OF FAIRWAYS AND ECONOMIES AVOIDING THE ROUGH
Will Golf Erode Jackson Hole’s Competitive Edge?
By Jonathan Schechter, 11-16-06
Here are two things I know.
First, as an industry, destination recreation is stagnant, if not in slow decline.
Visitation to Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks peaked in the mid-1990s, and has been in waning ever since. Ditto with skier days at major northern Rockies resorts, especially among destination skiers.
Similarly, nationwide, golf is stagnant. Golfing was in decline before Tiger Woods burst on the scene, but even the vaunted “Tiger bounce” has done nothing more than bring golfing back to its early ’90s levels.
In fact, about the only aspect of big-bucks recreation that’s actually growing is the number of golf courses: Today there are nearly 30 percent more golf courses in America than there were in 1990. But even that statistic is deceptive, for 2006 will be the first year in U.S. history that more golf courses were closed than opened.
What’s happening to all those closed-down golf courses? They’re being converted to housing developments, a more lucrative use of the land.
Speaking of housing developments, here’s the second thing I know. Construction is now more important to the economy of Teton County, Idaho (on the other side of the Tetons from Jackson Hole) than is farming.
Personal income from construction surpassed farming income in 1999. And as of 2004, more Teton Valley, Idaho residents who once were potato growers now work in construction than in agriculture.
This just blows me away. Maybe the “Spud Curtain” should be re-named the “Nailbangers’ Curtain.”
Here’s what I believe.
Assuming that something has intrinsic value, the rarer it is, the more valuable it will be.
Markets are very good at recognizing value. That’s why most things don’t stay rare very long: If at all possible, great ideas are quickly replicated, and inevitably turned into commodities. It doesn’t matter what the product is: high-speed quads at destination ski areas or high-end amenities; outlet malls or starter McMansions; franchise restaurants or movie plots, features in software or consumer products. If something can be ripped off and replicated, it will be.
About the only thing I can think of that can’t be readily replicated is landscape and the environment. Arguably, that’s a large part of why Teton County, Wyo., is perhaps the wealthiest county in America; arguably it’s a large part of why Teton County, Idaho, is the 14th-fastest growing county in America. We’ve got something here that simply can’t be re-created, and people are embracing it with both their wallets and their feet.
Recognizing this and keeping it going is the secret to our long-term economic success.
Here’s what I can’t understand: Like the rest of the nation, the two Teton counties seem obsessed with building golf courses. Twenty years ago, there was one course between us. Ten years ago, there were two. Today, there are at least seven, with another three or four or five or who knows on the drawing boards. This in an era when golfing is stagnant and courses nationwide are closing faster than they are opening. This, to me, is baffling.
Even more baffling is the fact that developers feel the need to build golf courses in the shadow of the Tetons. This puzzles me on three levels.
First, at some point the supply of “golf course estate lots” will far exceed demand. We can all see this coming, so why keep building them?
My second bafflement is based on the fact that a golf course is no more than a high-end commodity: Just like a strip mall, you can build ’em anywhere; just like a strip mall, they serve to make one place seem no different than any other.
With its combination of breathtaking beauty and environmental quality, the Teton area is, arguably, the most remarkable place in the Lower 48. Given this fundamental reality, why do developers need golf courses to sell homes? I can completely understand the need to build a golf course at a development in the middle of nowhere: That’s a no-brainer. But aren’t there enough intrinsic amenities in the Tetons to make a golf course superfluous?
Which leads into the third bafflement. If the only way developers can sell high-end homes in the Tetons is to put them on a golf course, then who is buying those homes? More to the point, do the people buying those homes really have any appreciation for the Tetons? Or are they simply interested in having a nice home near a golf course, something they could have almost anywhere?
This question brings me back to the decline of agriculture in Teton County, Idaho. As reporter Lauren Whaley at the award-winning Jackson Hole News & Guide newspaper ably documented in her recent series of articles about the Teton Valley, long-time residents are very concerned about the decline of their community’s character. This character was formed by generations of people who were attracted to the area in part for the chance to work the land, but also because they appreciated the mountains, the wildlife, and the many recreational and aesthetic opportunities available out their front door. They most assuredly did not come to the Tetons for strip malls or golf courses or the other amenities found in metropolitan areas, for those simply weren’t available in this rugged, remote part of the world.
Currently, both Teton counties seem to be hell-bent-for-leather to make ourselves increasingly like every other place in America. We’re allowing – if not encouraging – the rapid development of those same get-‘em-anywhere amenities that you can, by definition, get anywhere, without really asking ourselves about the consequences. For instance, if we approve a zillion golf courses, can we really claim to be shocked when our community character starts being informed by a country club mentality?
I have nothing against golf – I play once or twice a year, and enjoy it when I do. But it seems to me that, unlike a lot of changes sweeping over our communities, approving a golf course is something we can actually control. And I raise the point not to attack golf or golfers, but because it seems to me that golf is a pretty good metaphor for all the changes going on in our area, particularly those that make us more like every other place.
Put baldly, if the only way someone will buy a house in the Tetons is if it’s on a golf course, are such folks really going to appreciate the unique qualities our region offers? In the answer to that question lies a pretty good indicator of not only where our community character is headed, but whether we’ll be able to keep our economy vibrant over the long haul.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EDITOR'S NOTE: Jonathan Schechter owns Summit Management Consulting in Jackson, Wyoming, lectures widely on economic trends in the West, and writes a regular column for the Jackson Hole News & Guide newspaper, where this essay originally appeared. He can be contacted at:
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
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.
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.
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
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 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?
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.
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.
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.