."

Perhaps Tim Pawlenty's dedication to conservative principles was always overstated. Perhaps his recent statements are just election-year rhetoric, a move towards the center. (Twin Cities blogs North Star Liberty and Our House offer some useful background information).

Here's something else to consider: there's still a widely accepted belief that ambitious plans for government are, at least in some specific cases, acceptable.
Of course, Minnesota has the social welfare and taxpayer provided health care network that you would expect from a place with Scandinavian roots.

But what might be surprising is the ways in which government reaches into ordinary life, even life in those alleged bastions of conservatism, the suburbs.

What you will find there is a surprising number of government-owned and operated enterprises that have nothing to do with obviously public functions.

Take, for example, water parks. The plain-jane municipal pool has given way to water parks, with all sorts of special features.

Eagan, Minnesota, is a major suburb of Saint Paul. It's the home of Governor Pawlenty. It's also the home of a number of government owned and operated commercial enterprises, including a water park to rival many a privately owned enterprise.

This year, the city expanded the facility by adding the Captain's Course, a miniature golf course that, if the marketing materials is to be believed, is quite a step up from the windmill fare.

In the southern 'burbs you can find water parks in Apple Valley, Bloomington, Edina, and Shakopee.

Northern suburbs that have city-owned facilities include Shoreview.

Why make the trek to a privately owned concern such as Wild Mountain--an hour's drive from downtown Saint Paul--when you can let the kids run wild at the municipal water complex?

Back to Eagan for a moment. It has a government-owned fitness center with all manner of weight training and cardio equipment. Why pay your dues to a commercial operator such as Life Time Fitness when you can get most of the same services for less at a government facility that just has to break even (if that) and doesn't have to turn a profit?

Is there a limit to what government can and should do? If running a health club and extravagant entertainment center is part of its mission, Maybe not.

No discussion of summertime activities would be complete without mentioning golf. Though Governing magazine has called municipal-owned courses "the most nonessential of nonessential services," governments provide.

In the winter, Minnesota has municipal ice arenas by the score. It's the land of hockey. They are also few government-owned ski hills. Northern Minnesota features Lutsen (privately owned and operated), Giants Ridge (owned by an agency of the state of Minnesota) and Spirit Mountain (owned by the city of Duluth).

Granted, some of the various facilities came about when there were few or even no privately owned and operated facilities.

But rising to the level of needing government involvement? That's hard to believe.

Each facility mentioned above, by the way, fails several components of the test of a public good. In particular, gates and employees can and do exclude non-fee-payers from pools, ski hills, and golf courses.

There are obvious drawbacks to such activities. For one, it puts the majority of taxpayers in direct commercial conflict with a few taxpayers who own golf courses, water parks, and so forth. Two, it distracts government from its core mission. Three, it can contribute to a false confidence in what government can do, prompting it to move from relatively simple tasks to more problems more intractable than "we don't have enough courses for junior golfers." Finally, it is self-perpetuating: would you want to risk your own house, or your own money, your own time, to go into business against someone with taxing authority?

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Quebec Says Non to State-Run Ski Area.
Americans can take some inspiration from the Canadian province of Quebec, where the government has decided to sell off some state-owned land.

The property in question is Mont Orford, a ski and golf complex within Orford Park. As if often the case with such places, the profit is to be made in real estate rather than ski and golf operations. A private company will build condos on the site, and Quebec will take the money to add more land to the park.

Why is the government taking this step?

"Environment Minister Claude Bechard justified the land sale on the grounds the government should not be in the business of running a ski hill and golf club."

Imagine that. It sounds similar to something I've heard before.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

For this we need government?
Cleaning out some recent mail, I found a catalog for the city's parks and recreation department.

The department offers a water park (slides and all that) and this year they are adding a mini-golf course.

OK, so I like hitting a golf ball through the windmill as much as the next guy.

But why should government be the one to own the course?

On the plus side, they are charging a greens fee, and admission to the water park requires putting down some funds as well. But even if the operations make money--and at this point I haven't read enough to know if that is the case or not--their operation in the public sector is questionable at best.

Granted, such operations may be started on the grounds that "We need something for the kids to do, and there's nobody offering this service." But the building of a service economy in a still-developing region takes time, and government operations are sure to dampen the enthusiasm for any entrepreneurs who might come along in the future. In addition, governments are usually not very good at innovating or having the funds for capital expansion, so the "let's get it done now" model can lead to stagnation in a few years, as government facilities get locked in to old facilities and service models.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

If it Saves One Life ...
How many times has that question be used to justify another law or regulation, usually resulting in unintended consequences?

I thought of that upon reading the sad story of a golfer who died recently. Not because of lightning, or even being hit by an errant tee shot. Nope, a Georgia man died of head injuries after he fell out of a golf cart that his son was driving. Will we soon hear someone call for seat belts on golf carts?

No word on whether alcohol was involved, but given that the accident occurred near the first hole, that's unlikely.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Will Court Decision Lead to Face Masks on Golf Courses?
A golfer was injured when he was hit by the errant tee shot of a duffer. The Iowa Supreme Court says that course owners must pay.

