Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog

Green Space & Property Values

One of the most cited arguments made for supporting The Meadows Country Club is that our property values will plummet without TMCC. This view results from misquoting the supporting information, and straw man arguments (inferring anyone against subsidizing TMCC wants to cover the courses with condos). It has recently come up in a Facebook discussion so we’re going to address it here and now.

Keeping the golf courses is NOT dependent on TMCC: MCA Homeowners have owned all the sports complex assets since 2018. TMCC owns NONE of it. The golf courses (or even green space without golf) all will continue to exist without TMCC. The MCA Board completely controls how our assets are used, whether it is a a private golf course, semi-private golf course, or maintained green park space. We believe there are better options that don’t cost MCA Homeowners the $2.4 million per year we are currently paying. TMCC is actually the BIGGEST BARRIER to running the golf courses efficiently.

(Almost) No one wants to build homes on the golf holes: We have consistently advocated for keeping the golf courses by investigating other options to operate them at a lower cost (or no cost) to MCA Homeowners. We, and everyone we know, opposes building houses on the golf holes.
The only groups we are aware of that have ever advocated for building homes on portions of the courses are:
* the 2017 TMCC Board (Gene Mercer was on TMCC Board Executive), and
* the 2017 MCA Board (Marilyn Maleckas was MCA VP at that time). 

There is no anti-private club sentiment: Many of us are members of private clubs. Private clubs are fine as long as the members fully pay for their private club experience. That’s a defining concept of a private club. The concept of a “private club” that is financially subsidized by a community is really pretty crazy.

About property values plummeting without TMCC:

1. All of the articles and studies we have seen discuss the impact of closing golf courses not country clubs. But many people misquote these articles to be about closing country clubs (even some MCA Board members do this). These are two very different things and they must not be conflated as the same thing. The golf courses can be kept open even if the private club model comes to an end.

2. There are also articles out there saying this fear is a myth. Again, we support keeping the golf courses open, so whether closing courses affects property values or not is irrelevant. But we do need to figure out how to run our golf courses most effectively for MCA Homeowners who are the owners of the golf courses.

3. There are some articles indicating that access to a private golf course can further increase property values. But the valued characteristics don’t exist here: MCA home ownership is not a requirement to join TMCC, TMCC does not own any golf courses, and TMCC does not have the funds to properly maintain the courses they lease. It is FAR from a typical private golf club situation that could increase property values.

Even if we are better off with golf courses, that doesn’t mean we are better off with TMCC.

Please be diligent in correcting these misconceptions (whether spread naively or deliberately).

The MCA MUST thoroughly investigate alternative ways to operate the golf courses to maximize the benefit (or minimize the cost) for MCA Homeowners. Why would you not spend $50,000 for independent expert advice to potentially save $2.4 million/year?

In the upcoming MCA director election, vote for candidates who support hiring such an independent golf industry expert.

Please share this with your MCA friends and neighbors.
Contact us at ForTheMeadows@SarasotaMeadows.com

Posted

in

by

Website Admin

Tags:

Comments

24 responses to “Green Space & Property Values”

  1. Geri Powder Avatar
    Geri Powder

    Thank you for this clarification. I live across the pond from the 16th hole of the Country Club. As I sit on my lanai enjoying the view, I am always surprised to observe the very limited use of this course. (9:30 am, Friday 12/27)

    Geri Powder- Heronmere 2

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Thank you for explaining these concepts. It is often misquoted and misunderstood. The country club is a business. A business requiring a loan with no collateral will not get one through normal banking. For us to be continually forced to subsidize it is wrong. Let the country club die and make it all public. I suspect some of the employees already in place could run it that way without throwing money at a company that is not giving results.

    Like

    Reply
  3. samazepm Avatar
    samazepm

    I’ve been an advocate of solving this problem for years. I agree on everything said here except for spending $50,000 on an expert. The reason I feel that way is that we have an expert company Icon already in place. Yes, they work for the board of TMCC but that could be easily resolved when the lease is up. I am willing to bet $100 that they have repeatedly recommended other means of running the golf courses to the board but to no avail. The least disruptive transition would be to have the MCA higher Icon to run all of our sports facilities with their recommendations on how to make it profitable after the lease is up. In my opinion, I think we should turn the Meadows course public along with the current public Highlands.

