Why Should There Be Municipal Golf Courses?
To review: The government has no business providing any goods other than public goods. A public good is one that is neither excludable (I can withhold a cheeseburger from you if you do not pay for it) nor rivalrous (a cheeseburger cannot be consumed simultaneously by more than one person).
One instance where this seemingly obvious distinction between public and private goods gets conveniently befuddled is where a good is excludable but is not strictly rivalrous — so-called club goods. Two separate people can each be excluded from a 200-seat movie theater, but they can also both watch the movie non-rivalrously (though 201 people cannot).
There is a robust economic science to club goods: how to price, when to expand, whether to price uniformly or engage in price discrimination. But one underlying truth remains: Club goods are not public goods. There is consequently no basis, none whatsoever, for the government to provide club goods. At most, the poor (and only the poor) can be subsidized to enable them to “join the club.” But the line between welfare finance and outright public provision should never be crossed.
No one (I hope) would suggest that governments should own and operate movie theaters. Libraries, on the other hand, are also club goods (they’re excludable just as movie theaters are), but most people (not most libertarians!) overlook this on dubious “positive externality” grounds (i.e., that a public library is more akin to a public school than a movie theater). On the other other hand, such positive externality arguments completely evaporate when public libraries engage in ancillary operations such a DVD rentals — who would dare suggest that a Netflix subscription is somehow a public good?
Now, armed with that:
Golfers’ wishes outweighed the argument for turning Jackson’s [Mississippi] two public golf courses over to a private management company, Mayor Frank Melton said Wednesday.
You remember Frank Melton, right? He’s the Hugo Chavez wannabe who seizes children on highways for group hugs and was warned by both the federal Justice Department and the state attorney general to stop impersonating a police officer (complete with firearms).
Melton later said he decided not to approve privatization of the Sonny Guy and Grove Park courses because he was not sure the city actually was losing money operating the courses.“This is not a decision that needs to be made from City Hall. It needs to be made by the customers,” Melton said. “I have asked them to come up with a list of things that need to be done (at the courses).”
Strange, I always thought the “customers” of government were the population generally and taxpayers specifically. Apparently not — apparently city government now works strictly for golfers.
Grove Park and Sonny Guy golf courses lose about $300,000 annually.
Apparently Melton didn’t get that memo. In any case, every taxpayer who does not use the golf course is subsidizing every person, taxpayer or otherwise, who does. All in the name of providing a supposedly “public good.”
The only reason golf courses seem to get a waiver from the basic proposition that club goods should be strictly privately provided is of course because it is mostly a middle class pastime. If doctors, lawyers and stockbrokers played hopscotch (and if hopscotch were an expensive hobby), then we would no doubt see many municipal hopscotch parks — on the grounds that hopscotch was, somehow, a “public good.”
Perhaps class warriors like John Edwards ought to spend less time asking whether the rich can pay ever more taxes and instead ask mayors like Frank Melton (a Democrat, incidentally) why the poor are taxed so the not-poor can save on their greens fees and cart rentals.
(Via Out of Control.)
Similar Posts:
- The Slippery
SlopeSlide of Club Goods - “Venezuela is Now a Dictatorship” Fact of the Day
- Is Health Care a Public Good?
- Municipal Wi-Fi: NYC Rigs Parks — Who Pays?
- Once Again: “Taxpayer-Subsidized” Does Not Equal “Free”
Filed under: Uncategorized
I remember a similar question: why aren't there municipal bowling alleys? Why does only golf get the municipal support? And tennis, another white upper crust sport? Is that it? And why does an opera get public funding, but a place that hold rock shows go begging? Public interests, my ass.
Around here as much business is conducted on the golf greens as in the conference room.
For the ambitious that are born out of the golfing castes, municipal courses are simply the only way to learn how to golf.
I'd be curious to see if private courses filled that hole if the municipal courses didn't exist, but given the rather annoying status externalities of golf, I'm not sure that would happen.
Why are there municipal parks? Municipal softball fields? Municipal dog parks? Municipal skate parks? Municipal soccer fields? Municipal gardens? Municipal bike trails?
I don't think golf holds any special place in the pantheon of municipal accommodation. One can advocate that all should be privatized, but not just the one that serves the upper crust sport.
[Kip replies: Indeed one can -- see, e.g., Grammercy Park in Manhattan.
One could also argue that a public park or playground is easily used by all -- one need only be non-comatose to enjoy a park; the same cannot be said for a golf course.