The golf course owners, in this case, are the taxpayers of the City of Des Moines, Iowa. According to a report from Radio Iowa, "The Iowa Supreme Court ruled the city could have taken steps to protect golfers from errant shots, like planting trees or shrubs to shield the fairway on 18 from sliced shots off the first tee."

Golfers, next time you curse that low-hanging branch that is thwarting your attempt to get out of the rough, remember this: maybe it was required by law.

(Hat tip to Golf Blogger.)

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Too Clever for His Own Good.
When is a fee a tax? That's an economic, legal, and today, political question.

In Minnesota, the politicians (Republican governor, Republican House, Democratic Senate, long history of expansive government) did the unthinkable: erase a large ($4 billion, I think it was) budget deficit without raising any significant tax increases.

Last year the "No New Taxes" governor gave ground. Whether it was an acknowledgement of a changing political landscape, a change in convictions, or the result of poor strategic or tactical considerations in politics is a question for others to decide. But the means of increasing the government bite into personal incomes was in some ways more damaging than the actual increase in taxes.

Here's why: Governor Tim Pawlenty insisted that a tax on tobacco was not a tax, but a "health impact fee." Never mind that it looks like a tax, walks like a tax, and talks like a tax (cigarette prices went up 75 cents a pack, and no, I don't smoke, thank you very much). Never mind that by some estimates, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying early. (To be fair, I think those estimates are for governments as a whole—the feds may save money while the states just may lose money. Then again, “saving money” could be an excuse for, oh, a 100 percent tax on anything but tofu.) Never mind that fees are for what government provides--a license to drive, permission to play golf on a city-owned golf course, etc. Nope, it's a fee, said the governor, not a tax.

Why the game with language? One possibility: the fee gave the governor a small bit of ground by which he could claim to have kept his no-new-taxes pledge. Another possibility: it would keep him out of legal trouble with Indian tribes and an agreement the state made a few years ago with tobacco companies.

Well, it didn't work. David Strom, one of Governor Pawlenty's most vocal critics on the "health impact fee," comments on a significant ruling recently handed down by the court that oversees the state's tobacco settlement.

Says Strom: "the tobacco companies agreed to pay the state a whopping $6 billion to cover the supposed increased health care costs imposed upon the state by smokers, and in return the state would indemnify them against any future claims by the state government to cover such costs.

What I did not know, and as a non-lawyer really could not know, was whether the HIF actually violated the letter of the contract.

Now we know."

Indeed we do. So much for creative revenue enhancement.

Oh yeah. David, you certainly can say "I told you so."

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Want to Stop Development? Buy the Land Yourself.
A group that wanted their city government to deny a zoning change request says that it would like to buy the land in question--but it's probably too late.

In the south suburbs of the Twin Cities, the Eagan City Council has paved the way for, well,
paving residential streets on what is now a golf course.

Here's the short version of the story: man buys golf course. Eventually wants to turn it into housing. Neighbors complain to city council, citing comprehensive plan and hinting at the use of eminent domain. Man files lawsuit against city, wins a preliminary ruling. Neighbors talk about buying the golf course. City comes to a settlement, agrees to change the plan to allow a scaled-back development.

A few days ago, news came out that opponents of the plan--the people who bought housing in newly developed area and then wanted to shut out everyone else--were assembling private financing to buy out the golf course. Too bad they didn't do that sooner, as I argued, at least as long ago as eleven months ago.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Township Reverses Business, Gets Out of Entertainment Business.
After cost overruns of $70,000, Redford Township (suburban Detroit) is hiring a private company to manage its ice rink.

Good enough as far as it goes, though the township would be better off selling the facility outright. As the Detroit News notes in an editorial, "Cities and towns should concentrate their dwindling resources on providing adequate public services, not hockey rinks, community theaters and golf courses.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Taxes or Fees, the Money Ain't Free.
When is a payment to government a tax? And when it is a fee? That's a question swirling around the Minnesota capitol these days.

One legislator jokes that a $1-per-pack levy from government might be called a "cigarette health enhancement fee."

Legislation from the chairman of the House Taxes Committee defines a tax as: "any fee, charge, exaction, or assessment imposed by a governmental entity on an individual, person, entity, transaction, good, service, or other thing. It excludes a price that an individual or entity chooses voluntarily to pay in return for receipt of goods or services provided by the governmental entity." If I'm reading the language rightly, it defines licensing fees (occupational fees, business fees) as a tax as well. That's arguably defensible, since it reflects the cost of spending determined by the political process to be desirable.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, which tax chairman chairman Phil Krinkie as "possibly the state's purest elected tightwad," explains paraphrases the the intent of the bill: "The average person doesn't make a distinction between taxes and fees, accelerations or any of the other labels beloved by politicians of all parties who would rather not appear to be raising taxes."

The voluntariness of a transaction, it would seem, should play a part in labeling something a tax or a fee. Also important: the significance of the transaction to daily life.

Fisherman pay for fishing licenses, but fishing is hardly essential to survival or even prosperity, unless you're a survivalist or a commercial fisherman. So for most people, the license is a fee.

