OUR VIEW | Tennis Center Dilemma

In mid-March, with avid tennis player and Longboat resident David Gutridge speaking on behalf of the Friends of Tennis, the group that has invested more than $300,000 in the center, Gutridge urged the Town Commission to consider increasing the town’s financial support in the tennis center.

Within a day — actually, within hours — of Gutridge’s comments appearing in the Longboat Observer, our letters to the editor inbox filled up with tennis-center supporters cheering on Gutridge and echoing his views. 

As Gutridge told the Town Commission: “Whether true or not, tennis center members have long felt that the previous town government viewed the tennis center as its red-headed stepchild, something to be tolerated but not truly loved and embraced, even though it had more than 26,000 individual visits this past October through March …”

Ah, yes, the never-ending dilemma and consequences of what happens when governments pick and choose special interests. Someone wins, someone loses. And most often, taxpayers pay.

Let’s be clear here, first: Back in 2001-2002, when the town agreed to construct the tennis center with taxpayer and Friends of Tennis financial support, this newspaper argued against the town financing the courts. We did so with reluctance, knowing we would become many of the Friends’ enemy.

But the argument was grounded in our consistent call for limited government and opposition to subsidies. In fact, then Town Commissioner Hal Lenobel, who also opposed the courts at first, made the case against funding quite clearly: Why is it fair for Longboat Key taxpayers to subsidize the Key’s tennis players but not the Key’s golfers?

Nearly 15 years later, most Longboaters know, and as Gutridge told commissioners, it is probably accurate to say the public tennis center has become second only to the beach as the Key’s most popular and most used attraction. No denying: It has been a huge success as a community (and friend) builder and Longboat Key amenity. You would be hard-pressed to find a nicer, more welcoming group of people in those who play regularly at the tennis center.

Gutridge is right: The tennis center is one of Longboat Key’s best assets. You also can say, to some extent, everyone benefits from it. 

That’s one of the arguments often used for the town supporting the tennis center financially: It enhances property values.

But you can say that about private businesses, too, such as the top-flight restaurants on the Key, Publix Super Market or the privately owned Tennis Gardens at the Longboat Key Club and Resort. Without all of those assets, Longboat Key would be less attractive. None of them, mind you, receives a nickel from the town’s taxpayers.

Nevertheless, Gutridge argued before commissioners, given the tennis center’s importance as an asset and amenity, it doesn’t make sense for the Town Commission and town administration to penalize the public tennis center. Said Gutridge: “Friends of Tennis has been told that funds to make improvements will only be made available if the tennis center earns them, meaning, only if it has income in excess of expenses sufficient to fund these items.”

And yet, as Gutridge pointed out, this stipulation is not required of the town’s other parks, such as Joan M. Durante Park, Quick Point Park or Bayfront Park. In 2013-14, for instance, the town invested $40,000 at the Bayfront Park Recreation Center and $79,635 at the Longbeach Village boat ramp;  and invested $50,000 in new playground equipment at Joan M. Durante Park — none of which has the usage of the tennis center.

Meantime, the tennis center almost covered its costs in 2013-14, falling short by $12,000, but is expected to break even this fiscal year (on revenues of $532,000). We should note, the town began last year setting aside $15,000 annually in a capital-improvement fund for the tennis center.

So, if the town is to quit treating the tennis center as a red-headed stepchild, what is the right amount taxpayers should subsidize the tennis center?

The answer is the proverbial black hole of government. Once the taxpayer spigot is turned on, it will never be turned off. And inevitably, the amount will grow. That’s the nature of government.

We agree with Gutridge and the Friends of Tennis that the public tennis center is not being funded proportionately to the town’s other parks and their needs. For that matter, you can argue the tennis center’s upkeep is no less important than, say, the upkeep of Town Hall. 

But the question of funding the tennis center always brings us back to where we began in 2001: the role of government. We said then government should not be in the businesses of operating tennis centers, swimming pools, golf courses or baseball diamonds. Users should pay.

In the strictest sense of analyzing how much governments should subsidize recreational activities, the right amount is zero. That, of course, will never happen anymore in special-interest-driven, entitled America. But short of that, one answer the town and Friends of Tennis should consider is: privatization. 

Sell or lease the tennis center facilities to the Friends of Tennis for $1. That would be a huge windfall for the Friends — not to have to pay for the cost of land. In return, let the Friends own and operate the tennis center. As its members have made it a huge success thus far, they are so passionate and enthused, they’ll figure out a way to keep it the Grand Slam it is.

And they’ll do it without a nickel from the taxpayer.

“No one has greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” JESUS