Effect of Poor Golf Course Conditions on Property Values in TV
 

It occurred to me that if I were considering buying a place in a retirement community in Florida, and golf was a major factor for me, the conditions of the courses in TV would send me away.

TheVillages.com website markets TV as a golfer's dream. In the 6 years I've been spending my winters here the conditions of the courses has steadily deteriorated, at least during the high season. The value of having so many courses, both championship and executive, diminishes when the greens look like sandboxes in a playground.

I didn't buy my home in TV thinking of it as an investment, nor was golf the primary factor, but I don't want to see any of the amenities be allowed to deteriorate for lack of proper maintenance. I don't want, in 10 years to see the rec centers, pools, tennis courts, pickleball courts, etc not being kept up nicely. Likewise for the plantings and general common landscaping.

I would include the proper conditioning of the golf courses in all of what keeps TV an attractive option for potential buyers.

With a positive 30 year track record, I don't think a year or 2 of adverse conditions is going to seriously impact marketability. Look at down south as an example. It took something like 5 years to build the bridge the Developer "promised" and they're still waiting for their 1st real Town Square and only have 1 Championship golf course.. Folks bought into the promises and still are.

You can be sure the Developer is attuned to social media and the marketplace in general. The Developer may be many things, but the family is not stupid and they're not going to allow their assets and investments to be devalued.

So if there around 700 holes available and let’s say 100 are below par? Wouldn’t that be well above anywhere else I world for what amenities you pay for. Millions spent on golf courses, probably by far the biggest expense which lots villager’s don’t even use. So IMO not financial problem it’s management problem which in most cases the BIG problem? Maybe somebody at top of food chain needs to be fired cause not only golf it’s bleeds to other activities. Money there management not IMO.

I should have been more clear about my concern. I agree with you in that the developer will do what needs to be done to keep selling new houses in new villages. What I meant to express was a question on how deteriorating conditions in the established areas, where most of the courses are, might negatively impact the values, say, north of 44, or between the 6s.

As ownership of the executive courses turns over from the developer to the districts, their maintenance becomes the property owners' responsibility. As the next decade goes by, and those of us in the older established villages age, and maybe age out of TV, we will be more and more in competition with the new developments. If our amenities look old and untended, be they rec centers, pools, golf courses, landscaping etc. we will lose that competition, and badly.

I don't know the precise percentage of total number of golf holes that are way below acceptable. It seems to me that it's a lot. The executive course that is in good shape is a rarity. I'd say less than 10%.

I agree with you that just throwing more money into it might not be an effective answer. What we do know is that some courses are good, some are bad, and the climate is the same for all. And a bigger point I'm presenting is that whether or not you actually play golf, you have a vested interest in the condition of the courses.

I wondered the same thing, before I bought in TV. I don't worry so much anymore, as I understand the Developer's business model much better.

What happens in other areas of TV (older vs new), reflects on the community as a whole. Looking at TV from the outside looking in, there is no "south" or "north". It's all The Villages. The Developer knows this and will protect his best interests, without regard to new vs old (I think). The CDD's generally do what the Developer wants done. Drive around the Glenview area and see how that "older section" has "deteriorated".

My take on the subject, is here: https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...ml#post2308910

I agree with the premise that 'course' conditions will eventually affect, adversely our property values. And I also would agree that positive course conditions will affect them positively. Which means that -all social media 'noise' aside-most of us are benefiting from golf courses in our general community area-not all-but most of us. What's not been discussed much is the management of the courses, and the different companies that handle them. 'El Nino' didn't just appear between 466 and 466A-it didn't skip Marion County or south of 44-it happened everywhere-It's how the different landscape management companies reacted is where I believe the difference lies. Some courses are managed by 'ASG'-some by 'DTE' and some directly by employees of TV (there may be others in the mix I'm not aware of). I don't have specific knowledge of which ones-but generally do know/think that one company managed most of the courses between the '6's', and also most of the ones that are suffering the most-whether it's cross contamination, or wrong reaction to conditions or just that those courses share agronomy characteristics that led to the 'fungus' situations-I don't know. What I do know is that there is GREAT awareness by the developer, District Gov and the Exec. and Champ. management about the issue-and everything is and will be done to rectify. The stakes are too high not to correct as soon as possible.

IMO 90% time it maintenance failure, lack of, or management problem. Which we have no control over. I agree we are not getting or money worth invested. Again that points directly to management.

They get paid same whether they do good job or bad. I still say buck stops at top, whether that be at rec center, district, or main person in charge. It’s same all activities, some (not all) are below standards due to that rec center personnel. Some times it contractors fault also which IMO usually not monitored enough to see if the are doing good job or doing it at all?

I use to play League billiards at certain rec center the table were disgusting dirty and chalk was in bedded in rails and cloth which turns them green in grain. When I brush sweep the table due to chunks of fine chalk on cloth so ball had half way chance going straight I created up dust storm. My hands was green from all chalk dust in table cloth after play every time (kind of like golfers not repair divots)(pool players grinding chalking tips over the table creating most of problems) So, it’s not just golf. Yes sometimes complaining (several) does eliminate a problem for awhile. At that rec center it just came right back after the one time contracted cleaning. The condition of tables disguised me so much I quit.

