Does Highland Park Need Three Public Golf Courses?
A golf course at Fort Sheridan could doom both courses in Highland Park.
Photos
The Highland Park City Council has exuberantly acknowledged that they weren’t the only governing body with their hands in our wallets.
Mayor Rotering, stated on these digital pages and elsewhere, that the council has “prioritized collaboration with our sister governments” as an immediate goal. And at the top of their list is the “future use of the Highland Park Country Club and golf needs in Highland Park” noting parenthetically “(do we need two public golf courses?)”
It is way past time that our City Council and multiple overlapping municipal jurisdictions collaborate as a team. And Mayor Rotering’s initiative should be celebrated to achieve the stated goals of reducing total costs, enhancing services and improving management of our resources. But in setting out along this path it also essential to frame the issues properly, which Mayor Rotering has not done with the Highland Park Golf Course issue.
The question is not do we need two public golf courses, but do we need THREE? The Highland Park City Council remains unwaveringly behind an adopted policy of supporting a new public golf course at Fort Sheridan. And, with the approval and endorsement of both the Highland Park City Council AND the Park District of Highland Park, the Lake County Forest Preserve is currently soliciting proposals to build yet another public golf course at our city boundary.
Anyone who has followed this public policy boondoggle knows that both the city-owned and park district-owned golf courses have been losing money for years. If you followed city budget discussions you also know that general fund money from the city has to be pumped into the Highland Park Country Club operating fund. Losses by the city and the park district are in the millions of dollars over the last 8 years.
These losses are far in excess of those associated with either the city-owned movie theater controversy or the park district’s shameful pension scandal which have commanded headlines and brought folks out with pitchforks and torches. Yet every time someone tees up a golf ball at the city-owned golf course, it costs Highland Park residents over $20. We seem to have infinite tolerance for this misappropriation.
The city and park district-endorsed new golf course from the Forest Preserve is projected to cannibalize 10 percent of the revenue from both of the existing golf courses. This, of course, only exacerbates ongoing and escalating losses by both golf operations. With the imminent development of a new Forest Preserve golf course, it would appear that not only is one Highland Park golf course doomed but both may be. Either that or golfers are going to be playing on our public dime.
Although this debacle was hatched under previous city and park district administrations, all the sitting city council and park district board members have had the opportunity to take a stand and stop this nonsense. But none have chosen to do so. And now, with the imminent development of a new county golf course in our neighborhood, the options are severely diminished.
Still, it's not too late for leadership.
Stay tuned for an in-depth feature on Fort Sheridan Preserve, coming soon to Highland Park Patch.
For more news and updates from Highland Park Patch, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter!
JM
10:29 am on Thursday, January 5, 2012
NO MORE GOLF COURSES!!! It doesn't take a genius to realize if you open up too many of the same thing in a small area, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM will take a financial hit because the area is too saturated.
The Q
10:55 am on Friday, January 6, 2012
The Fort needs soccer and baseball fields, a field house, and a small concert pavilion.
Not another golf course, that only has one use for a select number of residents.
Stuart Senescu
11:49 am on Friday, January 6, 2012
The time for another golf course within golf-cart riding distance of the two other courses within HP's city limits is past. The argument from many over the years including a current councilman-County candidate is that the contract between the Army and the County/Cities should be honored - that the Army course was to be developed into a community course and thus the local municipalities are in breach. Well, times (and economics) have changed and golf course economoics today aren't what they were or were expected to be when the Fort was handed over to the municipalites for private development. To put another (even a 9-hole course) course in the area is just throwing good money after bad. And public tax money at that! If the Army wants to enter into condemnation proceedings or try to recapture the golf course land through litigation, they will have to ask the question "What do we do with it?" I highly doubt the federal government would sue to take over what is now a beautiful open space. They certainly wouldn't invest money to put in a golf course. I have suggested for many years that the City & Park District of HP should work with Lake County to open the two municipal courses to residents of Lake County at a reduced price so that those people who might have wanted to play on the Fort course could play in Highland Park without having to pay non-resident fees. Let's try to get some of those people to spend time and money in Highland Park.
belinda brock
1:20 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
Has anyone considered the environmental impact of establishing and maintaining another golf course?!
Sonny Cohen
10:29 am on Monday, January 9, 2012
Belinda,
In Highland Park and Lake County arguments for environmental quality do not gain much more traction than mild lip service. Air and water have no vote.