Does government take a significant role in actually providing the service? If so, then perhaps it's a fee, especially if it's voluntary. Government-run golf courses are good example: not essential to survival (economic or otherwise), and provided entirely by government.

On the other hand, if government plays a minimal role, or if the role is primarily related to regulation--say, wireless telephone service--then the "fees" are really taxes.

Finally, if the fees in question, such as "impact fees" levied on new housing developments, are not accurately and consistently calculated, there's a high likelihood that they are in fact taxes.

The value of Krinkie's legislation, if enacted: it might make the cost that we choose to pay for government more transparent.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

If You Want To Eliminate Influence-Peddling, Pull Back the Regulatory State and Promote Competition..
In Michigan, the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages is strictly controlled by the state. The existing set of wholesalers have a oligopoly, granted and protected by law.

Is it any surprise, then, that beer and wine wholesalers regularly supply free vacations, golf outings, and campaign cash to legislators?

The Detroit Free Press reports.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Government-Owned Golf Doesn't Make the Cut.
A while ago, I wrote here, and in the Detroit News, about the folly of governments being in the business of operating golf courses. Today--the coldest day of the season to date--I press the point again in another Detroit News entry, which responds to criticisms of the original essay.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Golf Course Conversion: Who's in the Rough?
The game of golf has an odd place in public policy. In short, it's treated as a public good (deserving of taxpayer support) and its courses treated as public shrines (requiring government rules to make sure they remain as golf courses.)

Many cities subsidize golf operations, leading Governing magazine to call muni golf "the least essential of non-essential services." Yet at least one "progressive" advocate of government-lead policy defends government-owned golf operations as important for the health and well-being of low-income individuals.

(Talk about an inability to set priorities? Subsidized housing, or golf? Subsidized food purchases, or golf? Subsidized health care, or golf? If I were to advocate government action any program, golf would not even be on the last page of the list. And I say this as a hack golfer, not as an anti-golf person.)

Aside from subsidies, government policy affects golf when economic and population growth lead to plans for converting golf courses to housing.

This debate is being played out in the St. Paul (Minn.) suburb of Eagan. The Rahn family purchased a golf course a few years ago. The land, as you might expect, is zoned in a way suitable to a golf course (open space, parks, agriculture, or whatever it is).

Now the family says that the course has been made obsolete by changing technology. (In short, it's too short for today's equipment.) Golfers, they say, don't like playing such a short course. So, the argument goes, the course is losing money, and the best path for the family is to sell the course to a developer of upscale housing.

As often happens in cases like this, NIMBY-ism among neighbors steps up, who then protest. On two different occasions, they've been successful in convincing the city council to reject a zoning change required to complete the sale.

The story is here.

It's hard to know who to feel for in this situation. The current landowners bought the land knowing that it could not (in current zoning) be used for housing. By their own argument, they have been overtaken by changes in the marketplace, and are asking for government to change its policy for their own benefit.

The neighbors, on the other hand, are locked into a "never say change" mode of thinking that is not sustainable in the long-run. It's also not as if the course is going to be turned over to say, a nuclear waste dump, so the neighborhood's claims of harm are overdone. (If anything, the neighboring homeowners will probably see an increase in their property values as the result of an upscale development in their midst.)

Meanwhile, one of the official explanations of why the course should remain as is -- "preserve trees and wetlands"--sounds straight out of The Lorax. Should a children's book serve as the basis of public policy?

Ideally, if neighbors and anyone else want to prevent the conversion to take place, they ought to buy out the current owners of the golf course, and donate the land to the city. But with the land worth several millions of dollars, that's not going to happen. And the city itself can't afford to purchase the land, even assuming that it would be a good thing to do.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Government as Provider, or Traffic Cop?
Just because something's of public importance, that doesn't mean that government ought to be involved, let alone providing it.

It's that providing part that is the focus of a new book from the Reason Public Policy Institute, called Governing by Network.

The overall idea is that we need government to be less of a provider and more of a traffic cop. (Think of "traffic" in the sense of workflow rather than law enforcement, and the idea makes even more sense.) As the promotional page for the book says, "government executives are redefining their core responsibilities away from managing government workers and programs to orchestrating both independent and public organizations to deliver services."

A perfect example that comes to mind is the delivery of educational services. At the level of higher education, we rely on both the private and public sectors. But at the K-12 level, public policy (at least the funding part of it) relies almost exclusively on government bought and delivered services. That, in large measure, is the problem with K-12 education: the government-run part helps ensure that there is no competition, leading to high costs and low performance. It's past time to rely more on the private sector, by channeling $9,000-10,000 per pupil (or more) spending away from government monopolies to a variety of private vendors.

Governing magazine reviews the book here. "It's not about whether privatization or outsourcing is good or bad anymore," says the magazine. "Private contractors are already embedded in everything the government does. In fact, the government has come to rely far more on networks of public, private and non-profit organizations, but has yet to figure out how to manage them."

