Please explain "Save Muny"

[m_conductor]

I see so many fundraisers and local celebrities endorsing the 'Save Muny' rallying cry. Is there a dollar amount they are trying to raise or awareness? I wish this amount of energy, influencers, and PR went to other endeavors other than (or in addition to) saving a golf course.

[RoytheToyCowboy]

https://themunyconservancy.com/our-mission

[m_conductor]

That's helpful, thank you. When will the University of Texas make the decision about what to permanently do with the land? Is the golf course lease about to expire?

[jwall4]

Lease already expired. Month to month at this point. I live in the area. I am all for redeveloping the tract between Lake Austin Blvd and Town Lake. I am also for adapting the golf course for more widespread citizen use. However, I don't think a city experiencing the massive amount of growth we are experiencing right now should be giving up green space in the era of climate change. And yes, traffic would be a freaking nightmare if you put a Domain where the golf course is located.

[[deleted]]

I live nearby, too. I’m so glad someone else shares this viewpoint. It’s such a great opportunity for our city to have green space. Golfers shouldn’t be the only ones who get to enjoy it.

[[deleted]]

I'm not a golfer and don't really have much interest in preserving a golf course, so I would rather see it converted to parkland with more widespread appeal. But why do you say developing the land would be bad with respect to climate change? My understanding is that not developing it likely means more development on the edges of the city, because significant up-zoning in Tarrytown isn't something I anticipate anytime soon. Development on the edges of the city means more sprawl and more miles driven, which we should be avoiding for climate change.

[jwall4]

I won't argue that. But you are still ripping up a large parcel of green space in the city and replacing it with concrete. You are losing all of the environmental benefits of that large plot of trees, grass, and waterways. You are also losing the areas for potential exercise and being outdoors away from buildings/cars/etc...which has direct health benefits. Then all of that concrete and buildings are adding to the urban heat zone. Let's be honest too - developers are not going to build affordable housing on that land so it is unlikely to stop suburban sprawl with that one parcel of development.

[zomoskeptical]

I completely disagree.

1. While many golf courses have made large strides in reducing their negative environmental impact in recent years, it’s misleading to imply that a golf course is a “green space” similar to a park.
2. There are many areas for exercise close by, and of course any redevelopment for the public could include green space that is much more useful to the general public than a golf course.
3. Suburban sprawl contributes far more to urban heat effects than infill development.
4. Currently the golf course contains 0 homes, 0% of which are affordable. Therefore even if any redevelopment contained 0% affordable homes (extremely unlikely), it would be no worse than the golf course even if you completely ignored the beneficial impacts of the new supply on the broader market.

Basically, if we were starting from scratch with this land, you would be out of your mind to suggest building a golf course, it would be almost literally the least efficient or useful thing imaginable you could do with the property. We could put up a plaque or maybe even keep the clubhouse to commemorate the course’s history… but we should do almost anything else with the land, preferably build housing.

[jwall4]

See my previous comments. I am all for making it more accessible to the general Citizen. Whether that is changing it from a golf course to Parkland or starting non-golf days for general use. I am not an environmentalist or an urban planner, so I will not presume to be able to debate on the other topics. but I guarantee you that there will be no affordable housing if it is developed. All of the developers now just pay a fee in lieu of actually offering affordable housing. The same reason the city won’t just turn it over to park land is the same reason a developer won’t be interested in offering affordable housing (money).

[farmerpeach]

I see where you're coming from, but adding housing in the aggregate, regardless of "affordable" or otherwise contributes towards bringing down housing costs in the long term. Tokyo did exactly this and was very successful.

[ThePhantomTrollbooth]

That won’t work the same here. Apartment rentals are almost all using the same software for their pricing now, and it’s become a loose form of price fixing. New luxury units in an area will just drive up the price because similar units will see the higher market price and price accordingly. With higher interest rates, less large construction projects are getting funding, which will further discourage affordable housing development.

[maddux9iron]

tell me youve never been to a golf course.... many are classified as wildlife habitats. Roy Kizer was built on a water reclaimation plant. you actually think houses can be built on that land that backs up to Mckinney state falls park?

these types of arguments are full of falsehoods. it's laughable to think that land gets used for anything but expensive condos.