I think the area around Glenview and Lopez is wonderful, and Glenview is always in good shape, which underscores my concern. Same climate. Why are those courses nice, and the courses such of 466 generally not?

What are you insinuating? I don’t see any deteriorated areas in Glenview……..
Why would you even post such drivel?

I was being facetious. The Glenview area is spectacular ... which is why "deteriorated" was in quotation marks.

1st off, ALL championship courses are contracted out for maintenance, except perhaps, Southern Oaks. That will likely be contracted out, when the Developer turns that area over to a CDD.

As for the question of why Glenview is typically in good condition, there are (2) answers.

A. Courses North of 466 (approximately) are operating under a different Water Withdrawal Permit, than the courses south of 466. Different counties. Glenview can use more water (regardless of its source) than Palmer Legends can.

B. The Courses in the North (I believe the contract includes GV, LL & OBG) have a contractor that does a better job than the (2) contractors who maintain the other courses. Unfortunately, the northern contractor has be re-tasked as of 2 months ago and moved to the south to (I believe) handle some issues with Southern Oaks and assist with the new courses under construction.

The casual reader of TOTV might not get your little game, and if they were looking to buy in that area and now would not. Not a favorable effect to a homeowner selling in Glenview area.

Then they should go look for themselves and decide.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, you can't fix stupid.

It is unfortunate that their closest square is not aging well and apparently not a priority. It's why I didn't buy up there.

/////////

"Championship Courses are contracted out for maintenance"...You mean to tell me that the developer families aren't out there themselves maintaining their courses? Of course they are contracted out. What other options exist. As property owners in The Villages, we have no control over the conditions of the Championship Courses. We may have a stake in it, but we have no control.

We do have some control over the conditions of the executive courses, in that we have representatives who should be looking out for our interests, and calling to task the shortcomings of whoever is in charge.

As far as water usage, I have heard that, but it doesn't explain why Southern Oaks is way better than Havana. What does explain that fact is that the Developer has a greater interest in keeping S.O. nice, since that is the closest course to the new developments where his financial interests are. His money, he can spend it where he wants, and we have no say in that. But don't swallow the argument that it is a geographical issue.

Which square?

At one time I would have totally agreed with you, but over some 18 years I've come to learn that there seems to be no end to the numbers of people from all over the world who find the villages to be their number one choice. I have also been surprised at the number of folks who do not play golf and have no intention of ever playing, as well as people who have never been in a single pool, played one game of tennis, or taken one class or activity. I would NEVER have guessed, never. Of course I see all those engaging in all these activities, it's just that the number of individuals we've met at church, in the neighborhood, and just having a coffee at a sidewalk coffee shop who confess they have been here 5, 10, 15 years and have never stepped foot in a pool, rec center, or on a golf course just really shocked me !

It certainly can’t help, but it’s possible it could hurt.

Good information-but a couple of questions/challenges:
1)I was under the impression (impression, not knowledge) that Belle Glade was also managed directly by the developer, without it being contracted out. Are you positive that Southern Oaks is the only one directly managed at this point?
2)The point about 'water' use is an interesting one-but in the case of all of the closed or 'about' to be closed courses-the issue is TOO much moisture-not too little. Fungus forms with moist conditions, not dry.
3)Glenview and Palmer are both in Sumter County, so it's not about the 'county'-but there is a dividing line in TV where reclaimed water begins to come in play. Not sure exactly where that is exactly. Your point remains an interesting point of contrast though.

Sheldon sign would have made post clear, sadly we don’t have one.

Draw
 

Have you been able to come up with any generalities, then, of just what *did* draw such folks here? I find that particularly fascinating.

Sign
 

Which one? Sheldon sign - Google Search

It's possible that Bell Glade is still managed by the Developer, but that would run contrary to what I've been told by staff. As we all know, accurate information in TV, is elusive.

You're 100% correct about the water usage. I meant it as a general statement, that there are regulatory differences in the volume of water that can be used on the golf courses in TV. This winter wasn't particular dry or wet. It was close to normal and I never bought into the story that "lack of rain" contributed to poor course conditions.

