Does Thomas Sowell play golf?

[TheBUNKY]

From reading his article, don't think so....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_politics.html

My local paper picked up this article by Sowell today. Thought this would get some good discussion here.

[Hawkeye03]

My guess is no he doesn't. The way I read the article, he wants the city to sell the golf course so that they (the City) can not use tax payer money to cover for the courses operating at a deficit. He believes that money should be used to help poor people. Anyway this guy is a blowhard and his opinion is not worth the paper it is written on.

[gjones77]

Essentially, he's a socialist that believes that those that produce should support those that don't (refuse to).

 

None the less, San Fran should sell the courses, to people who will actually make it a good golf resort and then it would generate revenue.

[DarthFierce]

Sorry guys, but you couldn't be more wrong about Thomas Sowell. He is as capitalist as they come. He simply doesn't think that San Francisco should force taxpayers to fund a money losing operation because it benefits a minority of the population. I hate to say that, but we golfers are a minority (Thank God because if not a round would take even longer :rolleyes: ) Thomas Sowell is one of the few black conservative voices out there, and if you are conservative you should know and support his work. Read, The Vision of the Annointed by Dr. Sowell. If you don't think its one of the best books you've ever read contact me and I'll send you the money you spent on the book. Thomas Sowell is as far from a Socialist as one can get.

[Prefontaine1550]

yeah, you have it all wrong about Sowell. One of the great minds in our country and he is most definatly not a socialist. He is a staunch supporter of free-market capitalism.

[Corsair]

Yes, Sowell is an anachronism in the Bay Area. I also read him often and he takes the p--s out of the Liberals every chance he gets. I believe one of his pet peeves is the Rent Control policy that the Libs have instituted in SF and its affect on driving low income people out of the city or on to the streets. This could be behind any desire to turn money losing municipal golf courses into low income housing. I have alot of time for him.

[Hawkeye03]

It really doesn't matter if he is conservative or liberal. I understood his argument and he is still a blowhard. The fact is the golf courses are there for the people to use. Whether they take advantage of that or not is not my problem or the governments problem. I don't go to city parks to use the playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. why don't we get rid of those. Hell, in Chicago or Cook County if you got rid of all the forest preserves and parks you could probably save tens of millions of dollars a year in maintenance and personnel costs. Why does he have to pick on the golf courses. At least they generate some revenue. It is really just poor argument to save money.

[nickc445]

Thomas Sowell is as clear thinking as they come. A free market with free will consumers will dictate the "proper price."

 

If you want a clear example of how goverment's artificial price controls are a detriment to those it "intends" to "help" --- read Sowell's work on rent control in NYC.

 

What Sowell advocates is that government alleviate itself of the responsibility to be all things to all people. It cannot effectively run a business and suit both the needs & wants of the customer while maintaining a profitable balance sheet.

[Onebulldogs]

Sorry guys, but you couldn't be more wrong about Thomas Sowell. He is as capitalist as they come. He simply doesn't think that San Francisco should force taxpayers to fund a money losing operation because it benefits a minority of the population. I hate to say that, but we golfers are a minority (Thank God because if not a round would take even longer :rolleyes: ) Thomas Sowell is one of the few black conservative voices out there, and if you are conservative you should know and support his work. Read, The Vision of the Annointed by Dr. Sowell. If you don't think its one of the best books you've ever read contact me and I'll send you the money you spent on the book. Thomas Sowell is as far from a Socialist as one can get.

 

Bottom line - golf is a luxury and the idea of using tax dollars to subsidize inept golf course management is a problem. The politics, graft, and inept managment lead to losses year after year.

 

For example, the New York Racing Association went bankrupt despite the fact it is the only legal bookie in New York!!! Have you ever heard of a bookie losing money?

 

On the other hand, cities don't make money 'net' on their parks. Central Park is an awesome amenity and will NEVER make money - nor should it. The tax dollars to support it are enjoyed by many.

 

With Muni golf courses, the best operations seem to involve cities "renting" their course to a private company - thus ensuring a profit for the city - and allowing the private company to do what is necessary to prevent the course from draining resources.

[NPVWhiz]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_politics.html

 

My local paper picked up this article by Sowell today. Thought this would get some good discussion here.

 

Apparently, he is advocating selling some if not all of the San Francisco areas seven municipal golf courses to help the economy and poverty in the area. Says if they are sold, the land should be used to create housing for the downtrodden in the area.