But what government needs is a cultural change--one that may, in my view, be beyond the grasp of an organization which, by definition of any normal society, cannot go out of existence.

Here's what government managers will need to master in the future: "contract negotiations, contract management and risk analysis and ... the ability to tackle unconventional problems."

The Governing review offers some interesting glimpses from the book, including this: the federal government spends $100 million more per year on contracted services than it pays in salaries for its own employees. While that's a positive thing in itself, it also means that discussions about the size and scope of government must go beyond head counts.

Certainly, smart contracting is, well, smart. Beyond that, though, is the question of whether public involvement in a given area (military defense versus municipal golf courses, for example) is required, in any form.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Why Government Golf?
Next time you hear of a need for higher tax rates to support "important public services," you might want to ask whether those "important" services are justified. Sometimes, the answer is "no."

Take the municipal golf course, please. Though Michigan already has more than 700 privately owned courses, government officials have seen fit to introduce another 81 courses of their own. This is not only unfair competition with private owners of courses, it is also an unfair burden on the non-golfing public. A government-owned golf courses is, as one magazine for public officials put it, the least necessary of unnecessary public services.

My friends at the Mackinac Center offer a review of the problems of government-owned courses in this essay. Its lessons extend beyond "the greens" (golf) to "the green" (government programs and their purposes.)

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

The Folly of Municipal Golf Courses Taken to a New Level.
Though golf has been called "the least essential of non-essential services" offered by government, defenders of politically-run government golf still find excuses. I've heard of the need for junior players to learn the game. There's also the alleged need to provide an affordable alternative for people of more modest means. (Why should government be involved in providing for my recreation, though?)

The Village of Bolingbrook, a distant suburb of Chicago, now has its own, village-run golf course. It sure looks nice, and at $65 a round (a discounted rate for village residents), it flunks the "affordability" test, at least for hackers like me.

So what was the rationalization offered here? The municipal government needs to build luxury golf course to distinguish its city from everyone else.

Says the mayor of Bolingbrook, "This is my baby. And it is such a hoot." Hizzoner, Mayor Roger Claar, has spent ten years in office working on this project. (That's a tremendous opportunity cost to pay--how much time could have been spent on other village work?)

"This course is now a symbol of community pride," Claar boasts. It is, apparently, a way to set the village apart from the hundreds of other suburbs in Chicagoland.

What if every city in a region builds a course? Or perhaps a premier concer theater? Then we have a "government luxury goods" contest. The result: government gets further away from its mission and core competency, and does more to tread into areas best left to the civil society.

Golf Illinois has a favorable review and provides more information on its construction.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Regulations to Help ... Businesses.
Business owners are keen to bash regulations--except when the regulations help their business.

I'm reminded of this again as I noted this entry in a local golf guide: "No coolers allowed on the course."

Now, a business ought to be able to set its own rules for what people do on the premises. But when it comes to alcoholic beverages, the rule is backed up by state law, which forbids customers to bring their own brews to the course. The beneficiary, naturally, is the golf course owner, who can charge $2 for a single can of Bud Miller.

By the way, the Institute for Justice does a great job of fighting unnecessary regulation that harms both businesses and consumers. A classic example: some states have decreed that a family can buy a casket only at a funeral home. The result: a huge mark-up for a disposable item. Check out the IJ website for stories about their battle on behalf of a small company that wanted to sell caskets at a discounted price. The topic becomes of greater interest now that big box retailer Costco is now selling caskets in its discount stores.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Death of a Golf Course.
Much of public policy revolves around this simple fact: when two people make an agreement, a third party that doesn't like that arrangement tries to get some level of government to get involved in some way. I've seen that action of late, however.

Locally, the number of golf courses got out of hand; in terms of econ 101, supply began to exceed demand. At the same time, the growth in the number of new households has increased the demand for housing. The the supply of land is (to date, mildly) constrained by government policy (think of it as a weak form of an urban growth boundary), so its value keeps increasing. A course owner can sometimes make a lot more money selling off the business than trying to operate in a market of soft demand. The result is a recipe for golf course conversion into housing developments.

Naturally, people who own housing next a course strenuously object to changing an "open space." Regardless of whether their own house has "destroyed" open space, they now want to prevent someone else from doing the same. Recently, such a crowd convinced the city council to deny a developer's zoning application to develop a course. (The family that owns the course claims that it has been a perpetual money-loser.)

A few miles south, however, a second course is soon going to be developed. It's a shabby course without much to commend it except for the fact that it's been very easy for me to play it without a tee time.

This morning I went there, thinking I had one or two sessions left; the bulldozers have been expected to arrive at the end of the season.

I was off a few days, as it turns out. Though I was able to play through, work has already begun. The signage, yardage markers, cleaning equipment, etc., were auctioned off yesterday. I was invited to walk the course (free of charge!) while the surveying crews started marking where gas lines and roads would go. Since the flags were already gone, I had to rely on my memories of past rounds to know where to aim. Inconvenient? Yes. But what a bargain!

All in all, it was a fine round. Naturally, it was also sad to know that the long fairway of a par 5 was soon going to be another road in another treeless development of cookie-cutter mini-mansions. Sigh.

