Remnant

Usually don't like to call anyone out in particular, so rather it is better to give some friendly advice. In the Business Report, a comment was made about BREC getting rid of poorly performing property. Okay, that is pretty low hanging fruit. And is it really to a level of truth.

Let's not overlook that BREC has achieved what a lot of Parks and Recs haven't... Accreditation and Gold Medals. So, it seems they have been doing pretty well with the hand they were being dealt. As a matter of information, a vast majority of their parks were acquired by donations. Even though they might not be high traffic areas, you just don't automatically take a donation and heap it in the trash bin. So, you create a process that can come as close to a win/win as possible.

If the notion that a piece of property is underperforming, a possible idea is to either sell it or see if a cooperative endeavor can be created wherein another group uses the park. To sell a donated property, BREC has to then trace back and find the original donor and ask if they want the property back. Most don't because they got a tax benefit... to reverse that I doubt anyone would want to go back and let the IRS know.

Some donors don't care if BREC does come out and want to sell the property. But BREC has the responsibility to notify everyone... and in some cases they meet opposition... some is legit, some not so much. But if anyone attended or watched the last Commission meeting, they found out that for some of these properties, they aren't underutilized as we might think. It was just a matter of communications (or perception) with the public in these areas. To go to a roof top and shout... "Hey look, nobody is using this park!" may be off the mark. And BREC is finding this out, but to their credit, the public didn't really let them know... but they are now. And to BREC's further credit, they are listening. And maybe this is how things get accomplished for the better. You would think "two cents" worth of knowing would pick up on this.

Keep in mind that the weather is transitioning to warmer temperatures, and that too the courses are working on the transition of their current conditions. The grass is now growing with more vigor... as too are weeds (i.e. poi anna).

For any experts out there that know about grass turf, they know the cycle that plants go through during this time and thus the proper application of chemicals to boost their health. Great caution is needed, too much or too little and we don't get the desired results we wish for.

Customers are going to have to be patient and let the Superintendent work out his plans. They don't try to peak just yet, they aim more towards the end of April to really nuke the place... and it has a lot to do with nighttime temperatures and daytime temperatures. Plus, just how much rain we are getting.

Meanwhile, we wait and see if things go well. Greens aren't quite there, but as it gets warmer, they will come through. The best advice to be given if you want greens to be your friend... knock it closer to the hole.

For those who may have watched the PGA Tour Houston tournament, it was played at Memorial Golf Course.

About two to three decades ago, it was in deplorable conditions. The whole park was. It has historical significance, many tour players from that era had grown up playing it before it fell off. Some "elites" felt that the park should be upgraded to a central/amusement park format, and the course was considered "wanting."

Citizens rallied and city officials got the message... upgrade the golf course, make the park more safe, and offer the park as a health building layout.

The course was restored, the police set up substations in the park and put police on bikes and horses, walking/running/horse trails were set up... and boom, Memorial Park became popular and prosperous. Even more so to this day, and it started with keeping the course in tacked and upgrading it. Hmmm... sounds like a good idea. To heck with Austin, lets be more like Houston.

Do you know how many tournaments Carter has on Mondays? A lot. Ask Pelican Point about this as well.

There was a reason it struggled and eventually closed. Those reasons are still there. The dagger in the heart was Beaver Creek and Copper Mill. Why drive that extra distance, pay too much, and then drive back when you can play two of the best courses in the city at a cheaper rate and not spend half a tank of gas getting there and back.

I know the design was enchanting, but even those pale when you think how much they are going to have to charge for green fees just to get a return on their upstart investments. The original owner was keeping it open at a lost, just because he could. Where else are you going to find that kind of money?

There is a segment of our culture that totally whiffs it when it comes to City Park Golf Course. Call it Group Think or whatever, but here is the common sense when it comes to this property.

The golf course is open from sunrise to sunset every day, except for two holidays. It gets the most traffic of anything in the park. It generates revenues that cover its cost. It has the most diverse participants. It adds to the environment. And now we have a bunch of "elites" who think they know better and we would be better off heeding their suggestions. Worse, they are gas lighting us into thinking the course doesn't produce.

What is being totally overlooked by those who advocate against the existing golf course... and that is basic wisdom. We know what we are getting with the current product... if we follow their recommendations we will fall into the trap of unintended and unproven consequences.

They don't do their homework, they come up with hairbrained ideas and insist that we are the ones that aren't seeing straight. One of the most basic indicators of a product's success is its budget... look at the numbers. If they keep going up, then something right is being done. Trying to shade those numbers is dishonesty.

