Waterbury golf courses are losing money and the mayor along with the Board of Alderman are going to meet to see how this could be reversed. The courses do not pay local taxes so as a business it has an advantage. Both have had major renovations done within the last ten years which include irrigation, cart paths, redesign (East Mountain), state of the art equipment; most of which have been paid for by government grants from the state. The courses are in better condition then they were over a decade ago when they operated profitably so what happened?
For the most part golf courses are tough businesses to run. Pro-shops, carts, green fees pay for equipment, maintenance and employees. The difficulty comes from year long expenses paid for with seasonal income. Even though private courses don't have the advantage of an operating budget stemming form city hall or renovations from state grants not to mention running tax free, for the most part they are profitable and in better shape.
What troubles the operation of Waterbury courses is its business structure. Each course has a manager (foreman) that oversees the daily maintenance. Both managers answer to a general manager. The general manager answers to a committee which sets policy and a mayor who is in charge of the city. To qualify to be a foreman the individual has to have knowledge of golf course maintenance. To be the the general manager the qualifications are more extensive which includes the knowledge of different types of grass how it grows, what inhibits its growth, how to treat it. Along with this knowledge comes chemicals and its application. Here is where the problems arise. Take a car dealership for instance; who would be better to run such a business the person who knows how to fix even to build a car or someone who knows how to sell them? In Waterbury the business of selling fees is the guy who has the knowledge of grass, so if new equipement is needed the likely way to pay for it is to charge more in fees. In 1992 to play eighteen holes cost $13, today it is more then doubled. With each increase in fees comes the likelihood of less business. Today the courses have less business, better shape, less business.
When the Mayor and Board meet they may get bogged down on the wrong side of the ledger. That is to say expenses could be trimmed, altered, put off budget, blaming managers etc. None of this will serve the long term financial health of the parks. The courses could run in the black if the analysis of the operations are done from the perspective of business, not accounting practices or blame or politics. The qualification of a general foreman seems to be the crux of a solution however essential knowledge of maintenance is, it does not include what it takes to run a business. It is not practical to ask for a business degree along with the necessary horticultural training for a position, but without it there is a void that needs to be filled.
Politics is not the same art as business and it is in the sphere of the latter that will determine the fate of the former. That is not to say that a solution could not be found. The decision makers have taken a step to look at the problem and not let it deteriorate. That this is being done when the town is running a surplus is politics at its best, the mayor and the board ought to be commended.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The War is Over and We Won
As in all wars the Iraq war has been a rough ride. While the invasion and ousting of the Saddam Hussein government was not difficult, the aftermath came close to making the campaign a failure.
The war can be divided into two phases, the first that of toppling the government and the second the installation of stability. The first phase of the war was executed successfully. Once Saddam Hussein was removed from power this should have been the end of what it is that is traditionally called war. Everything that transpired afterwards ought to have been nothing more then an installment of order and a democratic society. It was the second phase of the conflict that disaster struck. The US did not anticipate the magnitude of the insurgency and when news story after news story of bombings and body counts started climbing so did the second guessing of the Bush administration and dissent.
The dissenters could be split into two factions. The first being the group who did not want to invade in the first place. In this group there are those who would be against the war on strategic grounds or simple pacifism. The other group of dissenters are political opportunists. In this group the war became a vehicle of attacking the Bush presidency for political reasons. If truth is the first casualty of war it is apparent in the protagonists of a conflict also, in this case, the political adversaries of the war. During the second phase there was a drumbeat of charges of lying and incompetence. That Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or that he had nothing to do with 9/11 became a rallying cry to foster dissent. This group would have us believe that if a Democrat were in office they would make the same arguments. This is a canard. This is apparent due to their own rhetoric. They would have us believe that president Bush was the first to mention weapons of mass destruction when he was not. It was also the position of the Clinton
administration as well as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and foreign intelligence agencies. More important was the use of wmd's as a means of genocide. If wmd's were not found by the time of invasion it did not matter. Hussein could have stayed in power and while there could have accumulated a fresh stockpile with the intent on using them for another round of genocide or in another conflict with it's neighbors and if not Saddam then certainly his sadistic sons who would have eventually taken power.