But you know what? I can live with it. There's no need for this third party to intervene between the old landowner and the new one, seeking the power of the law to protect my preferences. I have no right to control the use of the land. Though I'm disappointed, the loss to this and other golfers does not rise to the level of government intervention.

At least we'll have some memories.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Bloggers Unite.
In downtown Minneapolis a couple nights ago, bloggers united long enough to enjoy some beverages, each other's company, and some discussion about the software, phenomenon, and use of blogging.

Among the bloggers present:
Crazy in the Wright, who gives us some photos of the evening.

Cathy's brother, who writes Three Sheets to the Wind, joined in, along with their father and her husband. Blogging: the new family activity. My introduction to the evening came courtesy of Peggy Kaplan, of What If?

The team of Fraters Libertas, which "organized" the evening, reported that about 60 people showed up. "St. Paul" said afterwards "I dare say this much amateur Internet editorializing talent doesn't exist in any other region of the country." He also provides an extensive (and I'll say "official" list of bloggers here), though Mitch Berg provides lengthy list as well.

Several of the bloggers in attendance, including David Strom, have a radio show. (Come to think of it, I had a radio show once; the station had something like 5 watts of power. The signal travelled from the student union building to dorms within a 3, block radius. Maybe 4 if the skies were blue that day.)

There were also a number of people who were not bloggers (or at least resisted being so called, citing their meager output). Most of these were blogging fans interested in leaning about the mechanics of running a blog. (My short answer: go for it. Sign up at blogspot.com, and advance from there.)

So much for the personalities. How about the topics? Here are a few thoughts from my own conversations.

There was some discussion over the merits of blogger, movable type, and other blogging software programs.

Can blogging bring about religious change? One prospective blogger told me of his efforts to reform a Christian denomination. He thought that blogging might be a way to mobilize and connect grass-roots members who felt disconnected from the changes pushed by the church bureaucracy. (Yes, even religion is not free from the problems of bureaucracy and politics.) He may be on to something. If fax machines and photocopiers were instrumental to the work of Solidarity undermining communist rule in Poland, perhaps blogging can facilitate religious, and not merely political revolutions.

Speaking of movements towards democratic rule, I briefly sat in on a discussion of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. It might have been a fascinating topic (I used to read extensively on the subject), but such a serious discussion seemed out of place in such a festive occasion, so I soon joined other conversations.

There was, of course, some navel gazing: just what constitutes a blog? One prominent web self-publisher has, I've been told, proclaimed that he is not a blogger because he does not write about politics.

I don't buy that point of view. The PolicyGuy blog is not about politics as much as it is policy, but it certainly is a blog. (Not about politics? Well, yes. It does not, for example, overtly advocate for one candidate or another, nor does it handicap political races.)

One of the most famous (or notorious) blogs of the last three years is the diary of a hip, urban young woman who, as it turns out, was a work of fiction. And lately, some of the most interesting web sites I've found about golf are blogs. So much for blogs being all about politics.

While the PolicyGuy blog spends some significant time discussing reports from various think tanks, a lot can also be learned simply from hanging out and talking with people who can report on the effects of policy on a daily basis.

Transportation planning is an important policy issue in the Twin Cities, so I discussed the oddities of public transportation policy with a man who commutes into downtown Minneapolis. Ordinarily, he would pay north of $100 a month in parking fees. Since he is in a carpool, he gets a parking spot for $20 a month.

Does this subsidy, meant to encourage carpooling, have any effect on local traffic? No. My bloging friend would drive to work in any case. His car pool companion would take the bus if not for the car pool. In other words, one subsidy reduces the number of people using another subsidy.

All in all, it was a fascinating evening. Somewhere in this evening, there's got to be a dissertation in sociology or communications theory.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Michigan Extends Ski Hill Contract to 15 Years.
While it's a problem when government does things the wrong way, a more serious situation arises when government tries to do things it shouldn't.

One thing it shouldn't be doing is operate recreational activities, especially when private businesses provide the same service. The most common example is the municipal golf course. A more obscure example is a state-owned and run ski hill in the far reaches of Michigan's upper peninsula.

This last ski season, the state--facing a budget crunch and public scrutiny in light of some publications by the PolicyGuy and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy--contracted out the operation of the Porcupine Mountain ski area to a private concern.

The original contract was for one year. Obviously that's too short of a time to provide any incentive for improvements to the lift equipment, the making of new trails, and so forth.

But thankfully, the two parties have just now come to a 15-year agreement. While that is short (similar contracts between the U.S. Forest Service and ski companies in Aspen, Vail, etc. run for 40 years), it does provide make some improvements financially worthwhile for the contractor.

Says the Ironwood Daily Globe, "the Department of Natural Resources has finalized a 15-year contract with Lonnie Gliberman for operation of the Porcupine Mountain Ski Hill."

The transition from government operation to private operation is not always easy, and there have been a few unexpected moguls (bumps) on this ski hill transition. Some local skiers have expressed dissatisfaction with the new contractor's grooming management, especially of the cross-country trails. But Gliberman says that he met and even exceeded the standards set by the contract.