Just north of us, in Belgium Wisconsin, the Squires Country Club, another financially failing golf course was closed and converted to the Forest Beach Migratory Nature Preserve. Shawn Graff, executive director of the Ozaukee Washington Land Trust that now owns this land, noted that this has led to reduced erosion and improvement of the water quality in Lake Michigan. In fact, Graff estimates more than 6 tons of fertilizers and herbicides annually will no longer flow into Lake Michigan from the former golf course.
The history of environmental issues is that they are accommodated when it is convenient. There is no one in our present leadership who has chosen to buck this trend including HP city councilperson/Lake County Commissioner aspirant Steve Mandel who talks the environmental talk but walks the golf course walk.
David Greenberg
6:49 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
In the first place - there WAS a golf course at Fort Sheridan. It might not have been designed by Jack Nicklaus, but it was functional. Then someone put the cart before the horse and ripped it out before knowing what the total cost would be to replace it. I believe that the land passed with deed restrictions, so they should be honored. The Forest Preserve ripped it out, they should replace it to what it was before doing so.
That said, we don't need three golf courses - we've been pumping in about $200K/year into Sunset Valley (Park District), and I'm not sure what we've put into the HP CC (City now, soon to be the Park District). For my money, if they're not fully supporting themselves through rounds played, and the rates can't be competitively raised to support themselves, then it's time to repurpose the property. Remove the cups on the greens, and leave it to grow wild for a few years. That property was once prarie, I suspect it will resort to prarie once again given the time. In the interim, monitor the property, watch where hiking trails form from persons using the lands, and then charge a nominal annual fee for hikers and mountain bikers to use the land - all you'd basically have to do is mow the trails. So no fertilizer, no grass seed, no daily watering, no daily mowing, no labor, etc... Rehabbing the HP CC building is likely a waste of money as well, it'll take millions to redo, and what's the chance of it attracting business to cover it's costs?
Thomas McKechney
2:38 pm on Monday, January 9, 2012
If the Forest Preserve is going to renege on the deed restrictions, then they should forfeit title to the property. The property is exquisite as a golf site. Any private developer could make it a success. Look at The Glen. As far as Sunset Valley and HPCC are concerned, let the laws of the marketplace dictate. One or both should be closed if they cannot turn a profit.
Sonny Cohen
3:40 pm on Monday, January 9, 2012
Look at The Glen Club. Good idea. Golf rounds: Mon-Tue $135, Wed-Thu $150, Fri-Sun $180.
The Fort Sheridan property is exquisite for a lot of things. But given that it is public land, it shouldn't cost a minimum of $135 to walk on it.
Richard Heineman
3:35 pm on Monday, January 9, 2012
If the Forest Preserve forfeited title on the property it would go back to the Army. First, I doubt that they want it back. Second, if they took it they would have to go through the same process that they did when they gave it up the first time. All of the services would again have first shot. It is possible that the Navy could take it for more housing. After that there is a long complicated process that is started to identify who gets the rights to the property. Last on the list would be any possible private development.
Thomas McKechney
4:34 pm on Monday, January 9, 2012
Hey - The point of The Glen is that the City, or whoever took title to the property, simply did a 99 year lease to the developer and the developer took all the risk of development. The "public" gets paid. In this case, the public would get paid for something they never had to pay for. And I am sure the LCFPD could have even negotiated a bit of a royalty on top. The original concept was, afterall, a premium priced course which would not cannibalize the local muni courses all that much. Mixing the lack of success of Sunset and HPCC into the disucssion is irrelevant. If they cannot support themselves they should not exist unless the community want to subsidize them.
I realize this is a dead end argument. The Fort will not likely ever see a golf course. That is until the residents decide that their damages are worth pursuing through litigation. I think they would have a pretty good case. I would love to see this one go to court...........
Sonny Cohen
4:52 pm on Monday, January 9, 2012
In 2012 there is no public will for allocating land to another municipal golf course. But your facts are accurate and points well-taken. With regard to the neighboring subdivision, there is valid disappointment among a dwindling and tiny minority. But there are no damages. Property value accrues to the proximity of the open space, not to the use of the open space. Only lawyers involved in the case would like to see this go to court. This is not sport. The unsettled matter presents uncertainty that depresses property value.
