[tuccillo]

My numbers of 400 playing homes to support a golf course is based on a country club setting. The Villages is probably different in that the amount of money that each home is willing to dedicate towards golf is probably lower. However, if you have a couple of fairly active players in a house and they are each playing a couple of times a week it then a course can be busy with 400 playing homes. The "1/3 of the homes play golf" number is typical, I believe, for gated golf communities. Again, The Villages is different so it is hard to say. After thinking about it a bit, my figure of 67 homes per hole is probably too low as you suggested. I agree that the demographics are not good. This was a problem in our previous gated golf community. As people aged they dropped the golf membership and the newer/younger people were less likely to play. This inevitably leads to a death spiral. I would think that the current "model" for The Villages is probably good for another 10 years or so. The courses seem to be pretty busy now but I agree that the future is uncertain. I would guess/hope that The Villages monitors the level of play and the number of executive and 18-hole courses reflects reasonable assumptions about the future, otherwise the courses will become a liability.

Originally Posted by coolkayaker1

kwtoman, if they choose not to buy at TV, that's not good, right? Home values and collective property taxes, all that jazz. Will they elect buy TV and fund the infrastructure and upkeep of golf courses when they know they won;t be using them, just to play pickleball?

gomoho, I think converting all that acreage to something more fitting for them--that, in the end, they are willing to pay for in upkeep, property taxes, etc.--may be in the offing. Yes.

Good point, Bonny. We grew up in the Johnny Carson/Bob Hope, everyone golfs era. The non-golfers have, historically, at least been open to the idea. These newbies (under 40s) might shun it for life. Their icons and peers do not golf. I don't know. It's an interesting point: can enough of them be sold on it, or will they just avoid buying in TV bc of it from the get-go and never find out.

I like your theory, tuccillo, but I honestly think it takes many, many more than 400 golfing households to support a golf course year-round. If we collected the property taxes, or fees, from 400 golfing households, could we pay for a year-round course? That's a lot of upkeep, water, grass to mow. Many many full-time employees there. My assumption is that it would be much higher. Then the second assumption is that 1/3 of TV households are golfing homes. But, isn't that the point of the CNBC article--the future may well have 1/10th of homes being golfing households. So, if, say, it takes 1000 golfing households to support one course, and 1/10 houses are golfing, that would add up to a grotesque oversupply of links at TV. Don't know, though. Good way to think of it, but since it's all just guesswork from us both, there's no way to mathematically work it out, I think.

PS Here's a link from the USGA.
USGA: USGA
So, bottom line, about $400-$600k annually to maintain and run a golf course, not including construction. Even at the low end, the 400 homes would have to spend $10000/each annually to run the thing. But 4000 homes would have to spend $1000 each (on the low end of maintenance spectrum) in fees and property taxes. Will they? I just wanted to share this cost article from the USGA, who is suffering for members, btw. Like the CNBC article states, 200,000 Millennials have dropped the game of golf last year alone! In one year! And less than 10% of golfers on the links now are under 30. I see a change a-comin'. lol.