According to the Globe report, "Gliberman said half-way through the skiing season, he changed the approach to grooming and that satisfied many skiers."

I haven't seen the new contract, but perhaps it makes some provisions that will satisfy even more people in the area. On the other hand, a few skiers have, for many years, enjoyed meticulous groomed snow at public expense. So if the state decided to economize, by not paying for as much grooming, well, that's just one thing to suggest that the old state subsidy was more generous than first thought.

Some local folks may volunteer to help with the maintenance. If there's not a market for cross-country trails, then it's only reasonable--and commendable--for civil society to step in to fill the gap, rather than rely on taxpayers, especially those scattered throughout the rest of the state.

Says the Globe, "Friends of the Porkies will discuss assisting with finances for grooming cross-country ski trails and might be able to assist with interpretive programs, which were not done this past winter. [County Commissioner] Antila said she felt the meeting was very worthwhile."

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Getting Government Out of the Recreation Business.
I like to ski. I like to golf. Should your tax dollars subsidize my hobbies?

The Mackinac Center is running as their "Current Comment" of the day an article I wrote about the ski operation in the Porcupine Mountain Wilderness State Park. The U.S. Forest Service leases land to companies that run some of the finest ski areas in Colorado (and the world); it doesn't actually run ski areas. Why can't the State of Michigan follow this example? Thankfully, it recently has.

There are probably a few other other examples of government-run ski areas. A far more frequent example of recreational pork, though, is the government-run golf course. As noted by Michigan Privatization Report (quoting Governing magazine), government-owned courses represent "the most nonessential of nonessential services."

In the pursuit of the alleged prestige of golf courses, and the market value they add to adjacent homes, governments can undertake heavy burdens and engage in shady accounting. Auburn Hills (Mich.) for example, paid $16 million a few years ago to buy land for a course. Since 2000, the course has run a deficit of $1.5 million. To help finance the construction of a golf course, the city took $500,000 from a police fund.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the article in Governing magazine, from 1997.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

This Little Piggie .... State Government Waste
Citizens Against Government Waste publishes an annual Pig Book, detailing wasteful spending at the federal level--you know, things such as teaching walleye how to hum.

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, sadly for the citizens of Oklahoma, has found enough material in that state's budget to come up with a piglet book of its own. Among the examples: subsidizing golf, at $6 per round.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Opponents of Golf-Course Conversion in the Rough
Minnesota has too many golf courses, even if golf is popular there. Owners of money-losing courses are retiring, and want to cash in by selling to developers. Building new golf courses that make money off of charging premiums for course-side lots is more profitable than running a closed-in, decades-old course. Developers find old courses attractive: they've got trees, and roads to get to the course are already there. And finally, there are always people who will jump at the chance to buy a new house.

Put these factors together, and you get a controversy over whether privately owned courses should be allowed to be developed into housing. Says one manager, speaking of closer-in courses, "In the long run, if municipalities don't develop golf courses, there are not going to be golf courses."

As a golfer, I lament that possibility. I'd rather drive 15 minutes to an old, scruffy course than an hour to an immaculate course that combines stunning design with super-high greens fees. At this point in my game, I play too poorly to appreciate a higher-priced course.

But as a policy analyst, I have to ask ... if governments doesn't develop golf courses, so what? It's not as if golf is like education funding or public safety--something so vital to everyone's well being that we decide it is necessary to invoke the power of taxation to make sure that the service is provided.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

How do I get Work Like That? Golfing on the Public's Time
Since May of this year, four employees of the Village of Barrington (a wealthy suburb of Chicago) have attended 29 golf outings on village time. A trustee defends the practice, saying "Department heads are the face of the village. It's an opportunity for them to get out in the community." A professor at Northern Illinois University says "It's not even a perk; it's part of their professional development. It's about knowing your peers."

OK, I've been part of corporate outing, but it was my own dime, and time. And I may concede that hitting the links as part of an annual conference for one's profession may happen to. (The social highlight of the professional meetings I attend, however, tends to be the formal dinner, where we still talk shop.) But at least two of the village employees took at least some "company time" to participate in a weekly league sponsored by the local chamber of commerce.

One question. How do I get one of those jobs?

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Next Time You are Sold on a Tax Increase, Remember This ...
According to the Detroit News, the City of Auburn Hills obtained voter approval for a special tax hike for police services. The city is now using half of that money ($1 million) for ... a golf course.

Holy Bait and Switch, Batman!

Now, I enjoy golf as much as the next duffer--yesterday I scored my lowest round yet at my home course. (Don't ask, it's still embarrassing.) But golf courses should be at the bottom of any priority list for local government--if it is to be on the list at all. As for the diversion of funds, an Oakland County (Michigan) official notes dryly, "It goes right to the heart of distrust of government. I think we are going to be a generation in dealing with this."