    As for the Groves, it could be transformed into a world class practice facility with an enormous golf range, practice holes, putting greens, bunkers, etc., that would be extremely valuable to the public. It could be a huge revenue producer along with two very nice courses to play. Of course this would cost money which is another issue altogether. It would make sense to first convert the Meadows into a public course until we become profitable then you could proceed to convert the Groves at a later date.

    I currently go to Bobby Jones, which has a superior practice facility that is better than anything I’ve seen anywhere around the area. I go there most days and the parking lot is always full. I used to play the golf course, but since they renovated it, it appears to be the most boring course I’ve ever seen and have not played it yet. Aside from the Highlands condition, the layout is at least interesting. And the Meadows course is in decent shape with obvious improvements that could be made.

    As for the main building, it could be leased out as a restaurant and or function facility. If that’s not a viable solution, then maybe in the future it could be renovated back into a restaurant and function facility under MCA.

    Having said all that, we all know the current situation is obviously not sustainable and something has to break sooner or later. This outdated model just does not work because the current members do not understand, or do not want to understand that private memberships at country clubs require assessments to fill the gap and two keep the golf course in perfect condition. That’s what private memberships do. A few years back the concession golf course lost all their greens and guess who paid for it through assessments? That’s how a private membership supposed to work. That is obviously not the case here. This private club has lost money for many years and the members are not willing to pay the price at least according to the board with the fear of losing members. They should either pay up shut up or leave. Maybe the board should bring it to the members and tell them that this is not sustainable anymore. If you want to keep what you have then it will cost you X amount of dollars per member to keep this membership private. If they cannot be sold on that then they don’t deserve a private membership, go somewhere else where you will have to pay up. In my opinion, it’s high time we make a change. My humble opinion, lol.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  4. samazepm Avatar
    samazepm

    I’ve been an advocate of solving this problem for years. I agree on everything said here except for spending $50,000 on an expert. The reason I feel that way is that we have an expert company Icon already in place. Yes, they work for the board of TMCC but that could be easily resolved when the lease is up. I am willing to bet $100 that they have repeatedly recommended other means of running the golf courses to the board but to no avail. The least disruptive transition would be to have the MCA higher Icon to run all of our sports facilities with their recommendations on how to make it profitable after the lease is up. In my opinion, I think we should turn the Meadows course public along with the current public Highlands.

    As for the Groves, it could be transformed into a world class practice facility with an enormous golf range, practice holes, putting greens, bunkers, etc., that would be extremely valuable to the public. It could be a huge revenue producer along with two very nice courses to play. Of course this would cost money which is another issue altogether. It would make sense to first convert the Meadows into a public course until we become profitable then you could proceed to convert the Groves at a later date.

    I currently go to Bobby Jones, which has a superior practice facility that is better than anything I’ve seen anywhere around the area. I go there most days and the parking lot is always full. I used to play the golf course, but since they renovated it, it appears to be the most boring course I’ve ever seen and have not played it yet. Aside from the Highlands condition, the layout is at least interesting. And the Meadows course is in decent shape with obvious improvements that could be made.

    As for the main building, it could be leased out as a restaurant and or function facility. If that’s not a viable solution, then maybe in the future it could be renovated back into a restaurant and function facility under MCA.

    Having said all that, we all know the current situation is obviously not sustainable and something has to break sooner or later. This outdated model just does not work because the current members do not understand, or do not want to understand that private memberships at country clubs require assessments to fill the gap and two keep the golf course in perfect condition. That’s what private memberships do. A few years back the concession golf course lost all their greens and guess who paid for it through assessments? That’s how a private membership supposed to work. That is obviously not the case here. This private club has lost money for many years and the members are not willing to pay the price at least according to the board with the fear of losing members. They should either pay up shut up or leave. Maybe the board should bring it to the members and tell them that this is not sustainable anymore. If you want to keep what you have then it will cost you X amount of dollars per member to keep this membership private. If they cannot be sold on that then they don’t deserve a private membership, go somewhere else where you will have to pay up. In my opinion, it’s high time we make a change. My humble opinion, lol.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      TMCC members do pay hefty fees. The problem is there are not remotely enough members and haven’t been for a long time. But they’ve been able to ride along on the fallacy that the MCA needs TMCC to maintain our property values. That is the bubble we need to burst.