 

Your last sentence isn't correct. Sowell isn't advocating that the land be sold for public housing.

 

He's pointing out the hypocrisy of government officials who claim of philosophy of wealth redistribution to benefit the poor, but then go on to redistribute the wealth to benefit their own political aspirations.

 

When Sowell talks about the lack of housing in the Bay area, he's talking about housing at any price, not public housing.

 

One of the most basic economic principles that any non-economist could benefit from understanding is right in this article to be learned.

 

There is an opportunity cost to every round of golf played on that course.

 

The difference between the price of a round and the best alternative use is huge....and it is a very real cost that is shouldered by every taxpayer in the city.

 

Think about it this way. Let's assume the market value of the land today is worth a billion dollars. The city could sell the land today, put the cash in some type of investment and earn, say, 5% interest. That's $50 million dollars a year.

 

Does anyone think that those courses net a profit to the city of $50 million a year? Each day that goes by the city has irrevocably lost the opportunity to earn part of that $50 million in interest.

 

Sowell is pointing out (and this is true for many city/county owned courses in America) that the reality is that each round would have to cost hundreds of dollars to the best use of the property.

 

300,000 rounds per year....let's assume a muni golf course in SF makes ten cents on the dollar as "profit".

That means they'd need to have revenue of $500 million a year to kick of $50 million in profit.

 

If my calculations are right...each round would have to "cost" 1,600 dollars or so.

 

You pay $45....the tax payers of the city pay the other $1,555.

 

If the people of the city of SF knew what a bargain they're getting, they'd probably play more golf!

 

That's what politicians are entrusted with...the power to make these type of decisions.

 

I think I agree with Sowell that the subsidy implied by the analysis is way too high, but it's no different than rent control where you get to pay $550 a month for an apartment that would sell for $1.5 million on the open market.

 

Government officials do have the responsiblity to ensure that the vitality of a city is strong. There's a good economic argument to be made that a city like SF without parks and inexpensive golf courses is not a nice place to live....and other cities would then be able to compete for companies and workers by offering subsidized amenities like parks and golf. But if you run your city bankrupt and it then declines for that reason, you've done the taxpayers no favor.

[NPVWhiz]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_politics.html

 

My local paper picked up this article by Sowell today. Thought this would get some good discussion here.

 

Apparently, he is advocating selling some if not all of the San Francisco areas seven municipal golf courses to help the economy and poverty in the area. Says if they are sold, the land should be used to create housing for the downtrodden in the area.

 

Your last sentence isn't correct. Sowell isn't advocating that the land be sold for public housing.

 

He's pointing out the hypocrisy of government officials who claim a philosophy of wealth redistribution to benefit the poor, but then go on to redistribute the wealth to benefit their own political aspirations.

 

When Sowell talks about the lack of housing in the Bay area, he's talking about housing at any price, not public housing.

 

One of the most basic economic principles that any non-economist could benefit from understanding is right in this article to be learned.

 

There is an opportunity cost to every round of golf played on that course.

 

The difference between the price of a round and the best alternative use is huge....and it is a very real cost that is shouldered by every taxpayer in the city.

 

Think about it this way. Let's assume the market value of the land today is worth a billion dollars. The city could sell the land today, put the cash in some type of investment and earn, say, 5% interest. That's $50 million dollars a year.

 

Does anyone think that those courses net a profit to the city of $50 million a year? Each day that goes by the city has irrevocably lost the opportunity to earn part of that $50 million in interest.

 

Sowell is pointing out (and this is true for many city/county owned courses in America) that the reality is that each round would have to cost hundreds of dollars to the best/most rational economic use of the property.

 

300,000 rounds per year....let's assume a well-run muni golf course in SF makes ten cents on the dollar as "profit".

That means they'd need to have revenue of $500 million a year to kick off $50 million in profit.

 

If my calculations are right...each round would have to "cost" 1,600 dollars or so.

 

You pay $45....the tax payers of the city pay the other $1,555.

 

If the people of the city of SF knew what a bargain they're getting, they'd probably play more golf!

 

That's what politicians are entrusted with...the power to make these type of decisions.

 

I think I agree with Sowell that the subsidy implied by the analysis is way too high, but it's no different than rent control where you get to pay $550 a month for an apartment that would sell for $1.5 million on the open market.

