OF FAIRWAYS AND ECONOMIES AVOIDING THE ROUGH

Will Golf Erode Jackson Hole’s Competitive Edge?

Jonathon's comments raise concerns that have long existed in Jackson Hole; at what point does life in Jackson Hole simply replicate life elsewhere, particularly life where the divide between rich and poor is wide and widening? The extraordinary wealth that has poured into Jackson Hole may be for some an indicator of the land's uniqueness, but I think not. Jackson Hole has been a high end commodity for the rich to isolate themselves from community and real people for a long time, at least since the end of World War II, and the community of Jackson Hole has suffered greatly for it, to the degree that it's hard to find any community at all in Jackson Hole these days, except perhaps among the Hispanics who've filtered into Jackson to do the dirty work of the wealthy. Go into one of the hideaway restaurants that caters to Mexicans, and then into one of the splashy restuarants that caters to the glitterati, to see what I mean about where true community exists and where it doesn't.

Ever since the residents of Jackson kicked the Indians out a century ago, who were exercising their Congressionally-approved treaty rights to hunt in Jackson Hole, Jackson has been less a home and more a commodity of one sort or another. Truly, the best thing that could happen to Jackson and the other destinations of the West is a Great Depression. Then we'll see whether what's truely unique about Jackson Hole will shine through the muck of abandoned McMansions and dreary golf courses.

Jon, great essay. I guess if you're building $2 million homes, you can get 2 1/2 for them if there is a golf course, and that more than makes up for the cost of construction of the course. Or somesuch math. But I certainly agree with your basic point. One question is whether the gold courses are considered "open space" for planning/ approval purposes, which they are in some places. If they were regarded more as commercial land uses maybe there would be fewer of them...

First and foremots, great article. I agree.

But I take offense to Robert Hoskin's article. Sound like a little "Jackson Hole envy", a common pyschological condition in which those who wished they could live in Jackson but do not, trash it by bringing up the same, one-dimensional stereotype.

Yes there is alot of money here. But there is also a rising, younger professional middle class, many small business owners, and strong community spirit that Robert obviously hasn't been around long enough or doesn't want to experience.

What separates Jackson from other places? The abundance and diversity of wildlife, a lack of strip malls and homogenous box stores, lots of open space and beautiful places to enjoy the natural world and the most skiing vertical in the lower 48 states, amonst others.

All places have their social problems and all places have their benefits.

I think Mr Hoskins needs to get over his own "Great Depression" and accept his diagnosis.

Fred

I'm glad you were offended by my comments; offense perceived is offense deserved. I have no interest in living in Jackson Hole; I'm perfectly happy in the Upper Wind River Valley on the other side of Togwotee Pass where there are still real people living here, although, unfortunately, the place is becoming more and more like Jackson, where fewer and fewer people actually know the land, treating it merely as a landscape for framing in the front picture window. That's what Jackson Hole is now--a place that is so in search of "authenticity" that what's real about the place has been ground under the false images of a mountain paradise.

Tell me, do you know the difference between a feedground elk and a real elk?

Robert

Jonathan - 2.5 million would be a bargain starter home in Jackson Hole.
I think those who buy those golf course homes are liking them for two reasons - one is the club membership that goes with it..they feel that they have some assurance of the social standing of the neighbors. The other is that they truely feel they've been part of 'protecting' open space in Jackson. They don't consider that turf grass and sand and fake ponds as development - they consider it beautiful natural area. I heard it from 'them' when I lived there, and always thought it funny - both reasons. I mean, with the going rate for homes in the multi-million dollar range, why would one worry about the social standing of the neighbor....and as for the open space justification, it wasn't even worth it to try and explain to them how a golf course WASN'T worthwhile open space.

I'm here in Turkey at an international tourism conference speaking on the domination of the construction industry on tourism economies. I can tell you that virtually every country represented, and there are over 30, is dealing with the same issue - except perhaps Azerbaijan which is trying to attract more tourists. Countries like Turkey, S. Africa, etc are building more second and third homes in the touristic areas and in the process threaten the very qualities that attract visitors.

I issue, I think, boils down to wealth and demographics. There is enough wealth in well-developed economies to own a home and get out of town. I have to say that looking at the growth of Istanbul over the last 20 years the traffic, the pollution and congestion has made this place almost unliveable but, the wealth generation is impressive. I think the same is true of Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake, not to mention the larger cities.

The second part is age. It is correct to view the vibrant younger cohort in many of our tourist towns - there has never been more energy and creativity than now. The young recreationist/professional make places like Bozeman/Jackson great places to live. They tend to leave though and there are relativly fewer of them. But, those with real wealth are aging and don't ski like they used to, they don't hike, etc. Golf is a sport most can do into thier nineties - especially the flat cart-assisted game most play now. Living on a course gets you privacy and a protected view. They are a way of having property without paying directly for it. Not so strangely the rest of the world is also building them to the detriment of water quality and affordability.

Maybe destination golf in Azerbaijan will save it's economy from the corruption of oil money and Russian mafia?

The wishful thinking for the great depression shows exactly how much some ideologists hate their fellow human beings. Couple that to the stereotyping, the rich aren't "real people" and the Mexicans do the dirty work, and I can easily conclude the writer of that reply is a bigot.

I read the other day that University of Montana is thinking of buying and converting a golf course. Good idea then, now reinforced by Schechter's perspicacious observations.

I wonder where declining golf leaves an area like Deschutes county who seems to have replaced sagebrush and juniper forest with twenty or thirty golf courses and resorts. I'd guess they will be ok for a while, but the bubble is at its most stretched in bend of any of the trendy western town economies I've seen.