The golf course fiasco is not the only example of shady management, unfortunately. The News article doesn't do much to suggest ways around this. Statutory guidelines are weak, leaving, perhaps voter outrage and retribution.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

County May Sell Golf Course Operations
Arguing that Waukesha (Wisc.) County government must focus on core functions--and that running a golf course is not one of those functions--County Executive Dan Finley is pursuing the sale of the Wanaki Golf Course. " The county, in suburban Milwaukee, owns three courses.

Finley nails the point when he asks: Should Waukesha County have a golf facility when there's plenty of other facilities? Why should county government do it?"

Other members of the county government object, arguing that the course is self-supporting, and that the county ought to sell off two ice arenas, which are not. That's a good idea, too.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Milwaukee County to Privatize Golf Courses, Parks
Scott Walker, executive of Milwaukee County, said he would make more use of private firms in managing county golf courses and park concessions.

Given the $52 million budget gap, Walker said, it made sense to make more use of private firms. Walker also fired the Parks Director, who presented him with a plan to cut costs by closing county swimming pools earlier than scheduled. In other words, she gave him the "hold the public hostage" approach, while Walker was trying to use new strategies. The Journal-Sentinel says that the parks director was dragging her feet on pursuing privatization opportunities.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Public Schools: Taxpayers Foot Bill for Palm Springs Golf
The Detroit Free Press is all over the Oakland (Mich.) Intermediate School District this morning for the way in which officials travelled well on the taxpayer dime. "A Free Press review of expense records," the paper said, "found a freewheeling environment with few controls over spending on travel, meals and gifts in a district that serves special education and vocational students. At the ame time, the Freep notes, special education students had to wait in line for some services.

In addition to conference stays at plush hotels, district personnel travelled to France, Germany, Poland, and other countries, as well as tourist traps such as Las Vegas in this country.

Further, "employees bought sweaters, handheld organizers, pillows, wallets, beach chairs, candy, silk flowers, plants, potpourri, candles, a vacuum, crystal, jewelry and movie videos, often listing the purchases as training or school improvement supplies. "

A lobbyist for the district (yes, taxpayer funds go to support a man whose job is to ... ask for more taxpayer funds) was reimbursed for $166.50 he says he spent on a meal. That's bad enough. Except he lied--the money wasn't for a meal, but for two rounds of golf in Palm Springs, Calif.

I have thismuch sympathy for the people criticized for the trips to fancy hotels. Conferences are often held at such hotels, and it's simply much easier, and more logical, to spend the night in the same hotel as the conference. And if the meeting is going to be in a downtown district where the choices are dominated by high-priced hotels, you're probably not going to find a Motel 6 or even a Hampton Inn. (I attend conferences where I end up paying what I think is an obscene amount of money on a hotel stay, because that's where the people I want to do business with are going to be staying.)

But government is not business. Yet government officials sometimes try to justify their expensive ways by appealing to business tactics. Said the golf-loving lobbyist, "The public might not like an $80 tram ride, but you have to look at it as an investment in bringing the money back into the district," said Whiston, who is paid about $92,000 a year. "I've always said this will never look good on the front page, but I'm hoping that they'll look at the total picture. It's a very competitive business."

True enough. But he is not in a competitive business. He works for a monopoly enterprise that is guaranteed the enrollment of students from a certain geographic area. And he doesn't have to earn the trust of customers. Or satisfy the demands of stockholders. Or ... or ... or. Other than that, it's just business.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Greens from Government?
No, not Nadarites, but golf greens. Facing a nearly $8 million budget deficit, Milwaukee County is considering closing some of its golf courses early this season, as well as not opening them next year.

Better that than police patrols or fire protection. But why are governments in the business of owning golf courses anyway? How about a municipal bowling alley, or city-owned baseball stadium? (Oops. We already have that.) The Reason Public Policy Institute offers a study against government-owned golf courses, and argues that privatization is a better way.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Be Wary of Surveys
GolfDigest.com conducted an "survey" of its readers. I put the word survey in quotes; I can't tell if this was an online querry (in general, notoriously inaccurate) or scientifically rigorous. Still. there's a broader point to be made here.

Golf Digest asked "How would you rate your own pace of play" on the course? Here are the percentages:
FAST: 58
AVERAGE: 34
SLOW: 5

The next question was "How would you rate most golfer's pace of play?" Take a look at these:
FAST: 2
AVERAGE: 42
SLOW: 56

Now, as a struggling hacker, I am probably on the slow side. It's harder to keep pace if you making par on a hole is a cause for celebration.

Again, I don't think this was a scientific survey, but there's an obvious observation here: it's always the other guy. Policy makers ought to spend more time with their convictions and less time trying to reading public opinion.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Boring Middle-Aged Guys for the Second Amendment
News Flash! Advocates of greater personal liberty and responsibility are not Rambo-wannabees, militia members suffering from testosterone poisoning.

That's one message from a profile in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press about Joe Olson, author of Minnesota's conceal-carry law. Olson, we learn, is "a self-described 'short, balding tax attorney'" from the suburbs who likes to tinker with an old sports car, lives near a golf course, and is a faculty member the left-leaning Hamline University School of Law. As reporter Tim Nelson put it, "The man who put Minnesota's new handgun permit law on the books doesn't drape ammo belts around his shoulders, clench daggers in his teeth or paint his face with camouflage."