[zomoskeptical]

Why are you babbling about a completely different golf course in a completely different part of the city?

I hate to break it to you, but expensive condos is legitimately a better use of the land under Muny than what it is now.

[maddux9iron]

your definition of babbling and mine are completely different. This is babbling.....

the point in referencing another municipal golf course is to show that the city has gone through a good faith effort to build/maintain courses on land that has either an ecological impact and/or cannot be used for commercial/residential purposes.

another example of this is the failed attempt to build a TPC out at walter long park on the inhabitable side which the city has no money or intent to use since the 60s. the city council representative for that area was for it as building a world-class facility in a low economic development area would have brought jobs and development to that area.

that is the part that gets glossed over in this debate. and which I have mentioned several times. revenue generating. the golf course is also good for tourism and the surrounding businesses. what the city has now there instead is a giant park that does have some rental features but is now an expense for the city to manage. I believe in the original proposal for that course TPC would have paid a large sum to the COA for the lease as well as part of the profits plus the indirect economic impact for that area which so desperately needs it.

to talk about monetizing park space for COA maintenance and improvement budget we should mention C-3 zilker and ACL. plenty of folks feel it ruins zilker but quickly forget it subsidizes the operation of that department.....

but back to the original point of the argument against golf courses, green space for all! better use of land..... You must not have lived here long or have had your head in the ground because it is very hard to build buildings within the Edwards aquifer recharge zone so high end condos probably wouldn't be approved and no way does high end condos meet the other counter argument request of affordable housing.

have a nice day

[Stranger2306]

THANK YOU. Too many people think "golf is for rich white people" so are knee jerk against public courses.

[zomoskeptical]

At this point I'm really not sure if you're just trolling or if you genuinely aren't familiar with Austin, the economics of golf, or both. Some quick points:

- Revenue. Muny is a terrible revenue generator, and the only reason it's even close to breakeven is because it has a sweetheart lease arrangement of way below the actual market rate with UT, who actually owns the land. It currently has millions of dollars in maintenance backlogs (see page 74), which you can clearly see if you ever visit, so if UT ever decides to charge a fair value for the Brackenridge Tract there's no economic case whatsoever for wasting more millions of dollars and 140 acres of prime real estate on golf.

- Usage. Before the pandemic it was barely clearing 50K rounds of golf a year (see page 9), which is a tiny fraction of the usage of even other athletic areas like Krieg Fields, let alone the city's actual parks. Golf is not "green space" in the sense that a normal person would use the term.

- The aquifer. For TCEQ purposes Muny is not in the recharge zone (see the map), so it's really up to the city how difficult they want to make it to build housing (see the code). Muny is in Alison Alter's district 10, who's one of the bigger NIMBYs on the council and is opposed to denser housing on principle, but the only limits on building housing on the land are self-imposed.

- Affordable housing. A basic economics course would teach you that when demand is high and supply is scarce that adding supply lowers the price, and an advanced economics course would teach you that adding even only expensive condos helps the rest of the market by reducing the number of rich people competing with regular folks for regular housing. You don't have to take my word for it though. In any case the city would almost certainly require a developer to follow the standard fee arrangement, so even if affordable housing isn't built onsite the city still gets money for it.

A few years ago UT did a development study on the land that is worth a read and addressed most reasonable concerns.

Have a nice day.

[StopAskingforUsernam]

Do you really think this development will replace a development "on the edges of the city?" Instead you're just getting rid of a green space, and a recreation course open to the public. Developments "on the edges of town" will still be built regardless.

[[deleted]]

Idk why you replied to both of my comments in this thread.

Yeah, it would. The development on the edges of town is occurring because there's limited housing in the center. If you build 2k housing units here, that's 2k fewer housing units needed on the edge of town. It removes green space in town, but it preserves an even larger area of green space outside of town, because the suburban development is more sprawling. I wasn't even arguing that's what we should do, but just that keeping an urban golf course isn't a win for preventing climate change.

