Wednesday
Apr182007
"How do you charge $155 for a weekend round...without saying this is where Tiger has played and where Tiger is going to play?"
Buried in Ron Kroichick's story about the San Francisco City Council's supposed concern over having lost $140,000 during the WGC-Amex is this:
This issue arises at a time when city officials are grappling with how to reverse steady losses at their six municipal courses. They had hoped Harding's increased visibility would help pay for the course's extensive renovation in 2002 and 2003, which was projected to cost $16 million but ran more than $7 million over budget.
"A lot of people feel burned from 2002 and the way (the) whole Harding rebuild went down," Elsbernd said. "All sorts of promises were made, many of which didn't come true. I think there's a feeling of 'We don't want to touch anything to do with golf.'
"But no matter where we go with golf as a whole, we don't survive without the PGA Tour's presence. Honestly, how do you charge $155 for a weekend round (for out-of-towners) without saying this is where Tiger has played and where Tiger is going to play?"
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 08:19 AM
Reader Comments (12)
Surely the promotional value of the WGC was worth the $140,000 they lost -- or would be if their pricing model was not extortionate.
As for the politicians beefing about a loss of $140k, do they really think that there wasn't that much of an increase in financial benefit to the taxpayers by way of taxes on hotels, et cetera, et cetera?
Decades of neglect had put the complex in this position, so I wouldn't blame Mr. Tatum for simply trying to wrest some of what was taken from golf income for many many years.
Golf is no longer the cash-cow for cities, like it was. Even if a professional golf tour keeps its word, this was still going to be a mighty tough road to hoe.
1-the course was supposed to cost 16mm to renovate, and wound u going over budget by 7 million. Am i the only one to think that 26 mm to build a golf course, WITHOUT LAND, is insane.
I thought graft was bad in SF, but this is really too much.
2-golf, for a city resident, is $46, not $155, or $59 on weekends. For seniors it is $31 during the week. Maybe those using the course should be asked to pay something approaching the cost of operating it?
Enough with the "people cant afford it". then dont redo the course, or at least dont let the materials walk off the site to the tune of 7 million.
The renovation was completely worth it for a course ranked #3 in US munis behind Bathpage and Torrey...the true impact cannot be judged until after all the professional tourneys are conducted. By spreading them out over a decade, it assured that the course would not fall back into disrepair.
Sandy was not after big business; he wanted to leave his legacy on a gem of a course with a lot of history for future generations. He did so largely on his own after enduring false starts from the City, a back-out from Palmer management, significant loss in tourism revenue post 9/11, resistance from the Harding Men's Club, etc. It is also home to the local First Tee program in an area where it isn't window dressing.
The Board of Supervisors fails to embrace an asset worthy of hosting an elite competition that provides free advertising because some spreadsheet claims a loss of $140k after one of five events are even played. This comes less than three months after Sandy and the Mayor's office reached a compromise with the PVB posse when it could have gone the way of Vickers.
As an SF resident, this is pathetic and embarrassing.
SF City isn't going to touch another golf course project after the debacle with Harding. They are also reviewing the viability of running Sharp Park and are exploring leasing it out to a 3rd party or selling it outright.
You have to question the PGA Tour for the expenditures to rennovate the course as it was their design house and staff that did the work.
SF has proven once again what many cities across the US already know, that city beaucracy can not run a successful business.