Who woulda thunk it?

So why did Nelson and his paper think it newsworthy that an advocate of gun rights--part of the Bill of Rights--is a plain-vanilla guy? Either they think that such people are normally beyond the pale, or believe that this is what their readers think. Neither is encouraging.

But wait, there's more amazing news about Olson, the would-be gun nut. His law school students have described him as "open-minded." Imagine. A professor who actually judges his students by the quality of their work rather than their ideology. There are a few leftist profs who ought to be told about this.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Public and private diversity
Ever notice? Private groups are not allowed to discriminate, but public entitities are allowed to?

A golf club in Georgia comes under intense media pressure for having an all-male membership policy. Private schools are accused of being the province of bigots and racists (though Catholic schools serve black children from low-income families much better than government-operated schools in the same area), allegedly excluding minorities. Bob Jones University was stripped of its tax exemption for its odious policy of forbidding interracial dating, which was seen not only as an impingement of student's freedom, but as a racist statement.

Government contracts and university admissions, on the other hand, follow a soft form of racism. "Soft" in that they don't exclude certain groups (like the "whites only" drinking fountains of old); instead, they bend the rules in favor of those determined to be in a favored class.

There's something odd about a situation when many private clubs are more dedicated to constitutional principles of equal protection and treatment than the government that is supposed to protected and defend the Constitution.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

The Memories We Keep on Memorial Day
Laments over the lost meaning of shared ceremonies and symbols, such as national holidays are nothing new. Paul Beston offers up one of the latest critiques of the cultural meaning of our holidays in his take the "lower case holidays," those holidays, once celebrated on a specific day, but since shifted to become the backstop to the great American institution, the three-day weekend:

holiday seems to have taken on its own commercial identity. Memorial Day means summer wear and getaways; Labor Day is for back to school supplies and fall clothing; Presidents Day is about car sales, with makeshift Washingtons and Lincolns hawking zero percent financing on TVs and at dealerships.

According to Beston, "With the exception of religious days, there are no American holidays anymore that do not involve the concept of celebration." When he overstates the case--July 4 is still a solid, widely-observed holiday with events all of its own--it confirms the overall point that holidays that get shifted also get shafted. July 4 is still largely observed on a specific date, not "the nearest Monday."

What does this matter, though? Here's why it matters: despite all its troubles, the US of A is one of the best political, social, economic, and cultural systems known to human history. It didn't get there by accident, but through the hard work of people living and dead--including those who have served in our military.And it got that way through the genius of the founding fathers, who understood that though men are no angels, government can be so constructed as to give them the best possible shot at living freely.

From the National Review archives, David Koppel reminds us that building and maintaining a free society requires right thinking:

Memorial Day — like Passover, Independence Day, and other celebrations of freedom — is a day for reminding ourselves, and teaching our children, that our present happy circumstances are not the mere result of good luck, but instead the result of right thinking.

Now, I'm not trying to be a scold here--I like three day weekends as much as anyone, and while I paid a trip to a field of green this morning, it was not to a veterans' cemetary, but to a golf course. So take today's entry as my small effort of acknowledging the honorable tradition of those who have gone before us, and serve our country even today.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Freedom of Association Will Play Through at Colonial
On May 19th, Annika Sorenstam will be the first woman since the legandary Babe Zaharias to play in a tournament with men. Sorenstam, a phenom on the LPGA, will participate in the Bank of Colonial Colonial tournament, an event on the men's PGA Tour. A woman in a man's tournament? As you can expect, this has caused a lot of controversy.

Sportswriter Melanie Hauser has some good thoughts in a an op-ed on the subject.

Some players grumble that Sorenstam has not played in any of the qualifying tournaments for this tournament. Instead she will be there courtesy of a sponsor's exemption. These exemptions are granted at most, if not all, tournaments, so the criticism is overblown: what is unusual in this case is that the sponsored player is a woman. Actually, there are seven other players (all men) who will receive an exemption as well.

The cause of women in golf, then, is being advanced by commercial interests, not through a lawsuit, or a small group of protestors storming the gates. Bank of America may indeed be a progressive organization, but one can't help but admire their business acumen: giving a sponsor's exemption to Sorenstam is a sure-fire way to attract attention to an event that is, after all, not a major tournament. More public interest in the Colonial means more marketing opportunities for B of A.

Some of the men grumble, though in an age of political correctness and "diversity", nearly all the dissenters have kept their mouths shut. Of course, if they feel strongly enough about the issue, they always drop out of the event. It's an easy bet that none will. The stakes of winning--and the criticism they would face for withdrawing--all but guarantee it.

Rather than lobbying a government agency to regulate the PGA Tour, or sue the Tour for the "right" to enter, Sorenstam, who wants to test her mettle against the best golfers in the world, relied on the self-interest of Bank of America and of the Tour (which depends, of course, on sponors such as B of A). No regulatory dictat. No judicial decision. Just the free free market, and freedom of association at work.

Too bad we don't rely on that path much anymore.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)