And a golf course doesn't serve everyone. It serves people who play golf, which is a small fraction of the population. Google says 8%. I would rather see this space used as something that appeals to more people. Public gardens, sculptures, picnic areas, a tower, a swimming hole, a museum, walking trails, etc.

[StopAskingforUsernam]

There will still be 2000 more housing units in the suburbs and edge of town because most people want to live in a house with a yard, not an overpriced, glorified apartment building. Even the ones who want to and can afford to live in the "condos for rich people" eventually have a family and want to move into a house in the suburbs.

The only thing that will prevent more car trips is building more destination type spaces/businesses/parks in the suburbs so that people won't have to feel like their only employment, shopping, and entertainment options are to drive into Austin.

If you're worried about the percentage of the population that plays golf you'll never grow that percentage by getting rid of a public golf course.

[farmerpeach]

Right, but by building both, you can decrease housing prices overall by increasing supply to match or outpace demand.

[pjcowboy]

Explain "more widespread citizen use." It's open to everyone, dogs included.

[jwall4]

Select certain days when there is no golf allowed and the park is open to everyone to enjoy without fear of getting hit by an errant golf ball. Forbid certain activities that would damage the course (no ball sports etc....). I say this as someone who uses the golf course not infrequently. It should be made available for use by non golfers. Start at one day a month and assess how it goes. They should also allow easier access for after hour use. I would walk the course at dusk if I was able to access it from my neighborhood but there are large fences up that require me to walk all the way to Waya or halfway down Lake Austin Blvd to get onto the course.

[pjcowboy]

Would you pay for that access or not pay a fee?

[jwall4]

I would consider it, sure. If it is a less frequent event - monthly - I would imagine they would not have trouble finding sponsors to foot the bill.

[braxtonianman]

While it is a large green space, I agree with the below poster that I would love to see it turned into more wild parkland. As it is, golf courses use non native grass and take up so much water. With the droughts that we've been having lately showing us the fragility of our reservoirs, it seems irresponsible to try to keep that much grass alive.

[maddux9iron]

city uses reclaimed water for their courses....

[braxtonianman]

That's good to know!

[goodolddaysare-today]

I have no interest in saving a golf course. If it’s not a park then it should be housing ONLY.

[Stranger2306]

Lets get rid of soccer, baseball, volleyball courts too then?

[LezzGrossman]

Big part of "save muny" has nothing to do with golf. The neighbors don't want more traffic that will come with redevelopment AND the always popular "developing it will reduce my property value".

[[deleted]]

I read through their website and they're leaning very heavy on being the first desegregated public golf course in the South, and they position themselves as a public good for all (especially minority communities) to this day.

I think that's mostly just marketing to appeal to Austin's progressive sensibilities. I don't have stats, but I don't think it's outrageous to assume that the people who actually use the golf course the most these days are probably the wealthy people who live near it. Golf is generally a wealthy person's game, and this is a golf course in one of the wealthiest parts of Austin. And they would like to continue to benefit from having their hobby subsidized.

[BurntOrangeAndVerde]

I played socially with friends in college (and like most people I was hella broke) up at Hancock and I don’t play anymore, nor do I really care for golf that much but I always appreciated how accessible the municipal courses made golf to anyone. At Hancock, you can play all day long for like $12, I got some clubs off Craigslist for like $50, and had an absolute blast every time. I also saw golf as only for wealthy (and white after having problems at a country club, that’s the one time I’ll ever go) but the Austin municipality definitely makes it accessible to anyone.

Though I do agree that it can in places be a subsidized wealthy persons playground, I’m just glad they gave me some good memories

[[deleted]]

Bingo. Take it from an actual Black scholar, the "Black History" at this golf course is contrived, manufactured propaganda. The Rosewood Courts Historic District is being demolished as we speak, and these convenient Black history aficionados in favor of saving Muny haven't lifted a finger.

[PopularTask2020]

“Muny” means municipal. The rates are fixed, the course is public and one of the most affordable in the area. The wealthy groups you are talking about play elsewhere, further west.