      Like

      Reply
      1. samazepm Avatar
        samazepm

        Yes, I agree our members pay hefty fees, and they have too few members as you mentioned which says a lot when golf everywhere has exploded since covid. I almost joined after my summer membership expired but wasn’t willing to pay $10k plus per year.

        Having said that, there are plenty of much more expensive private clubs in the area like Lakewood Ranch, etc. that charge astronomical fees, and they had to buy Legacy to keep up with the demand. Of course, their multiple courses are in great shape, well maintained and offer modern facilities, etc.

        My point being, if you’re going to have a private club today you have to have it all and we don’t. It’s old and tired and doesn’t offer much, that’s why we don’t have enough members. Why pay that much for mediocracy when you can pay more for what you want, if you can afford it. I certainly cannot.

        Like

  5. delightfully8f10646a8d Avatar
    delightfully8f10646a8d

    We moved to the Meadows for the green space. We are not golfers. Our cost has gone from $800 per year to $1,200 per year since we purchased.
    Many folks are and will continue to move out if the cost from MCA keeps going up.
    I am a board member in Wedgewood Lake and find many of our owners on fixed income. They don’t care about the politics of this issue. They do care about the community they live in and the living space they call home.
    Folks don’t mind paying for good roads, security, green space, walking trails, etc. Their private clubs are neighbors hanging out at the pool or meeting at the trail for a walk.

    They do not care to subsidizing anyone’s private club just because their home lies within “The Meadows”.

    Phil Swisher

    Wedgewood Lake

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      We know other community presidents have shared our website to their residents as FYI (without necessarily endorsing it). We hope you will do likewise.

      Like

      Reply
  6. mitchw12 Avatar
    mitchw12

    How depressing..

    Like

    Reply
  7. lisi5f0a56d8f76 Avatar
    lisi5f0a56d8f76

    how do we find out about the residents who are running for the board and their opinions?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      Here is a start: https://sarasotameadows.com/2024/11/21/mca-board-candidate-presentations/
      The MCA will be hosting a “meet the candidates” night as well. And each candidate will be providing 250 words on themselves in the January Meadoword. Here are websites for the only two candidates that are not TMCC members:
      Alex Peake: https://sites.google.com/view/alexpeake/home
      Donald Breece: https://sites.google.com/view/donaldbreece/home

      Like

      Reply
  8. lovelywrdsf3984b059b Avatar
    lovelywrdsf3984b059b

    Can you send a specific list of who is running and advocating the TMCC ? Also I have been advocating for years that we lease out the restaurant space and start collecting rent. We still will have a place to eat but not the responsibility or the debt. We could actually have income !!! I feel they must be given an ultimatum. Go semi private or close…period. Enough of this nonsense .

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      Here you go: https://sarasotameadows.com/2024/11/21/mca-board-candidate-presentations/
      We’ve highlighted who are TMCC members. Some say that doesn’t mean they will advocate for TMCC but that is not what the evidence bears out. Here are websites for the only two candidates that are not TMCC members:
      Alex Peake: https://sites.google.com/view/alexpeake/home
      Donald Breece: https://sites.google.com/view/donaldbreece/home

