[george123]

How are the Trent Jones Courses doing?
I use to go play them every summer but stopped 2 years ago - just couldn't find a free weekend. Are they still popular? Courses in good shape?
Did they drive up tourists dollars? good ROI's?
Did the locals get involved playing?

I loved the courses and always enjoyed the weekends but the courses never seemed that crowded which was a good thing for scheduling.

Thoughts?

[Southlander]

Yes, the courses are still there, still in good shape, still popular, still not too crowded. There might be a couple more added since you last looked. Come and play!

[harry chickpea]

Was stunned to find that the Florence area has a gasoline tax that supports their local effort in this direction. Gee, buy gas so some rich guy can play golf. What a concept.

[Southlander]

Actually, Harry, ANYBODY can play...these are public courses. You still have to pay the fee, but they are not country clubs. They're owned, I believe, by the Retirement Systems of Alabama.

[rnc76]

And they are very reasonable in price when compared to the quality of the courses. They are a big tourist draw to the state.

[harry chickpea]

Anybody can play, but how many minimum wage workers who have to buy gas to get to and from work are you going to find on the course? Tax video games, golf clubs, tennis rackets, or other non-essentials and I won't raise an eyebrow. But taxing gasoline for a golf course? Cummon, why not tax water to pay for a country club as well?

[resolute]

What about the JOBS and SALES TAX REVENUE that the courses create (groundskeepers, pro shop employees, administrative help) - ever think about that? The gasoline tax helps finance a golf course which is a tourist draw, bringing in more money to Alabama (generating revenue from people who would otherwise not contribute anything to the local economy). But by nature of the course being there, they bring their money into a community and leave it there. They also pay sales taxes, and buy gasoline to fuel their vehicle while in the area, buy meals, maybe stay in a local hotel or motel (generating more taxes for the local economy). This in turn helps lower everyone's tax obligations in the local area versus what it would be if the golf course was not there to generate this extra tax revenue. So it seems like a pretty good idea to me.

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by resolute

What about the JOBS and SALES TAX REVENUE that the courses create (groundskeepers, pro shop employees, administrative help) - ever think about that? The gasoline tax helps finance a golf course which is a tourist draw, bringing in more money to Alabama (generating revenue from people who would otherwise not contribute anything to the local economy). But by nature of the course being there, they bring their money into a community and leave it there. They also pay sales taxes, and buy gasoline to fuel their vehicle while in the area, buy meals, maybe stay in a local hotel or motel (generating more taxes for the local economy). This in turn helps lower everyone's tax obligations in the local area versus what it would be if the golf course was not there to generate this extra tax revenue. So it seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Actually, I HAVE thought about the jobs and sales tax revenue. I have pretty strong feelings on the subject, and I'll try not to shout when I lay them out.

First, where in the U.S. or Alabama Constitution does it say that government is responsible for golf courses??? I don't remember reading that the founding fathers said we all had the right to life, liberty, and great golf courses. Maybe I was out on that day in school. The purpose of government is to defend us, enforce a standard set of laws that we the people, or our representatives, place in the law books for our own protection. In the Soviet Union, the government was responsible for all aspects of the economy. I never wanted to live there, and I don't want to live in a western equivilent.

Secondly, the jobs for locals and money from outsiders argument is one that has been beaten to death by pro baseball and football teams in search of new stadiums. The sum total result is that TAXPAYERS get saddled with the costs from a privately owned team that can move to a different city or be sold. So if we examine such funding from the point of view of the average resident, what happens?

A sports complex comes into the area. IF it succeeds, (and many don't - or have a limited life span) it draws in some people from the outside as transients. The hotels get to charge premium rates for rooms (ever try to rent a room where the Alabama Auburn game is being held?) Restaurants get to inflate their prices and hire on a few more low paid waitpeople. The infrastructure of the location is strained, leading to politicians demanding new roads, new parks, new water systems, and more pork projects than a barbeque competition.

Now, as an average citizen already in such a fair city, and already employed, you get to pay more taxes, pay more when you go out to eat, suffer through more traffic, and watch as your property tax and insurance (home and auto) start to inflate. Does your boss care? He can be in the same pinch as you if his business isn't tied to the industry. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

Speaking of industry, many industrial giants demand tax breaks to locate into an area. While they might stand a better chance of bringing in money consistently, there are also abandoned factory buildings paid for with taxpayer dollars. I'm against that type of corporate welfare as well. All this type of welfare does is dig deeper into the pockets of citizens as more and more industries realize that they can force towns, counties, states, and even the Federal government to fund them. The stem cell debate wasn't about the legality of research into stem cells, it was about the Federal funding of that research.

If you came up to me and said "Give me 2 cents for every gallon of gas you've purchased in the past five years so that I can build a horseshoe pitching field" I'd call you nuts and send you packing. The local government has essentially said the same thing in not so nice a way, and said it to people who can't feed their kids without aid, to widows on a fixed income, and to others who have much more intelligent ways to spend THEIR OWN money.

I'm against the idea for another reason as well. I've repeatedly seen how tourist dollars ruin areas and make them into travesties of what they originally held as charm. I grew up in Vermont, where beautiful farms lined the roads to Stowe and Waitsfield. The roads weren't crowded and the air was fresh and clean every day of the year. That area has been loved to death by outsiders, to the point that locals can't afford to walk into a restaurant because of the high prices, and often have to work two jobs just to survive. I watched the Florida Keys turn from a quiet and charming chain of islands to a commercialized highway where you get glimpses of the ocean between businesses. I watched U.S. 1 going into Homestead turn from agriculture into a giant strip mall. I've seen changes in Las Vegas where they cheerfully destroy their own history to build yet another short-lived casino on the rubble. I was fortunate enough to visit Yosemite before it became a traffic jam. Tourist dollars build up a place for a while, and then those same dollars utterly destroy and obliterate all that is beautiful in the area.

Alabama has one of the lowest tax loads in the nation. It has done that, and become attractive to amnay as a result, because of prudent and measured spending. Taxes like this one are counter-productive.

[Southlander]

There again, it's not government owned.