 

Government officials do have the responsiblity to ensure that the vitality of a city is strong. There's a good economic argument to be made that a city like SF without parks and inexpensive golf courses is not a nice place to live....and other cities would then be able to compete for companies and workers by offering subsidized amenities like parks and golf. But if you run your city bankrupt and it then declines for that reason, you've done the taxpayers no favor.

[NPVWhiz]

It really doesn't matter if he is conservative or liberal. I understood his argument and he is still a blowhard. The fact is the golf courses are there for the people to use. Whether they take advantage of that or not is not my problem or the governments problem. I don't go to city parks to use the playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. why don't we get rid of those. Hell, in Chicago or Cook County if you got rid of all the forest preserves and parks you could probably save tens of millions of dollars a year in maintenance and personnel costs. Why does he have to pick on the golf courses. At least they generate some revenue. It is really just poor argument to save money.

 

I would argue that it is your problem and the government's problem if your understood that the subsidy for the golf comes out of your own back pocket.

 

His whole point of the article is that they don't generate any revenue for the city. The courses are losing money, and not only are they using money, they're an irrational use of the value of the land.

 

And, having read Dr. Sowell's analysis of many economic issues over the years, a blowhard he ain't.

Here's part of his bio... (if I seem a little defensive, it's just because we share an alma mater...)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sowell was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2002. In 2003, Sowell received the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement. Sowell received his bachelor’s degree in economics (magna cum laude) from Harvard in 1958, his master’s degree in economics from Columbia University in 1959, and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.

[Hawkeye03]

I did some more research on this subject just to get a better understanding of where Stowell is coming from. It appears that the city of San Fransisco wanted to host PGA tournaments at a muni course. The chose to renovate Harding and Flemming park golf courses. This is were the 23 million that Stowell talks about came from. The city overspent on its budget by 47% and had to borrow 16 million from the Proposition 12 fund which was intended for economically challenged area.

 

The harding and Flemming park golf courses after renovation, had an increase of revenue of 139% while the number of rounds played dropped by 19%. Since the renovation the number of rounds played on other muni courses in the bay area has dropped significantly but that is offset by the increased revenue of the Harding and Flemming park courses. It appears the city is not actually losing money operating the courses. Where they are losing money is in repaying the money borrowed from the Proposition 12 fund.

 

Also the city signed a contract with the PGA to host 5 PGA tournaments at the course for 2.5 million with another 2.5 million for the first tee program. The harding park course hosted the 2005 WGC American Express Championship and is suppose to host 4 more events. Hosting the event brought in an estimated 40 million dollars in revenue.

 

It appears that the city is not reaping greats amount of revenue from the actual operation of the golf courses, however they are not losing lots of money either. Also from what I read it seems like most of the courses are leased out to private corporations for operation. The city only handles the maintenance (Gardner's) of the facilities.

 

I agree with Stowell that the city should not have taken money from the Prop 12 fund to pay for the renovation to the courses. However I do not agree that the courses should be sold to the highest bidder.

 

O.K. now my head hurts and I can't remember what I have written but I found all of my information on the City of San Fransisco's web site. Here is the link: http://www.sfgov.org/site/budanalyst_page.asp?id=36945

 

Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong, after all I no economist just stupid geologist who likes to golf. Andy

[gjones77]

Sorry guys, but you couldn't be more wrong about Thomas Sowell. He is as capitalist as they come. He simply doesn't think that San Francisco should force taxpayers to fund a money losing operation because it benefits a minority of the population. I hate to say that, but we golfers are a minority (Thank God because if not a round would take even longer :rolleyes: ) Thomas Sowell is one of the few black conservative voices out there, and if you are conservative you should know and support his work. Read, The Vision of the Annointed by Dr. Sowell. If you don't think its one of the best books you've ever read contact me and I'll send you the money you spent on the book. Thomas Sowell is as far from a Socialist as one can get.

 

You're right, I was wrong in this matter, he's actually an amazingly intelligent person.

 

I was reading some of his writings and was thoroughly impressed!

 

Then again, I'm a conservative who believes that the government should keep it's hands and nose out of everything, especially my pockets :crazy:

[NPVWhiz]

I did some more research on this subject just to get a better understanding of where Stowell is coming from. It appears that the city of San Fransisco wanted to host PGA tournaments at a muni course. The chose to renovate Harding and Flemming park golf courses. This is were the 23 million that Stowell talks about came from. The city overspent on its budget by 47% and had to borrow 16 million from the Proposition 12 fund which was intended for economically challenged area.