      Like

      Reply
  9. mikeofall Avatar
    mikeofall

    I have seen some poor business discision while my time on the club board few years ago, one I fought, thee evening and weekend tennis membership, 125 I think, it devalued the full tennis membership. It was pushed by a player who was turning 59 and would lose the discount plan. It was pushed as a way to get working people to join and sometime move to full membership. As I predicted it brought very few full members, what it did do is give potential full memberships the option of paying now, I think 150.00 a month now they can play all day Sunday as they were restricted at prime 9.30 , I have seen several people join evening and weekend that would have joined full. As full couple we pay close to 6 thousand a year. Another mistake was not even consulting the tennis committee pickleball debacle, lost 45 tennis some full some single to a sport that brings no money. The club brings on a tennis pro, then allows former pro (retired) to come in and give lessons when a full time person depends on lessons for a living. P.s she just resigned not sure if that had any impact on here descison but? While the club is bleeding money there has been no attempt to modify full time tennis memberships to keep some more cash flow going. Modifications would be no 1 year wait to come back, one time only maybe. We now have to pay 700.00 with no main club house for the foreseeable future, there are so much sandwiches and wings a person can take. We are trying to sell our home and have been full tennis members over 7 years, other options are not suitable to our home as distance and prices have become too much. If the club keeps making decisions that effect membership negatively, as the saying goes ” stick a plastic fork in it it’s done”. As a former small business consultant I see this from the outside now, I could be wrong.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      Many feel similarly about the decision to offer seasonal memberships. When a club is struggling it is 100% predictable that they offer lower priced membership categories, many will downgrade to them, and it is a predictable spiral downward. Has been going on for a long time at TMCC.

      Like

      Reply
  10. samazepm Avatar
    samazepm

    Out of curiosity I googled if a board member can be removed from MCA. Below is what I found that AI generated. It’s called a recall process. Interesting possibilities if it comes to that.

    In Florida, a majority of homeowners in a real estate subdivision’s homeowners association (HOA) can remove a board member through a recall process: 

    1. 1. Send a written demandA majority of homeowners must sign a written demand to the board member, stating the reason for the removal. 
    2. 2. Board member respondsThe board member can resign or the board can hold a hearing. 
    3. 3. HearingIf a hearing is held, the board must notify homeowners and give them a chance to be heard. 
    4. 4. Recall is effectiveIf the recall is approved by a majority of members, it’s effective. The recalled board member must give the board all association records and property. 

    Electronic notice cannot be used to call a meeting to discuss a board member recall. 

    Like

    Reply
    1. Website Admin Avatar
      Website Admin

      Recall requires 50% of ALL potential votes (~50% of all homeowners, ignoring the weighted voting).

      Like

      Reply
      1. samazepm Avatar
        samazepm

        I appreciate that, not sure if 50% would be hard to get, but I don’t think anybody wants to subsidize the club any longer. So, seems very doable if we ever needed to get the votes.

        Like

  11. buffnitty Avatar
    buffnitty

    Which option would affect your property value most?

    Country Club membership required

    Country Club membership NOT required

    MCA officers could add the requirement to their deeds in an act of good faith.

    Like

    Reply
    1. John Dolcetti Avatar
      John Dolcetti

      thank you for all your hard work.some how we have to get the mca to bite the bullet, keep 27 holes, turn the rest into green space and use University Park as a model. It’s very successful and a wonderful course to play.plus the dinning is great! Let’s hope the future of the Meadows improves because it’s getting expensive to live there.

      Like

      Reply
  12. Bob Denault Avatar
    Bob Denault

    I don’t know how they can force homeowners to pay the annual fee to keep the golf course open. I see so many houses up for sell in the Meadows, they see what’s going on and are moving out.The TMCC is stealing money from the homeowners to pay the golfers to play in our community that don’t live here. Nobody ever gets fired for poor management, open all three golf courses to the public and see the money pouring in. They have been loosing money for years , nothing will change because there running it the same way every year. It’s bullshit.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Meadoword article on golf courses – Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog

    […] Will Pay The Price For A Backyard Golf Course, One Way Or Another”. Interesting coincidence that we published a post on that issue 3 days ago. Here are our notes on that […]

    Like

    Reply
  14. Notes from Jan 9 MCA Board meeting    – Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog

    […] Bondur also highlighted that there are studies indicating that our property values are enhanced by green space, with or without g…, in addition to those that say golf holes are […]

    Like

    Reply
  15. Notes on Jan 22 MCA Townhall Meeting – Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog

    […] negotiating position but is absolute nonsense. If you haven’t already, please read our post on Green Space & Property Values. The key points […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Notes from Jan 9 MCA Board meeting    – Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog Cancel reply