As for culpability in 9/11 Hussein had no direct involvement, no one ever made the case that he was. However it was the policy of the Iraqi government to harbor terrorist and export terrorism abroad. Whether or not he was culpable the fact that he was a terrorist enabling nation made Iraq a rouge and dangerous presence especially post 9/11.
The political dissenters while ignoring past arguments of nefarious behavior of Iraqi made by their own side in the past are now denying the successful strategy of the surge and the growing stability of the Iraqi nation now. Nothing could assuage the dissenters other then the installment of a Democratic president. If the current policy is unchanged in the event of a Democratic administration and stability continues, look for this crowd to take all the credit.
At no time from now till January 2009 will our involvement in Iraq be labeled as anything but war. The fact is the war is over and we won, not only the in the first phase but also in the second. The Iraqi government is democratically elected with a governing body of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. There does not exist any enemy combatant with anything resembling an army or insurgency. The only true battle that is left to be fought is one of perception. It is a battle that will be lost in the short run pace the political success of the Democrats in congressional seats and their current lead in the run towards the white house. When the dust settles the world will have over 30 million middle-east citizens living in Democracy in regions unthinkable less then a decade ago while America has been safe of
terrorism. The Republican party is inept in regards to winning the current debate on Iraq. It will be left to History to have the final say.
The war can be divided into two phases, the first that of toppling the government and the second the installation of stability. The first phase of the war was executed successfully. Once Saddam Hussein was removed from power this should have been the end of what it is that is traditionally called war. Everything that transpired afterwards ought to have been nothing more then an installment of order and a democratic society. It was the second phase of the conflict that disaster struck. The US did not anticipate the magnitude of the insurgency and when news story after news story of bombings and body counts started climbing so did the second guessing of the Bush administration and dissent.
The dissenters could be split into two factions. The first being the group who did not want to invade in the first place. In this group there are those who would be against the war on strategic grounds or simple pacifism. The other group of dissenters are political opportunists. In this group the war became a vehicle of attacking the Bush presidency for political reasons. If truth is the first casualty of war it is apparent in the protagonists of a conflict also, in this case, the political adversaries of the war. During the second phase there was a drumbeat of charges of lying and incompetence. That Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or that he had nothing to do with 9/11 became a rallying cry to foster dissent. This group would have us believe that if a Democrat were in office they would make the same arguments. This is a canard. This is apparent due to their own rhetoric. They would have us believe that president Bush was the first to mention weapons of mass destruction when he was not. It was also the position of the Clinton
administration as well as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and foreign intelligence agencies. More important was the use of wmd's as a means of genocide. If wmd's were not found by the time of invasion it did not matter. Hussein could have stayed in power and while there could have accumulated a fresh stockpile with the intent on using them for another round of genocide or in another conflict with it's neighbors and if not Saddam then certainly his sadistic sons who would have eventually taken power.
As for culpability in 9/11 Hussein had no direct involvement, no one ever made the case that he was. However it was the policy of the Iraqi government to harbor terrorist and export terrorism abroad. Whether or not he was culpable the fact that he was a terrorist enabling nation made Iraq a rouge and dangerous presence especially post 9/11.
The political dissenters while ignoring past arguments of nefarious behavior of Iraqi made by their own side in the past are now denying the successful strategy of the surge and the growing stability of the Iraqi nation now. Nothing could assuage the dissenters other then the installment of a Democratic president. If the current policy is unchanged in the event of a Democratic administration and stability continues, look for this crowd to take all the credit.
At no time from now till January 2009 will our involvement in Iraq be labeled as anything but war. The fact is the war is over and we won, not only the in the first phase but also in the second. The Iraqi government is democratically elected with a governing body of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. There does not exist any enemy combatant with anything resembling an army or insurgency. The only true battle that is left to be fought is one of perception. It is a battle that will be lost in the short run pace the political success of the Democrats in congressional seats and their current lead in the run towards the white house. When the dust settles the world will have over 30 million middle-east citizens living in Democracy in regions unthinkable less then a decade ago while America has been safe of
terrorism. The Republican party is inept in regards to winning the current debate on Iraq. It will be left to History to have the final say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)