 

The harding and Flemming park golf courses after renovation, had an increase of revenue of 139% while the number of rounds played dropped by 19%. Since the renovation the number of rounds played on other muni courses in the bay area has dropped significantly but that is offset by the increased revenue of the Harding and Flemming park courses. It appears the city is not actually losing money operating the courses. Where they are losing money is in repaying the money borrowed from the Proposition 12 fund.

 

Also the city signed a contract with the PGA to host 5 PGA tournaments at the course for 2.5 million with another 2.5 million for the first tee program. The harding park course hosted the 2005 WGC American Express Championship and is suppose to host 4 more events. Hosting the event brought in an estimated 40 million dollars in revenue.

 

It appears that the city is not reaping greats amount of revenue from the actual operation of the golf courses, however they are not losing lots of money either. Also from what I read it seems like most of the courses are leased out to private corporations for operation. The city only handles the maintenance (Gardner's) of the facilities.

 

I agree with Stowell that the city should not have taken money from the Prop 12 fund to pay for the renovation to the courses. However I do not agree that the courses should be sold to the highest bidder.

 

O.K. now my head hurts and I can't remember what I have written but I found all of my information on the City of San Fransisco's web site. Here is the link: http://www.sfgov.org/site/budanalyst_page.asp?id=36945

 

Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong, after all I no economist just stupid geologist who likes to golf. Andy

 

To be honest, I think I came off on that one like a bit of a smarty pants....I'm not an economist either, and I actually think geology is interesting stuff. :rolleyes:

[TheBUNKY]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_politics.html

 

My local paper picked up this article by Sowell today. Thought this would get some good discussion here.

 

 

 

Your last sentence isn't correct. Sowell isn't advocating that the land be sold for public housing.

 

He's pointing out the hypocrisy of government officials who claim a philosophy of wealth redistribution to benefit the poor, but then go on to redistribute the wealth to benefit their own political aspirations.

 

When Sowell talks about the lack of housing in the Bay area, he's talking about housing at any price, not public housing.

 

One of the most basic economic principles that any non-economist could benefit from understanding is right in this article to be learned.

 

There is an opportunity cost to every round of golf played on that course.

 

The difference between the price of a round and the best alternative use is huge....and it is a very real cost that is shouldered by every taxpayer in the city.

 

Think about it this way. Let's assume the market value of the land today is worth a billion dollars. The city could sell the land today, put the cash in some type of investment and earn, say, 5% interest. That's $50 million dollars a year.

 

Does anyone think that those courses net a profit to the city of $50 million a year? Each day that goes by the city has irrevocably lost the opportunity to earn part of that $50 million in interest.

 

Sowell is pointing out (and this is true for many city/county owned courses in America) that the reality is that each round would have to cost hundreds of dollars to the best/most rational economic use of the property.

 

300,000 rounds per year....let's assume a well-run muni golf course in SF makes ten cents on the dollar as "profit".

That means they'd need to have revenue of $500 million a year to kick off $50 million in profit.

 

If my calculations are right...each round would have to "cost" 1,600 dollars or so.

 

You pay $45....the tax payers of the city pay the other $1,555.

 

If the people of the city of SF knew what a bargain they're getting, they'd probably play more golf!

 

That's what politicians are entrusted with...the power to make these type of decisions.

 

I think I agree with Sowell that the subsidy implied by the analysis is way too high, but it's no different than rent control where you get to pay $550 a month for an apartment that would sell for $1.5 million on the open market.

 

Government officials do have the responsiblity to ensure that the vitality of a city is strong. There's a good economic argument to be made that a city like SF without parks and inexpensive golf courses is not a nice place to live....and other cities would then be able to compete for companies and workers by offering subsidized amenities like parks and golf. But if you run your city bankrupt and it then declines for that reason, you've done the taxpayers no favor.

 

 

Fixed it for you....

[DarthFierce]

Hawkeye03 and gjones77, you guys have made my day. I helped introduce someone to the brilliance of Thomas Sowell and they got something out of it. I really and truly am pleased. If you now like Sowell (and hate big government) also read Walter Williams and Mike Adams, among others.

