The Argus Observer | Online

Comment Blog - Note: All Comments Subject To Approval

My Mother The Car wrote on Jun 26, 2009 11:46 AM:

" Wondering hit the nail right ON the head. The City is not capable of running the course properly. Let the pros do it. This vote ensure the course will continue to sink. Way to go Sully! NOT "

Wondering. wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:01 PM:

" David Sullivan says the city of Ontario can run the golf course better than a golf management group who does it for a living.
David is this the same city that cannot fix a broken irrigation system? A system that's been down for three months.
It seems you folks want the course to fail. Now that hot weather is here there is no way the employees can keep up with the watering manually.
Who is paying the overtime for these employees to work 50 and 60 hours a week?
We have two BIG TIME part time public works guys seems with what your paying them they could figure something out.
Oh lets not forget the mayor. He smiles a lot ,nods his head occasionally , and answers a question with a question. But does he solve problems? apparently not the course anyway.
Yep from all outward appearances you folks have set the course up for failure. Nice work. But what can you expect from politicians.
I have a suggestion for you all close it down the end of the month and give us all our money back.................... "

wrote on Jun 19, 2009 7:18 PM:

" Does anyone out there in net land wonder all of a sudden how the City became flush with money?
Seems around six months or so back all we heard was how broke the city was. Now they have 750 thou for a building to house all the city equipment and 600 thou for golf course management. Few months back the big issue was a tax on goods cuz what else the city was broke.
Does this make you wonder about the credibility of the elected officials and the city in general??
Let me tell you city officials something. If you would have needed the approval of the local tax payers to purchase the eight acres and the building do you think you would have received it? NO! Your list of priorities seems to be skewed.

Yes David a very large group of the local populace agrees with you. The purchase was not necessary at this time.

You folks quibble over 30 tho for needed transportation but think nothing of jumping into a 750 tho deal. Erlebach thought it very important to give the city the first right of purchase but did he help the city save money? No he had them right where he wanted them due to the fact he had another buyer willing to write a check. Very community minded.
Don't you just love it??????????????? "

curious wrote on Jun 19, 2009 9:31 AM:

" The article stated that the City voted not to HIRE an outside management firm. Apparently either way was going to cost the City. I would be interested in knowing how much the price tag was for hiring Billy Casper Golf. Was it a lot more than $617,401? Does anyone know? "

lol wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:30 PM:

" Boy did I have a laugh over the statement in your paper that the City of Ontario feels they can manage the golf course better tan Bill Casper management group. I an still gasping for breathe. The reason the course is in the shape its in today is because--you guessed it the city. I love to golf but the Ontario course is a joke and you folks at the city who think you know course management well that's another real good laugh.
Put it back in shape or lease to a farmer for crops "

local golfer wrote on Jun 18, 2009 4:42 PM:

" I don't want to get into an argument about which course is "better" since each course offers something different. But, the greens are nicer now than they were because Terry and Kenny finally were able to do something about the irrigation. Those two gentlemen are definite assets to the golf course, but the city of Ontario is NOT. Lease the course to some group who wants to finance changes and take the proceeds, but don't just sit on your thumbs and wonder "what's that strange feeling." "

To Sue M wrote on Jun 17, 2009 4:58 PM:

" I'll give you that Scotch Pines is a nicer course than Ontario, but Country View? Give me a break---and yes, I have played there. It is a glorified alfalfa field. Have you played at Ontario lately? The greens are great! "

GOLFER wrote on Jun 17, 2009 9:21 AM:

" At this point and time it would be foolish for the city to throw money at this and "HOPE" it works. The City has no idea how to manage and or run a golf course. The reason that Country View and Payette are successful is they are not run by the city. I love golf and hope to see Ontario once again have a nice course. However I would agree with most people on this blog that it is wrong to invest this kind of money when it could go to other more useful things. Contract it out, lease the place to a board of directors, do whatever but stay out of trying to run something you know nothing about. "

Sue M wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:37 AM:

" I would like to see a city wide vote on whether or not the residents of Ontario want to keep funding this disaster. My vote would be no. There are two better run facilities in the area that make the argument that new arrivals want a golf course mute. Country View and Payettes courses put Ontario to shame. "

concerned citizen wrote on Jun 17, 2009 5:29 AM:

" I have to agree with "Are You Kidding Me" written June 16th. Dishing out $617,000 for the golf course is way out of line especially when Mayor Dominick & Crume could not justify 30,000 for the Snake River Transit system. This is beyond me. It seems that the citizens of Ontario, Payette and Fruitland take second hand to the pleasures of a few golfers. Supporting the transit system will not only help those who don't have their own transportation, but will bring needed business and revenue into Ontario. I'm sure there are a few good ole boys that feel the golf course is the most important. But I'm also sure they drive cars and don't have to worry about getting to that doctors appointment, pharmacy or grocery store. I would hope we as a community we would not just think of ourselves, but the community at large !!!!!!!
The Transit system is and can be a very important part of Ontario.
Thank you "

i just dont get it wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:53 PM:

" everyone likes to throw out the saying that doing something over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Well who is making the big plans for the future of the course. The first blogger just said,"This golf course will never make any money....it will give pleasure to a few loyal golfers." Well I would hope that it COULD give pleasure to ANY golfers. The council knows nothing about running a golf course, and neither do I, but they are going to keep hoping for a miracle.

Any golf course management agency the size of Billy Casper's company has huge amounts of capitol to draw from. It could use revenues gained from another course to improve ours. When the course is fixed up (not an overnight process) then there will be more people coming to play, thereby increasing revenues for our course. That money then would continue to be invested by the company that made the positive changes.

If people hate the course so much, why can't they give up "ownership" and let someone else try to make it work. "

City gone wild wrote on Jun 16, 2009 6:21 PM:

" The last time the City ran the golf course they spent over $1,000,000 on improvements and we are still paying for it now, I am tired of paying for a golf course I don’t use. Plow in under and cut your losses now. When will our city leaders run the city like a business not their personal toy chest. "

Twisted Words wrote on Jun 16, 2009 5:25 PM:

" In a 5-2 vote, Ontario Council members approved a vote rejecting an offer by the Billy Casper Golf management firm for a long-term contract to manage the Ontario Golf Course. Councilman Ron Verini, voting via teleconference, and Mayor Joe Dominick were the only two members to vote no on the motion.

It looks like the Mayor wanted the golf course to be ran by an outside company. It looked like a no vote, meant yes........ The city has obligations no matter what they decide to do. "

Are you kidding me wrote on Jun 16, 2009 3:15 PM:

" $617,000 for a run down piece of crap golf course. This course is not even worth $10 green fees. Joe...how do you justify spending this much money on a useless course when you would say no to a measly $35,000 PUBLIC transit system. I guess you must like golfing.. Forget what you personally want and support what is best for the community! I'm glad to see some of the council have there head on straight! This golf course will never make any money....it will give pleasure to a few loyal golfers. Why not support a transit system that is a necessity to so many in our whole community! Pleasure for a few or transportation for all....my vote goes to the transportation!!! "

TERMS OF USE

Those who post comments are accountable for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they furnish. While we encourage writers to utilize this service on our Web site, we also strongly suggest they treat it as public forum where good taste counts. We reserve the right to decline for approval objectionable material from these blogs.

Writers that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments - such as racists language, threats or comments unrelated to the story - will not be approved for the blogs. Also, entries that are unsigned or "signatures" by someone other than the actual writer will not be approved.

While writers can still post anonymously, we strongly suggest that they do not do so.

Opinions, guidance and other information expressed in Argus Observer story blog comments and on the Argus Observer blogs represent the individuals' own views and not necessarily those of the Argus Observer. The Argus Observer furnishes this type of forum and does not endorse and is not accountable for statements or advice from anyone other than an designated Argus Observer spokesperson.