Palmer is near the county line, I suspect? I have been told by a couple of reasonably credible sources, that it operates under a different Water Withdrawal Permit, than GV, OBG & LL. I thought the difference in the permits, was related to geographical considerations, but it's possible it's related to the timing of when the permit was received, and/or other considerations. I have never seen the permits and admittedly, I don't have any experience with Florida Water Withdrawal Permits. I do manage 2 Water Withdrawal Permits in MA and have managed a few others in the past, so I have some general familiarity with how it works, but it's not Florida experience. Generally, Water Withdrawal Permits have a daily and yearly maximum that can be withdrawn and it doesn't usually matter, who's water it is (rainfall, impounded or aquifer). To put this into a little perspective (again, unrelated to Florida), a club I ran (36 Private holes, 9 holes public), we had a Water Withdrawal Permit for 72,000,000 gallons per year (our daily limit was strictly related to well pumping capacity). We could safely go about 20% over our yearly volume limit, without penalty, but would have to "make it up" the next year. We pumped 130,000,000 gallons one year. We were fined $100,000 and forced to remove about 40 acres from "managed turf" (convert 40 acres to fescue). FYI: The Villages is in an unusual situation because of its size. The Villages cannot, under most any circumstances, move water from one county to another. In other words, every drop of water that falls (or is generated) in a county, must remain in that county. Complicates things near the county borders.

You're mostly correct, in that fungus relies on wet conditions to thrive. That said, it's not always a general over-abundance of water, it's a over-abundance of water, over a specific time frame. I could tell you stories of poorly controlled irrigation systems at golf courses, that were "left running" when the Super went home for lunch and thunder storms hit and saturated a golf course. "Water" at a golf course, requires hour to hour management ... not day to day or week to week.

I don't understand the distinction being made between "contracted out" and "managed directly by the developer".
Ultimately, unless I'm missing something, it's all contracted out.

In what way is it different?

The difference is:

Contracted out, means a bid was received and the maintenance was out-sourced to another company. To my knowledge, there are 3 different companies that bid and perform this type of work.

Managed/maintained by the owner (Developer) means direct employees of the owner perform the work, under the supervision of the owner's management team.

In my opinion, the problem with sub-contracting the work, is the terms/parameters for a contract, generally aren't "performance based", but are "task based".

In other words, you (the contractor) get paid 'x dollars' for watering, mowing, fertilizing, aerating, etc., a given number of times, as opposed to contract that says: "we'll give you 'X number of dollars'. You have to do whatever it takes to provide good conditions ... you figure it out, just make it work".

thant's nice,but that is far from hw poperty assessments work. The golf courses have absooutly NOTHING to do with them

Property assessments eventually come down to market value. Nicer executive courses (as well as nicer championship courses) would make TV a more attractive place to buy, especially in the older areas where there actually are executive courses.

Being more attractive to buy raises the prices folks are willing to pay to buy a home in the area.
This raises market value.

Property assessments follow market value.

Perhaps I am not understanding your comment.

You need to step away from the computer and re-evaluate what you typed.

"Assessments" have everything to do with amenities. In the case of golf in The Villages, "Executive courses" are an amenity, Championship courses are a "convenience", which adds similar advantages/value. What you said, is tantamount to saying "your home isn't worth more money, just because it's located 20 steps from the Atlantic ocean". Hardly accurate.

By law, in most every state in the United States, "real estate assessments" are based on one and only one thing. "What a willing seller will pay a willing buyer". It's the law in FL and most everywhere else.

"Amenities" are part of what determines value or in simpler terms, amenities are a significant factor in "what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller".

Amenities are no different than an extra bedroom or extra bathroom. A value (assessment or selling price) is driven by the specific attributes of a home.

You need look no further than houses around, but not in, The Villages. You could transplant a $400,000 home in The Villages, to Lady Lake proper and the house would now be worth (assessed) at $300,000. Why the difference? Amenities.

Deep Subject
 

As folks make the turn to their back nine of life their needs change. First and foremost is the need for safety. The bubble provides that very well. Being around folks your own age and away from hustle and bustle is less stressful, bonus.
Having florida weather is also a bonus. Those items alone will keep values up.
Home values held even during the economy collapse. Only supply and demand factors will determine value changes.

Expectation levels are never good. You are here in the winter and expect summer greens. You need to adjust that. If golf is a major factor than you need to go to a private club community with 1 impeccable golf course. Sorry to say that may put you out of your financial comfort zone. And even then you will get bored of that course and want to play others.

The Villages IS a golfers dream. Where can you play 53 golf courses in 53 days with little travel and never repeat one. And more to come....Never mind all the other rec facilities and social clubs. Its also a retirement dream. The activities are endless.

That being said, everybody's (golfers) concerns all lead back to the same thing, the greens. The bunkers are fine, usually don't come into play. The fairways are fine with preferred lies, the rough is not rough, all very friendly stuff. The complaints are always about the greens. If all the greens went bad, then yes, that may cause a golfer to second think a decision to move here. However, the above mentioned bonus items would bear more weight.

The issue in TV is not the deteriorating conditions of the golf courses, its the inconsistency of the green conditions. Solve that inconsistency and we all benefit.
And yes better greens will help keep values up. (just from less trash talk)
Again, supply and demand will do more to prices. There are a lot of non golfers here.

After reading about all the female dogging about the golf courses, the real bottom line is the greens. Solve that issue and life is wonderful again. In the old days they didn't call them greenskeepers for nothing. All TV needs is to pay more attention to the greens, a lot more with trained eyes who adjust programs for changing conditions. That is the simplest and least costly alternative. More qualified people watching the greens daily.

Well said.