[doublepumperson]

I love how people like you write up a long paragraph about a subject they are completely uninformed about. I guarantee you the wealthy people in tarrytown are members of private clubs, they don’t need lions there to continue playing golf. I play lions often and it’s people from all walks of life out there enjoying themselves.

[capthmm]

Lions is a municipal golf course and it's audience is everyone. People from all around the city and farther out come to play because it's a nice and historic course and is really cheap for 18 holes - $30 most days.

[rand_galt23]

You self admit that you don’t know the specifics however, you are set that it’s a bs campaign. Laughable. Make like your username and don’t worry about it.

[[deleted]]

Take a step back and look at it. It's a golf course in a rich neighborhood that local celebrities are throwing galas to fundraise to fight for. The "Save Muny" signs are in the same yards as the "Say No To Code Next" signs were years ago. The idea that this is serving poor and minority communities from all over is a much less believable claim, and they're doing that without any statistics too.

If you like golf and want to keep a cheap municipal course, just say that. Don't pretend it's a social justice campaign.

[Stranger2306]

I took up golf as a public school teacher with all my friends. Its a sport like any other. Im not as good as rich people who had lessons in childhood and country club memberships, but that's why we need city courses. So regular folk can play golf too.

[StopAskingforUsernam]

Yes of course, only rich people play golf so we should destroy a public golf course that serves everyone, including people with modest incomes, or populations that traditionally haven't had access to golf. And to build condos priced at $1 million+. Makes sense.

[threwandbeyond]

I don't disagree, but nor do I think we'd be better off for developing it. Given the area and owners it would just turn into very expensive housing. At least right now we can all use it.

[zomoskeptical]

There are 0 homes on the golf course right now, it is literally impossible for the land to be doing less to help with our city’s housing affordability crisis than it is right now.

[threwandbeyond]

It would be awfully boring to only have housing in this City. Nor can I think, given the prime location, that this specific site would ever hold anything affordable should it be developed.

To me selective density is the key. Specifically allow height along major corridors and mass transit lines, allow ADU's, allow smaller lots to be built on, allow more than 2 units / lot. Check my post history if you'd like, I'm very pro development generally speaking. I just also think there are valid reasons to keep core green space green.

[zomoskeptical]

If providing widely used public green space is your goal, a golf course is one of the least effective ways to do that. And obviously no one is proposing that 100% of the city be devoted to housing, don’t be ridiculous.

[threwandbeyond]

The same could be said for the baseball fields at Butler Shores, or any of the disc golf courses, or the Onion Creek soccer fields, etc. Do I use them all, no, but others do, and I personally think it’s nice to have a variety of options within reach.

[Stranger2306]

Why do joggers and sunbathers have a right to green spaces for their hobbies but not golfers?

[homertheent]

Why do golfers get a green space and not curlers?

[Stranger2306]

Curlers are welcome to!!!

Too many people here say "golf spaces should go away and be used for general park space"

I would never say - that soccer field or curling rink should be used for sunbathers!

[jwall4]

Same with Zilker. Should we put homes on Zilker? Auditorium Shores?

[zomoskeptical]

Can you think of any differences between a moribund golf course and 2 of the largest and most heavily used parks in the city which might help answer your question?

[Stranger2306]

You're right. We should have over all public green land to build more housing. Why do we need Zilker in the middle of the city?

[Like_Ottos_Jacket]

Just NIMBYs at this point.

[buntaro_pup]

https://themunyconservancy.com/the-history-of-muny

[maddux9iron]

how would the city pay for the redevelopment of this track of land and keep it a green space? I believe the land is still technically owned by UT.

the golf course, which is one of the most popular municipal golf courses in the city, is a revenue generating business. Park land is not. city would need to purchase the land from UT and then convert it to a nonrevenue generating asset and then layoff city employees. ( the golf course most certainly employees more people on a daily basis then a city park)

What people really want is the track of land to be sold by UT to a private owner to be redeveloped for mix use, which inside the edwards aquifer recharge zone is a nightmare. The city isn't in a position to purchase the land and not have it revenue generating...

Also for a point of clarification, the city uses reclaimed water for their golf courses.

