WPCNR WHITE PLAINS VOICE. By Bob Petrucci. From The Fair Way. July 15, 2003: If you read the NY Times Westchester Section and watched News12, you will have noticed the Hudson Hills issue...well, only part of it. Also, in the News12 piece, Hudson Hills Manager Falcone said, "HOPEFULLY" it will be completed by December. And what if it is not?
There was, however, one commonality...and maybe it was picked up by those of you who have been concerned residents for some years.
If you'll recall, Hudson Hills as a $7million (all-inclusive) project was passed to provide golf for the allegedly overcrowded MUNICIPAL county courses and respond to the 400,000 or so rounds of golf that were allegedly not being met in Westchester. And on that basis, it moved along with no threat to the referendum cap or anything else, even though many questioned the 400,000 (when not related to price).
Then, there was a change in administrations and so too a change in Hudson Hills' direction, even though the new administration made the same "overcrowded, rounds unmet" claim. However, expenses/costs began escalating wildly. The words "premier" and "upscale" were introduced...and with it the threat to the $10 milllion referendum cap, which has since been violated.
Then, as existing-course fees had record increases and the courses had record deterioration (sacrificed for the Hills), they became a "poor product value" and resident golfers stayed away, resulting in a huge 15% plunge in playing rounds.
Now, in both the NY Times and on News12, the administration says its "reason" for Hudson Hills is to provide a place for select people to play golf who do not want to pay the $125 fees of Centennial and the like (and therefore will pay $70 for the Hills). And that is what most golfers have said all along...that Hudson Hills is financially-exclusionary.
And right there is the difference between what was originally passed by the legislators and what we have now. Clearly, these are TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS...by objective and by cost...and that's another reason why the present one with its $17 million cost ($15 million in bond issues) should require a referendum. It is NOT the same PROJECT.
The really shameful part is that millions of dollars in revenue was/is being taken from existing courses in on-going increased fees to pay for Hudson Hills...and from the very people, the seniors, economically-challenged, etc. that won't afford Hudson Hills' $70 fees. Many have reduced their rounds and some have simply stopped playing.
All this so the county elite could have its select country club.
And that's not what "municipal" is all about.
Bob and Jenny Petrucci
Newsmail Editors
County Residents Protection Alliance
Resident Golfers Protection Group
