At the August 3, 2009 council worksession the city council  received a report about Richardson's municipal golf course, Sherrill Park, and its performance. According to the report, Sherrill Park is in excellent shape financially and is well run. This report came amid speculative criticism of the City of Richardson's contract with golf pro Ronny Glanton who runs the course. On the tail end of the meeting was a discussion of an in-progress study of the Spring Valley area redevelopment zone.

The city council spent nearly two hours hearing the presentation and asking questions on Sherrill Park. It was two hours spent discussing something that works well. If the report was only half as positive as it was presented, then Sherrill Park would still be way ahead. On the other hand, the discussion of the west Spring Valley zone received less than half that time.

The criticism of Sherrill Park arose from the nature of the contract with the course manager and golf pro Ronny Glanton. That criticism, as far I can see, was brought by only a handful of people. The type of contract Glanton has is not uncommon and the way it works is that Glanton sends green fees to the City while keeping other ancillary course revenue. In a Dallas Morning News article in May of this year, Barbara Kindig, Dallas' assistant director of park and recreation stated that this type of contract was, "far and away the most effective public-private partnership we have ever had."

The City and City Council clearly felt obligated to respond to the citizen criticism. Who can blame them? How did the report say Richardson was doing in Sherrill Park? Of the nine other courses that were examined, Sherrill Park had a $650,000 surplus not including debt service and an operating margin about 30%. It was first in the study group in actual geen fee revenue and third in revenue per hole. The take home here is that the Sherrill Park Golf course works and the Council spent two hours hearing about something that not only works but works well. The link to the presentation is HERE.

At the end of the worksession, the City Council got to hear, see, and discuss something that is not yet working. They heard and discussed redevelopment in what is Richardson's most troubled area: the west Spring Valley Corridor. That presentation took less than an hour. To be fair also, in Executive Session which by State Law is closed to the public, the City Council discussed "Property Considerations Along W. Spring Valley Rd./U.S. 75 to Coit Rd. Area." However, we have no idea how much time that took or what it really was about.

Furthermore, the City Council has been discussing the Spring Valley corridor and redevelopment in greater detail since they were sworn to office in May. However, the issue here is not so much the City Council but “noise” created about things that are working rather than spending that effort on critical issues.

Currently, this disparity in time is symbolic of a persistent problem in our city. Even though our city is a mere 28.6 square miles in area (compared to say Plano which is 71.6 square miles), we have citizens who do not realize that the biggest potential threat to the vibrancy of their city exists on the other end of town away from their golf course. Yet a small group of people obligated the City Council to spend time being distracted on a "problem" which turns out not to be a problem.

At this point when speaking of the west Spring Valley corridor, it is easy to throw around loaded words. We could say "blight" or "slums" but honestly such terms apply only to isolated pockets... for now. There are tiny pockets, isolated from single family neighborhoods, but serious and expansive blight starts this way as the history of cities across the United States teaches us. (And to insert a disclaimer, Monday's excellent presentation by Planning Director John Webb and Monica Heid was about the objective data on the ground and not qualitative and loaded terms.)

We learned things on Monday about the west Spring Valley area that should raise the eyebrows of all taxpayers and residents. For example, we learned that 82% of households within 1 mile of Spring Valley and Waterview earn less than $75,000 in household income. For Richardson as a whole it's 60%. The median Richardson household income is about $62,000 but for that one mile radius it is about $39,000. That is a whopping 36% difference.

Let's imagine possible futures. Let's imagine that the needed revitalization of Spring Valley goes too slowly and the areas of trouble begin to expand to the north. To Belt Line, To Arapaho, and to the east. What will property values be like then? How much more money will be required to clean it up and how much less money would we have to accomplish the task? How much will quality of life decrease? How unattractive would parts of Richardson become? When we run those questions through our hypothetical future, the answers are not pretty.

Now let us compare that to the potential problems with a golf course. Let's pretend -- just pretend -- that the City's contract to operate the golf course was a problem (and remember we have stated that it appears to be far from a problem.) What could solve it and what would be the cost? Easy. A mere rearranging of the contract, and the cost would at worst be a finite amount of money that could in all likelihood permanently solve the problem.

With west Spring Valley this is not so. There is a considerably higher price to pay but the stakes are much higher. Without redevelopment potential tax revenue is lost and problems will creep to a wider swatch of the tax base. Quality of life will suffer. Crime could increase. Property values could become stagnant or decline.

When we compare the current challenges of redevelopment in Richardson to a profitable golf course on the other end of town, it seems clear what the focus ought to be. Let's work on the real problems and let's not try to fix what is already working. Let's encourage our City leaders to focus on the real challenges and avoid problems that are not.