Letter To The Editor: Race Brook Could Be Costly For Town

To the Editor:

I have been in the golf industry for 70 years and would like to share my insights and experience with the residents of Orange as they contemplate purchasing Race Brook Country Club for 8.6 million dollars.

For the last 15 years, golf has been on the decline in the state of Connecticut. We do not have to look too far to see this as we have had two local private golf courses, each in existence for over 40 years, not survive as private courses. Woodbridge Country Club could not stay in business and was purchased by the town of Woodbridge and run as a municipal course until the residents voted to close it as the expense of operating it with a management company was costing hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Eventually the residents voted to close the course and now it is fallow land. Oaklane Country Club closed after 40 years and was subsequently purchased by a family that owns another public course in Wallingford, and has been open to the public. Now Race Brook Country Club has financial difficulties and is in need of a bailout, and the voters of Orange are being asked to bond for $8.6 million.

I do not think the purchase is the best investment for the town, based on the downward spiral of the golf industry and the number of courses closing throughout the country. I have concerns that the RBCC will be able honor the 40-year lease. A resource available to see the recent years’ golf trends and rounds played is the National Golf Foundation. If RBCC cannot pay the lease, what happens to the land? The first selectman has stated publicly that two management companies have reached out to him. If that becomes the fate of RBCC, then we could potentially be in the same costly situation as Woodbridge, where the taxpayers were subsidizing the operations of the golf course with costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.

The Orange voters have been told that auditors analyzed RBCC’s financials and have determined they can pay the lease. However, I am curious as to their credentials in the golf industry. I would have confidence in their opinion if we had been told about their expertise in the golf industry. Did the Orange elected leaders commission a feasibility study on the health of the golf industry in Connecticut? Did they do their homework? Another important question is why can’t the voters see the lease agreement between the town and RBCC? The Orange voters deserve that so they can make an informed vote.

In short, I do not feel that purchasing a financially troubled business that is in a challenged industry is the right business decision for our town.

Walter “Bud” Smith
Orange

As a representative of the aforementioned National Golf Foundation that Bud references in his letter, there are some misleading statements here that are important to clarify.

The first are his blanket statements about the “downward spiral of the golf industry” or “decline in the state of Connecticut.”

This is a subjective viewpoint not necessarily rooted in fact. Yes, anyone can point to there being more golf courses closures nationwide in recent years than new course openings. That is basic supply and demand. Big picture, the U.S. is by far the best-supplied golf nation in the world – with more golf courses than the other top 10 countries combined. Did you know there are more golf courses in the U.S. than Starbucks OR McDonald’s locations? Highlighting course closures as a referendum on the industry’s overall health is incredibly misleading and doesn’t touch on the oversupply that exists in certain areas or the ever-increasing demand for valuable land.

This oft-repeated “downward spiral” perception unfortunately perpetuates what’s become a lazy narrative about one of the nation’s leading participation sports played by people of all ages.

On the whole, golf is predominantly local. That means the local golf economy is really the driver for what’s happening in a particular market, such as the one referenced here. Each market is unique, with its own competitive dynamics, and golf comes in a wide range of styles and price points and at varying quality and service levels. We find that golf courses are typically supported by residents who live within 5 to 15 miles of a course, so their success is often determined based on how well their “product” matches up with what golfers in the area are looking for. It’s not unlike restaurants in a town; you wouldn’t expect them all to be successful unless there is some meaningful differentiation or the options perfectly align with local tastes and demand. Golf courses, like restaurants, must set their product apart to compete, particularly in over-supplied areas and as societal tastes and trends evolve.

It’s not uncommon to see municipalities step in and acquire financially-challenged private or daily fee golf facilities, and our research shows that over the past five years there’s been a dramatic improvement in facility health overall (both public and private). This, in part, is because of a better balancing of supply and demand, in addition to ongoing investment throughout the industry and facilities looking to better position themselves in competitive markets.

