Courts have had the occasion to determine whether golf courses can be converted into additional housing. Courts have routinely held that golf courses provide value to neighboring properties, and have ordered that they remain as golf courses even if they are losing money. Courts require homeowners to pay for the courses (if provided in their governing documents) even if an owner does not use the facilities.
Courts have also looked at whether golf courses must be maintained as golf courses even if the deed for the property contains no mention of the golf course. Last year a King County court ruled that association members who owned the golf course through their HOA were obligated to pay for its maintenance, even when the documents were silent. Furthermore, case law dictates that if developers promise neighboring home buyers that a golf course will exist, the land acquires an “equitable servitude” and is bound to be a golf course, even if not contained in the deed, and even if the course is not part of the community association.
In some golf course communities, factions develop who are strongly opposed to subsidizing the operation of the golf course. In one Washington community, roughly half the owners pooled resources to purchase the golf course from the developer. The recession hit, and the investors lost money. The community purchased the land to retain control over it, but many owners are bitter that the community pays anything to support the golf course.
www.wscai.org 25
Non-golfing owners in many communities believe that if the golfers will not pay all of the costs to maintain the course, the land should be left as open space for community benefit. In most cases they don’t recognize that the cost of maintaining open space (which still requires insurance, security, trail maintenance and some landscaping) will exceed the cost of operating a golf course, because golf courses generate revenue (open space does not). The decline in popularity of golfing has tipped many communities from profitable due to fees collected to operating losses, but these losses may still be small compared to the cost of not having a golf course.
Many owners focus on the annual operating budget and see negative trends. They ignore non-monetary benefits associated with golf courses such as beautiful views and social connections. Courts have routinely held that golf courses add value to surrounding homes. While courses may need to better balance their budgets regarding services and fees, owners need to balance the value they receive from the golf courses with their financial concerns.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32