January 2, 2009 at 7:43 am #2666
Mr. Alfonzo, a few days ago I had a debate with 3-4 times a week DH golfer. His position was that the DH courses were making annual profits until hurricane Katrina. Stating the hurricane damage discouraged snow birds from visiting our community therefore lessening golf revenue. My position was and is that in my almost 11 years as a DH resident I do not remember the golf course revenue ever being in the black. Can you settle this debate?January 2, 2009 at 8:23 am #2665
Your golfing debater has been playing golf at the cheapest rates of any golf course in the U. S. courtesy of membership dues subsidies for over seven (7) years. This is according to the POA board’s own records and financial reports.
In actuality the golf courses probably have never made a true profit since they were built. The POA board has a peculiar way of financial reporting. They lump the salaries for their management under an ambiguous “Administrative” account. That means that the salaries of the golf pro and course superintendant are not included in the operating expenses for the golf course. Same is true of the Country Club. The combined loses for both by proper accounting standards would be over $2,000,000.00 last year.
And your debater still keeps playing golf at $2-$4 per day. Does he keep a straight face?January 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm #2667
Yes, I agree. I put a pencil to golfers said play, at 3.5 times a week times 52 weeks that comes to 182 rounds of golf a year, divide that into the annual single green and cart fee of $1725.00 and it comes to about $9.00 + a round. That kind of charge multiplied by the the max available rounds of golf on two courses I doubt would cover operational expenses. Its very obvious to the most neophetic accountant that golf needs a surcharge for every round played to make up the outrageous deficit attributed to the courses in our budgets. A automatic Bank account deduction for this charge could be demanded simularly as it is with the tennis players on their monthly assesment. Next election please vote for someone who will do the right thing and quit soaking the non-golfing residents in diamondhead. Everyone wants to support the courses, however we want users to pay an equitable fee for use, 9 bucks a round without a surcharge per round is not it. At the air field I think our charges are much too trivial also, we need to go to a charge that reflects the size of the plane say $3.50 per ft, of wing span or length of the plane, much as it is at the marina for a boat. After all a plane is just an air born boat or at best equal to a golf cart that cost $8oo bucks a year to use on the courses and that is quite a bit higher than fees for a plane. Charges here for our eminities reflect a protectionest approach indictive of trying to get by on the cheap at someone elses expense, all a good indicatior that the POAs management appears, based upon available info, not to be in the best interests of the majority of the residents. Dont believe this, check the 2009 fee schedule you received and view the charges for the various eminities with a jundiced eye and draw your own conclusions.January 31, 2009 at 10:39 am #2727
I remember responding to a thread regarding the loss of inventory at the golf shop but can’t locate the thread now. Never-the-less, this months issue of the DH News confirms my assumption that the residents would eat the $60,000.00 loss. And, no person or persons would be found or held responsible. We, the residents, are taking it on the chin again.February 2, 2009 at 6:23 pm #2728
Im glad you brought this up. The 60 k needs to be paid back by people who utilize the pro shop. thats who benifited from the loss or whose neglect caused the loss. why should all of diamondhead repay the loss that benefited only a very few. Charge $5.00 a round of golf untill its repaid. Any one else have any ideas on a equitable remedy.February 7, 2009 at 11:00 am #2732
Mr. King, I like your idea but I can not believe we are the only ones concerned about this loss and or the nonchalant manner of the POA Board in dismissing such a loss. By simply saying ‘It is impossible to ascribe guilt or innocence to any individual.’ ‘Therefore the matter should now be closed’. In the real world a loss of that magnitude would be grounds for immediate termination for anyone managing or working the pro-shop. Why should we (property owners) be penalized for someone’s poor performance?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.