The NGF has said repeatedly that making money isn’t always the primary motivation that drives a municipality to offer golf as recreation for its residents. There are a host of community amenities created and/or operated by local governments that commonly subsidize recreation – from the county pool and local senior center to libraries and adult basketball programs and tennis facilities. While golf is among the few such amenities that actually generate revenue (albeit on a bigger footprint), there is still surprise in some corners that a municipal system of courses might actually “lose” money for a government entity. Unfortunately, this is often erroneously followed by the contention – as seen above – that economic loss is a direct reflection of a “national decline” in golf.

At their core, muni courses are intended to provide affordable recreation to residents of a particular community. Not only do they preserve open space, but they are where many golfers young and old play for the first time, and where golf is most affordable and accessible to people of all ages and demographics.

I can appreciate that Bud believes he’s acting in the best interests of local voters, and being informed is a vital first step. The NGF specializes in this through research and consultancy with facilities, ownership groups and municipalities across the country. But it’s also important not to dismiss golf’s standing and importance, both now and in the future as the game continues to grow and evolve. This was perhaps never more evident than within the past year.

One comment to “Letter To The Editor: Race Brook Could Be Costly For Town”

Erik M

February 9, 2021 at 12:02 pm

As a representative of the aforementioned National Golf Foundation that Bud references in his letter, there are some misleading statements here that are important to clarify.

The first are his blanket statements about the “downward spiral of the golf industry” or “decline in the state of Connecticut.”

This is a subjective viewpoint not necessarily rooted in fact. Yes, anyone can point to there being more golf courses closures nationwide in recent years than new course openings. That is basic supply and demand. Big picture, the U.S. is by far the best-supplied golf nation in the world – with more golf courses than the other top 10 countries combined. Did you know there are more golf courses in the U.S. than Starbucks OR McDonald’s locations? Highlighting course closures as a referendum on the industry’s overall health is incredibly misleading and doesn’t touch on the oversupply that exists in certain areas or the ever-increasing demand for valuable land.

This oft-repeated “downward spiral” perception unfortunately perpetuates what’s become a lazy narrative about one of the nation’s leading participation sports played by people of all ages.

On the whole, golf is predominantly local. That means the local golf economy is really the driver for what’s happening in a particular market, such as the one referenced here. Each market is unique, with its own competitive dynamics, and golf comes in a wide range of styles and price points and at varying quality and service levels. We find that golf courses are typically supported by residents who live within 5 to 15 miles of a course, so their success is often determined based on how well their “product” matches up with what golfers in the area are looking for. It’s not unlike restaurants in a town; you wouldn’t expect them all to be successful unless there is some meaningful differentiation or the options perfectly align with local tastes and demand. Golf courses, like restaurants, must set their product apart to compete, particularly in over-supplied areas and as societal tastes and trends evolve.

It’s not uncommon to see municipalities step in and acquire financially-challenged private or daily fee golf facilities, and our research shows that over the past five years there’s been a dramatic improvement in facility health overall (both public and private). This, in part, is because of a better balancing of supply and demand, in addition to ongoing investment throughout the industry and facilities looking to better position themselves in competitive markets.

The NGF has said repeatedly that making money isn’t always the primary motivation that drives a municipality to offer golf as recreation for its residents. There are a host of community amenities created and/or operated by local governments that commonly subsidize recreation – from the county pool and local senior center to libraries and adult basketball programs and tennis facilities. While golf is among the few such amenities that actually generate revenue (albeit on a bigger footprint), there is still surprise in some corners that a municipal system of courses might actually “lose” money for a government entity. Unfortunately, this is often erroneously followed by the contention – as seen above – that economic loss is a direct reflection of a “national decline” in golf.

At their core, muni courses are intended to provide affordable recreation to residents of a particular community. Not only do they preserve open space, but they are where many golfers young and old play for the first time, and where golf is most affordable and accessible to people of all ages and demographics.

I can appreciate that Bud believes he’s acting in the best interests of local voters, and being informed is a vital first step. The NGF specializes in this through research and consultancy with facilities, ownership groups and municipalities across the country. But it’s also important not to dismiss golf’s standing and importance, both now and in the future as the game continues to grow and evolve. This was perhaps never more evident than within the past year.

Comments are closed.