The Loose Cannon: Yountville’s Golf Course
I resisted titling this column “Yountville’s “Rip-off” Golf Course.”
Prior to 1994, the possibility of building a golf course on the Veterans Home property had been discussed. In Feb. of 1994, the home residents learned that the home had leased the land and an open hay field south of California Boulevard. for the development of a golf course.
According to then Vet’s Home Allied Council Chairman Bill Shaw, this came as a surprise to most home members. While there had been some flyers posted, Shaw claimed that the only people that knew what was in the lease were the developers, the state and the Veterans Home administration. The lack of information shared with the home members fueled speculation that money was involved and there would be no benefits to the home members. Shaw even said that the rip-off was that there was nothing in it for the home members. And if they had their way, they might call it the “Rip-Off Golf Course.”
That was not true, but even as the details of the lease were made public, there was still discontent among the veterans. The lease was to allow free golf and free driving range privileges to the vets, but only at specific times. Those times had not been established.
Shaw was also skeptical of how much the veterans would use the course. He estimated that as few as 20 of the 1,000+ vets might use it.
So that begged the question, “How much will the golf course directly benefit the vets?”
For starters, the state estimated $100,000 to $140,000 would be generated for the state and Veterans Home. I couldn’t tell if that was a one-time amount or perhaps yearly. Also in the lease, 7% of the green fees, as well as 3-4% of the pro shop sales and club house food sales would go to the Dept. of Veterans Affairs general fund. Another 7% of the driving range fees would go to the members’ Post Fund Enterprise budget.
Complicating the formula for making financial decisions was the fact that the Veterans Home already had a public driving range with 100 percent of the earnings going to the Post Fund Enterprises budget, and members already had free access to the driving range.
From the Napa Valley Register, Sunday, Feb. 20, 1994:
“‘Golf course gets go-ahead’
By Jack Hamilton, Register Staff Writer
YOUNTVILLE—The Veterans Home of California soon will have a nine-hole public golf course spread over 58 acres of what is now a hay field at the entrance of the Home… Golf course architect Robert Muir Graves of Walnut Creek has been contracted to design the $2.5 million, 2,600 yard nine-hole golf course and driving range.”
There was a rumor that money behind the golf project was backed by Japanese investors, said Shaw. “How do you think that makes us feel if that were true?” said Shaw, who was wounded while serving in the Pacific during World War II. “For three years they were trying to kill me. It takes more than a lifetime to get rid of that one. I wouldn’t want Japanese money in the Veterans Home golf course.”
“I told him that rumor existed,” said [Veterans Home Administrator Mike] Reber, “It is a false rumor…”
The driving range at the golf course opened on June 1, 1999, as reported in the June 3, 1999 Yountville Sun:
So, all’s well that ends well, right?
But that wasn’t the end of the driving range issues. From the time the driving range opened, a new issue lit up the golf course debate.
From the front page of the Jan. 6, 2000 edition of the Napa Register:
“Turn out the lights… the party’s over – Yountville flips the switch
YOUNTVILLE —Nights will be darker in Yountville.”
Since the driving range opened in June of 1999, neighbors south of the golf course complained about the driving range lights being too bright.
At the Yountville Town Council meeting two days earlier, 23 people spoke against the “light pollution” the driving range lights caused and urged the council to shut them off.
Thomas Bender of Yountville Associates (the golf course lease holders}, tried to convince the council of the importance of keeping the range open at night.
They had already tried to defuse the situation by covering the tee box lights and putting shades over the in-ground “bunker” lights. They even turned off half the lights. They changed the range orientation to north-south and proposed shorter operating hours to 7 p.m. in the winter and 10 p.m. for the summer.
There had even been an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. The report was finalized by the council with one small, but significant typographical error. They had intended to specify the use of 1,500 watt bulbs on the range, but the report showed 150 watt max bulbs. People opposed to the project emphasized that error at the council meeting. One resident said the town would be subject to litigation if they did not follow the EIR. The council shut down the lights.
So, once again, all’s well that ends well, right?
Not so fast, even shutting down the lights didn’t stop the debate.
Days later, a letter to the Napa Valley Register editor complained that the Yountville Town Council was spineless in their decision to shut down the lights and accommodate the 23 “crybabies.” The letter was from a self-described blue-collar worker that didn’t have the luxury of being able to play during the day. He said he could take his 8-year-old son to the driving range in the evenings.
And he included that he saw, “a half-dozen teens (Caucasian and Hispanic) get their clubs out of their cars to go practice. It was nice to see these young gentlemen doing something worthwhile instead of hanging out on the streets, waiting to get in trouble.”
That letter drew a hostile response from one of those accused crybabies. It criticized the previous letter describing the council members as spineless and stated they are quite the opposite. Said it took courage to protect environmental concerns over economic interest.
That same month, the Jan. 13, 2000 Yountville Sun would report: “Golf Course Gets Trained Border Collie to Herd Geese.”
Geese had found the golf course to be an attractive destination, but they were messy. The border collie was intended to keep the geese in the lake and not making their messes on the golf course.
Letters to the Sun editor the following week:
“What are we telling our young people when we can’t tolerate the droppings of our wildlife because, oops, someone might get something on their golf balls or shoes?”
“They [the geese] are not only not welcome anymore, they are being driven away, first by a golf cart and now by a dog… Clearly, golf balls are deadly missiles. It is obvious that pedestrians, joggers and wildlife must be protected from the danger of these objects when some damn fool hits one. I say we can’t shut down this dangerous playground quickly enough… If we don’t shut it down all together, we must insist that only one player utilize the facility at a time. That is the only safe solution.”
I’m guessing that the last writer was a non-golfer and having a bad day.
That was all 25 years ago. Lots of water under the bridge since then. If there seems to be enough interest, I’ll consider adding a part two to this story.
I’m hoping to hear back from folks that were around during the golf course planning and the subsequent issues and debates.
And if you are a golfer or even a non-golfer that wants to share your thoughts on the golf course, please do so my sending an email to me at: [email protected]
Nothing political here folks, just a fun side note:
Sponsored
Author