The ability to come to a conclusion depends upon a recognition of the facts and an ability to think. It appears that Jeff lacks both.

It boils down to this: the rich will end up owning the West: Golf has nothing to do with it because the poor like to golf as well as the rich. I live in the West where the main industry is still ranching and there are no shopping malls and no stop lights: I hope the rich don't find me!

The issue addressed in Schecter's column was the question--will the existence of golf courses in Jackson Hole erode the uniqueness of the valley. As Gary Ellis notes, golf courses are practically irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that the amenity based economy, which no one denies has taken over Jackson Hole, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and the Rocky Mountain west, has already eroded what is unique about these places. On the other hand, it is merely a continuation of earlier erosion from the natural resource economies. The amenity based economy is merely another form of commodifying and colonizing the West and chewing it up in the market.

Today, golf courses are merely another indicator of this erosion of uniqueness. If they lose their popularity, and I certainly hope they will, then unfortunately something else equally inane and useless will take their place in the market of useless things and services.

What the economists fail to recognize is that what is truly unique about these special places cannot be bought or sold, cannot be trundled through the market, accruing profits upon profits for the deal-makers. However, what is unique can be buried and hidden, and that is what has happened in Jackson Hole as well as throughout the Greater Yellowstone over the decades. Those things that are unique about these places take the character of the sacred and the indigenous communities of inhabitants (not residents). We don't see much of these these days.

The fact is: the rich have always been with us. From the days of the fur trade, which nearly wiped out the beaver, through the cattle empires, the timber empires, and the mineral empires, which polluted and damaged land and wildlife, to the present day amenity empires, as exemplified by the real estate market, in which people have replaced cattle, the rich have commodified the West and extracted great profits from it, to the clear detriment of land, wildlife, and human community. As we all know, but refuse to acknowledge, the West has been and still is a colony. In the old days, the colonization was directed from afar, as raw materials were shipped elsewhere, and the profits accrued elsewhere. An excellent discussion of this occurs in William Cronon's book, Nature's Metropolis.

In this amenity economy, the raw material is landscape, against which imaginary, cinematic "lifestyles" can be projected, quantified, and commodified, so the rich have to come here to possess it as well as massage it through the market. As it is right now, the economy of Jackson Hole and much of the rest of the Greater Yellowstone is based upon servicing wealth and soaking up the expendible incomes of people who are deal makers, not inhabitants. Their commitment to Jackson Hole is largely based upon the profits that can be gained from it.

This is sustainable? I think not. The problem with amenity based economies is that these amenities can be provided anywhere, and are. What loyalties to place develop from the amenity based economy? None. And as long as people think of land as landscape, with which there is no intimate connection, none will.

If people don't want to recognize this truth, then I suppose ignorance is bliss. But ignorance is destroying this place.

How many golf courses do Teton County (Wyoming and Idaho) really need? The area is oversaturated in courses. Good article and good points made by all.

People are attracted to Jackson Hole to get a feeling of the old West. Is it really the traditional West we all idolize? Are there cattle ranches there? cowboys? Well let's look at the bottom line of economics. Can a rancher make a living in the Jackson Hole area paying tens of thousands of dollars per acre? Can a real cowboy sustain a family on wages he makes on one of these cattle ranches (if there are any left)?

Gary makes some excellent points, but it isn't just the actual costs of land today in the Greater Yellowstone or the West that makes ranching questionable economically in Jackson Hole. Cattle ranching hasn't been the dominant economic activity of Jackson Hole for decades. Much of what is now the National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park is old ranch land sold off by the owners, much of it to John D. Rockefeller's Snake River Company in the 1930s, because they couldn't make it in agriculture. The land has always been too high, too cold, and too dry, even for pastoralism. This land was bought up specifically to dedicate it to wildlife and land conservation, which, when you think about it, is a much more appropriate use of the land. Cattle ranching in Jackson Hole has been dominated by just a few families, most with other sources of income, and that number itself has fallen off drastically since Grand Teton National Park was expanded to its current boundaries in 1950.

Of course, a critical issue is that a lot of the ranchland in Jackson Hole has been subdivided. Some might think that's a good thing. Ecologically, it's been a disaster.

I have always chuckled when I see the claim that Jackson Hole is the last of the old West. However, one of the premises of tourism is that the tourist experience doesn't have to reflect reality, either now or then, but a a mere reflection of it--what we want it to be, what it is in images from Hollywood and in coffee table books. Having pushed dudes for six years now in the Greater Yellowstone's backcountry, I'm only too aware of that fact. Can you imagine a tourist actually experiencing life as the fur trappers experienced it? Shall we attack an encampment of tourists in the backcountry and try to burn them out for encroaching on our trapping grounds? Shall we force tourists to risk rheumatism from wading cold mountain streams setting traps for beaver? I think it would be very hard to sell a pack trip that is truly realistic and faithful to historical experience. You can market an image. It's hard to market reality, unless you're recruiting for the Marine Corps.

Real cowboys are an endangered species in the West. Most of the ones I know are aged. But it seems to me that if you want to get a feel for the old West, Jackson Hole is the last place to look. Look in the odd places away from the tourist centers. Go to the Dakotas or Nebraska, or eastern Wyoming. Not Jackson Hole or the Greater Yellowstone.

Quite frankly, Jackson Hole reminds me more of the European Alps than any place of the old West. That's why I find discussions of the uniqueness of Jackson Hole as a western experience somewhat suspect. Jackson Hole is too much like Garmisch-Partenkirchen or Berchtesgaden in Bavaria, where I was stationed for four years. It was a good four years but it was expensive and awful crowded to boot.

For a true western experience, solitude is what you have to shoot for.