 

 

 

My offer still stands. I encourage anyone to read, The Vision of the Annointed by Thomas Sowell. It is the greatest non-golf non-fiction book I've ever read. It lays down the falicy of liberalism with some of the greatest examples you'll ever find. I honestly took longer to read it than I should have for the number of words, because there were many times I literally put it down in my lap and shook my head in disbelief that liberals can be so stupid and so wrong about so many things. If you don't find this book brilliant, then write me and I'll buy it from you.

 

 

 

Thanks and hit 'em long and straight!

[gjones77]

there were many times I literally put it down in my lap and shook my head in disbelief that liberals can be so stupid and so wrong about so many things.

 

 

Gee... Live in Massachusetts, I learned long ago, every liberal policy ever created hurts those of us that produce so they're able to better the lives of those that don't, as well as further hurt those they're trying to "help" by making them dependent on the government.

 

If you ever wondered about what the worse case scenario was of what happens when people become too government dependent, just look at what happened during Katrina.

[NPVWhiz]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_politics.html

 

My local paper picked up this article by Sowell today. Thought this would get some good discussion here.

 

 

 

Your last sentence isn't correct. Sowell isn't advocating that the land be sold for public housing.

 

He's pointing out the hypocrisy of government officials who claim a philosophy of wealth redistribution to benefit the poor, but then go on to redistribute the wealth to benefit their own political aspirations.

 

When Sowell talks about the lack of housing in the Bay area, he's talking about housing at any price, not public housing.

 

One of the most basic economic principles that any non-economist could benefit from understanding is right in this article to be learned.

 

There is an opportunity cost to every round of golf played on that course.

 

The difference between the price of a round and the best alternative use is huge....and it is a very real cost that is shouldered by every taxpayer in the city.

 

Think about it this way. Let's assume the market value of the land today is worth a billion dollars. The city could sell the land today, put the cash in some type of investment and earn, say, 5% interest. That's $50 million dollars a year.

 

Does anyone think that those courses net a profit to the city of $50 million a year? Each day that goes by the city has irrevocably lost the opportunity to earn part of that $50 million in interest.

 

Sowell is pointing out (and this is true for many city/county owned courses in America) that the reality is that each round would have to cost hundreds of dollars to the best/most rational economic use of the property.

 

300,000 rounds per year....let's assume a well-run muni golf course in SF makes ten cents on the dollar as "profit".

That means they'd need to have revenue of $500 million a year to kick off $50 million in profit.

 

If my calculations are right...each round would have to "cost" 1,600 dollars or so.

 

You pay $45....the tax payers of the city pay the other $1,555.

 

If the people of the city of SF knew what a bargain they're getting, they'd probably play more golf!

 

That's what politicians are entrusted with...the power to make these type of decisions.

 

I think I agree with Sowell that the subsidy implied by the analysis is way too high, but it's no different than rent control where you get to pay $550 a month for an apartment that would sell for $1.5 million on the open market.

 

Government officials do have the responsiblity to ensure that the vitality of a city is strong. There's a good economic argument to be made that a city like SF without parks and inexpensive golf courses is not a nice place to live....and other cities would then be able to compete for companies and workers by offering subsidized amenities like parks and golf. But if you run your city bankrupt and it then declines for that reason, you've done the taxpayers no favor.

 

 

Fixed it for you....

 

Sorry...that's was kind of blunt/rude intro to the points I wanted to make. I'm usually typing these things at 6 or 7 am on a weekend morning before the wife and kids get up. Sometimes the caffeine hasn't kicked in enough to notice that type of thing. :rolleyes:

[daoldguy]

Sowell is a brilliant conservative, who happens to be black. His economics are very strongly oriented to free market capitalism, which should come as no surprise given his University of Chicago Phd. (think Milton Friedman).

 

 

 

There is no question, if you apply rational "best use" theory for land use that selling off some of the properties in SF would yield great ecomomic benefits for the city. Harding Park is a treasure of a golf course, but the redo for a PGA event was typical govermental inefficiency dealing with areas where it has no expertise or real reason to be involved.

 

 

 

The transfer to leased private operation can work well. It has in St. Louis where a failing course at Forest Park was leased to provate operators. The course was losing money and was in poor condition. It has been rebuilt and well operated (my wife and I are using it for an outing next Spring). Greens fees are higher, but are still competitive with other public and semi-private courses and everyone wins.

 

 

 

Sowell's simple point is that where government is involved, politics trumps common sense every time.