Who are the ones being the most honest... the ones that know the truth. City Park Golf Course is a treasure, and as far as the park goes, it should be enhanced and preserved. Let the real numbers do the talking.

There have been instances where BREC has performed some enhancements to the course and it has paid dividends. They put in an irrigation system, they planted Zoysa grass on three (however golfers insist on driving carts down the middle of that fairway stressing out the grass), they put in continual cart path... go back and look the years after and you will see an increase in play and revenue. Basically, what this says; "Improve the golf course and players will come." So, the impetus should be... put in improvements to the golf course, and it will enhance the facility. There is plenty of space elsewhere in the park for other enhancements. Common sense needs to be upheld.

The best thing that can happen is for the public to become aware of what some Utopian Elitists who have no concept of what they are advocating are trying to force upon the public who love the golf course and wish to preserve it. Simply get involved and say something about it. Numbers matter in this case.

I like the focus. It appears that our quarter back is going to be our greatest asset, we should protect him more, give receivers more time to run their routes is the way to go.

I don't have a problem drafting an offensive lineman in the first route. And there are some good receivers that should be around in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Please, do not draft Notre Dame's Love in the first round. And I think our coaches are smart enough to figure that out.

I read an article recently out of one of the better golf magazines stating that golfers that play under cold conditions should do this in picking the proper golf ball to play with.

The premier balls that Pros play with (and I choose not to name them in order to be fair to all competitors) are designed to be "compressed" at a certain club head speed. In cases when temperatures are a factor, most golfers can't maintain that club head speed like they can when it is warmer. Thus, the ball does not compress and the players will actually lose distance as well as performance in their short game.

Players should opt out for the time being and play lower compression and softer golf balls. Do a quick survey online as to what balls have a lower compression and play with those until temperatures get above the 70 - 72 degree mark. Another advantage is that these lower compression balls are about 30% cheaper than premier golf balls. The only negative, premier balls are also designed to last the full 18 holes and still maintain their strength, most soft balls start wearing out around the 15th hole... that is if you don't lose them by then.

Let us not forget that there is a historical nature to the golf course, which makes City Park unique not only to Baton Rouge, but nationally. The story of Tom Bendelow is phenomenal, and City Park is part of that. That means something unique to Baton Rouge.

To those who are blind to this and keep harping that the course is underutilized (and thus needs changing into a side show), a more comprehensive review of the facts might help. The last half dozen times I have played, the course has been jammed packed... to the point we have to wait to get a cart. And a few of these times were in the middle of the week, not just the weekend. So don't give me that story of underutilization anymore; the course is popular and has value.

There have been upgrades to the course, such as the addition of continual cart paths, that have enhanced the course and allowed it to gain revenue to the point where the course is nearing a threshold of being self-sustaining. If I am a taxpayer, that lets me know that BREC has been efficient in investing my dollars to make quality of experience a prerequisite. Why now take that away... for what?

The greater point should be, if past improvements have led to greater revenues and better service, then shouldn't we be investing even more into the course to gain even greater quality and sustainability? It has worked thus far.

There is plenty other space in the park for whatever it is they are trying to create; the golf course is a treasure and an asset; it needs to be treated that way.

There have been times when I have turned off the TV and swore never to watch another football game again because of officiating.

I understand it is part of the game, and basically the officials are calling it based on what they see. So, I started keeping a personal stat on what I believed was a legit call and what should had been a no call. It is about 50/50. Which, in my book, means refs can affect the outcome of a game unduly.

Replay and review has helped, but now it seems like every other down is a review.

To be honest, it is more the severity and timing of the penalties that is mainly the issue. 15 yards is a lot, or point of the foul. What if all penalties were just 5 yards, however, if a player commits a foul they have to sit out so many downs before returning to play. That way, the player is punished, not the team... or the fans. Off-sides, illegal motion, the player has to sit out a down. Holding or pass interference, three downs. Personal foul, five downs. (At least kickers would be a bit more cautious on kick-offs, the Coaches will have more leverage in lecturing a player for committing a foul - which should motivate a player to keep it clean.)

The game will move faster, the refs won't totally ruin the game, and players will start thinking a bit more about consequences. Teams will have to start putting more emphasis on back-up players, which would be kind of refreshing. I am tired of yelling at the refs on TV, I just want the game to move and be exciting.