Question: Should gyms be taxpayer-subsidized and open to all? I think not -- "war on obesity" notwithstanding. Is a golf course more like a gym or more like a park?]
Public schools can fill up, and often do in areas where housing construction has outpaced school construction. National parks certainly fill up; try getting a campsite at Yosemite on Memorial Day. Freeways become impassably crowded during rush hour. By your definition, all of these are club goods.
[Kip replies: Yup, except perhaps for the freeway example, where the excludability criterion is a bit more complicated.
As for Yosemite or any other "natural wonder," the concept of natural monopoly applies. A golf course is not a natural monopoly and certainly not a natural wonder. (And there is, incidentally, no reason not to charge admission fees to Yosemite. Those who enjoy it should be the ones who pay for it, regardless of who owns it.)]
in the southwest city in which i grew up, there were a number of private golf courses – all country clubs, requiring initiation fees and membership fees in addition to steep greens fees.
there were 2 public golf courses, that were affordable to a middle class family like the one i grew up in.
if it were not for those public golf courses, i and my friends (many of whom have been able to join country clubs as adults) would never have played golf at all. my father enjoyed golf at public courses because he could not afford country club memberships.
seems like golf is a bit different than bowling, which is dirt cheap, and takes little land space as well.
and there ARE gyms open to all in public parks in every city i have ever lived in.
The idea the golf is only for doctors, lawyers etc. is simply false It was probably true 50 years ago, but golf courses are now full of what would be considered working class people. I agree that if a city is losing a lot of money on it's courses privitization should be considered. But the idea of golf being a strictly elitist sport is wrong. Those who never play golf may not understand this, but its true. An above commentor has a good point, I seldom go to city parks and never play softball (the city I live in also maintains several indoor basketball/volleyball complexes) if these facilities are also money losers should they also be privatized? I'm sure many residents of NYC never use Central Park and I'd also bet the city loses money maintaining the park. Maybe it should be privatized and renamed Verizon Central Park.
Why is there "public" anything?
I don't have children, so why should I pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes to support schools?
I would be fine without a police force or a fire department, too. I have insurance for fires and I carry a concealed weapon which will serve me better than the police force.
Public golf courses exist because poor people enjoy playing golf. Middle class people like it. As do high school golf teams, college students, etc… Very few people that use a public course could afford the five figure sum required to join a private club, and the four figure dues. What about the rich guy who plays once a year – the public course is for him/her, too. The course is a resource for the entire community. What are your thoughts on public pools?
TDE, without a fire department, the insurnace companies would stop writing policies on homes, and without insurance the banks wouldn't be offering mortgages.
[Kip replies: What you're actually saying is that taxpayers are "a resource for the entire community" -- to be looted and plundered as you, or some other special interest, sees fit.
The bromide that "it's available to all" does not change the fact that government is forcing some people to pay for something that they do not want, for no other reason than because someone else thinks it's neat-o. That is not the definition of a public good, and is not a legitimate function of government.]
libertarians are so narrow minded. you take the policy input that economics gives ('governments only have a legitimate economic role in the provision of goods that meet the public good criterion') and use that as the end point of the discussion. If a deomcratically elected municipal government taking into account other view points wants to provide things like golf courses then why is that an illegitimate choice? The fact that your economic theory suggests that it's a bad idea and your libertarian instincts tell you that it's theft doesn't cut it. If people feel strongly enough about it they can vote the govt out. If they can't do that then bad luck. That's the price you pay for living where you do. And if you can't find anywhere in the world to live where there is both a functional government and where you can avoid paying for anything you don't want to pay for then you might begin to realise that the world is bigger than economics and people place some unscientific and unquantifiable value on living in communities that provide services to its members that aren't, stricly, 'public goods.'
[Kip replies: "Municipal golf course -- love it or leave it?" Anything that the majority votes for is by definition proper and ethical? That's your argument? Who's being narrow minded, Kaye?]
Kudos – I am not an historian but I recall reading that in the past private fire brigades in various cities competed to put out fires because the successful fire brigade would be paid by insurers if they suppressed a fire at an insured property.
If public fire departments were to disappear tomorrow, I trust that the market would create a solution.
Kip –
You said: "One could also argue that a public park or playground is easily used by all — one need only be non-comatose to enjoy a park; the same cannot be said for a golf course."
It cannot be said for public pools or bike trails. One reason I prefer semi-private and resort golf courses is because the standard of maintenance and the standard of play is much higher there, which improves my golfing experience.
The municipal golf course is easily used by all, as well. That's why I try not to use it!