Jordan Atkins
1:09 am on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Fort Sheridan sits on the most endangered eco-system on the planet; the oak savannah. Mowing it over to make a golf course would be borderline criminal. I don't have an anti-golf agenda. Golf is a great game. But there's plenty of golf courses. 99.98% of original midwestern savannah has been destroyed. We must protect what is left. Illinois is the Prairie State, not the Golf State.
forest barbieri
9:58 am on Monday, January 16, 2012
The Golf Course that refuses to die. It seems that our local politicians fear losing Ft Sheridan votes and since they have no say in what happens with the golf course, it becomes an easy we are all for it! Remember that Nancy won by what 300 votes? I walked Ft Sheridan when residents were on the phones supporting her as she supported the legality of lake County living up to their early promise.
The reality is that times have changed since thos early commitments and Lake County has pulled off a bold and clever move. In the spirit of living up to the agreement, they solicited private contractors to build the course with private monies. Now in today's economy, that is a dead horse as NOBODY in the private sector is going to invest in such a money losing concept. My guess is they can then go to the Army and say, we tried but no go. Let's consider other uses that will benefit the communities as it is indeed several communities and not just Ft Sheridan that has a vested interest.
I like the open land approach and also support recreational uses of the Country Club when it is turned over to the Park District. Let's build a field house, park, athletic fields and help the Highlands water issues. Let's look forward and not backward.
Sonny Cohen
8:33 am on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Private enterprise has turned its back on the Fort Sheridan golf course. National distribution of a proposal request to build this course yielded zero proposals. Highland Park City Council and Park Districts are fiddling with their money losing courses while our money burns supporting them. Yet they remain steadfast in their support of a Fort Sheridan golf course. An unfortunate example of failed leadership and financial disregard. You will see (and have seen) no comment on this from our elected leadership.
With no interest from the private sector, building a municipal course simply creates additional tax burden, financial hardship and more threat to the existing Highland Park golf courses and the precious open space they help preserve.
David Greenberg
12:57 pm on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
I like the open land approach, but don't think we need a field house, or athletic fields - that's just more "stuff" to support with our tax dollars. The HP Park District has quite enough facilities already, thank you very much (some would say too much).
The concept of using part of the Country Club for relieving water issues in the Highlands is an interesting one - an artificial lake would work nicely - but as with all things, we'll need to know the total cost of ownership for that - construction of the lake, piping to the lake, interconnects to storm sewer systems to use the lake as a "balancer", regular maintenance on the lake, and then the whole "Well, we have this lake, let's use it for some aquatic recreational programming" discussion...
forest barbieri
10:17 am on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Sonny:
I doubt you will ever see a municipal course at Ft Sheridan, even though the only prospect to fund such a rediculous money losing project is of course, our governmental bodies. Times have changed and golf courses are not profitable nor a priority or community statement anymore. I am in favor of maintaining at least one of our current courses and finding ways to satisfy more of the communities needs using the second for recreational purposes that can benefit a much larger portion of the population and indeed should be a local priority and community statement.
Again, it is time to move forward and not backwards!
I really think Lake County is playing a good game here and will eventually find a way to opt out.
David Greenberg
1:00 pm on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The only "community statement" that we ought to be making is one of fiscal restraint. If any golf course doesn't have enough revenue to support itself, we ought to be the leaders in closing and returning the courses to Nature. The "community statement" would be that Highland Park doesn't squander tax dollars on money-losing propositions, so if you decide to move here you will have to be less concerned about your Government spending your money - and that's an attractive proposition in my book.
Sonny Cohen
8:56 pm on Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Fort Sheridan golf course is a zombie. Dead but undead. Lake County must go to the Federal government to remove the golf course requirement from the deed restriction. Only in this way will the silver stake be driven through the heart of this public policy disaster. They could use some help. It is not a done deal.
The City of Highland Park and the Park District could be proactive in disavowing their support for a golf course at Fort Sheridan. Presently, both are, as a matter of on-the-record policy, in support of a golf course. Leadership ignores both the public policy consequences as well as the financial impact.
David Greenberg
9:28 am on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Just a thought: "What constitutes a golf course"? Is there a certain number of holes specified? A certain configuration? Why not set up a mini-golf? A driving range? That would satisfy the 'requirement', and perhaps even make some money. Overall, it could be easier and less expensive than fooling around with lawyers trying to get the deed restriction removed.
Then we wouldn't need to have the HP Park District operate their driving range/golf learning center on 41 (which is a bear to get in/out of because of traffic on 41) - and we could save some money by closing it.