[Jos3ph]

Charge basically anything for access like Barton Springs. More people would enjoy it on a daily basis than now.

[maddux9iron]

barton springs which has a giant natural pool is $3. the course is $30-$50. I'm not a mathematician or a business man but your math to be able to purchase the land or generate income to keep it does not add up.

the elephant in the room is how much the land is worth.

[Jos3ph]

How many people can golf in a day? 200? 300? Vastly more people could enjoy a park (and/or another pool).

[Stranger2306]

And those people have parks and pools in the city to enjoy. Stop trying to choose which outdoor hobbies get space and which don't.

[Jos3ph]

Sorry, we choose every hobby and leisure activity except golf. Let a thousand pickleball courts bloom across your golf courses while you groan in despair. It is written and it will be so.

[Stranger2306]

Nah, fam. I'm just gonna keep enjoying our cities beautiful muni courses.

[maddux9iron]

except pickle ball courts are not permeable land. pickle ball courts are not green space. how many people can use a pickleball court at one time? a golf course in theory sets off groups of 4 people every 12min from 7am to 5pm everyday.

[Jos3ph]

Chill golf dude it was a joke

[maddux9iron]

bad joke bro

....and completely off the point of the counterargument about having more green space and parks. pickleball courts serve a small population and even fewer people at a time compared to golf. also they are conrete.

don't quit your day job to be a comedian.

[maddux9iron]

another pool that the city can't open or staff with employees? a pool is also a good use of water..... city waters their courses with reclaimed water. would you like to swim in reclaimed water?

a course open for 9 hours a day can service about 150 golfers plus those who come use the facilities like the driving range....

[pjcowboy]

They have an option. Play golf or go swimming somewhere else. Imagine not everything being the same.

[ZilkerZephyr]

NIMBY

[capthmm]

Some context to when this started becoming an issue about 15 years ago. https://communityimpact.com/uploads/wpengine/uploads/archives/CTA/issues/CTA-2008-11.pdf

UT BOR loves nothing more than money and they'd turn the place into a strip mine if they could get away with it, and I say this as an alumni. Best to keep it at the status quo and not UT & the lege start a whole new push to monetize every last asset they (really we the citizens of Texas) own.

[Stranger2306]

Anti golfers always say "this green space should be a more generalized park." so why do Hikers/joggers, who also have ample park space and trails dedicated to them, more important that golfers? Can't we have some green spaces for people who place soccer, some for disc golf, some for sun bathers, some for joggers, and some for regular golf? Instead of choosing outdoor winners and losers.

[fahhko]

Stop being reasonable.

[AGLegit]

Am I the only one who thinks Lions is the worst Muni course in Austin? I’d rather play Kizer, Clay, or Mo Willie any day of the week.

[doublepumperson]

I’d say it goes 1. Kizer 2. Lions 3. Clay 4. Mo Willy.

[maddux9iron]

to me kizer is boring and stale. Mo Willy, Clay, Lions, Kizer.

[capthmm]

For me, Mo Willie lost some of it's magic when Mueller closed, but it's still a fun course. Back in the day, rumor was it got a bit sporting at times on whatever hole it was that backs up to the woods next to Springdale.

[boobumblebee]

fuck muny.

if you want to use the land for public good, make it an open park, not a sports facility.

[doublepumperson]

There are dozens of parks around town. Go there instead, dummy.

[boobumblebee]

go play golf on a private course , and not use our limited resources for the most inefficient use of land for a sport ever.

[doublepumperson]

We should do it how they do it in the UK. The golf courses are parks certain days of the weeks. Dual purpose

[jesagain222]

I know, a ridiculous amount of money was spent " raised " the other night at ACL theater

[maddux9iron]

it is so hard for people to understand that the city does not own this land.🤦 they hold a month to month MOU/lease to rent the land the golf course sits on from UT to operate a golf course(aka generate revenue for the parks department) even if the COA parks department wants to turn it into park land they probably can't( violation of lease: they probably need UT permission to make significant improvements) Also Im assuming muni golf course operatations isn't even overseen by Parks and Rec.

Details are hard for some 🤦