I suppose we might have David Letterman’s widely regarded and oft-quoted “Top 10 Lists” to blame for the profusion of “best of” lists. But at least Letterman’s lists were funny. There is nothing funny about Where to Retire magazine’s annual “50 Best Master-Planned Communities in the U.S.” issue.
        In this year’s July/August edition, the magazine’s editor, Annette Fuller, writes that the issue is “guaranteed to bring you many fruitful hours of contemplation.” My minutes of contemplation included checking Where to Retire’s top 50 choices against the paid ads inside the same issue. Marketing to potential buyers certainly doesn’t disqualify a community from a designation of excellence, but it does call into question how the magazine goes about choosing its Top 50.

No Science Involved
        At least Where to Retire makes no claim of science behind its selections; they simply say they were the editors’ choices. (No doubt the advertising director had some input.) And the only apparent research done on the communities was after they were chosen, when a Where to Retire senior writer “spoke with residents at each of our 50 winning communities [and] heard a lot of glowing reports.” Duh. Consider if the mainstream media announced that it checked with its sources only after it published an important story. (Consider also if a resident did not present a “glowing report” to Where to Retire; would it have made the publication?)
        You might say that, like the Letterman lists, no one takes the Where to Retire rankings too seriously. But that is not so. The magazine’s circulation is around 200,000, and it is sold in bookstores, like Barnes & Noble, and by subscription to thousands of couples in search of a retirement community. Unwary and trusting readers could very well look at Where to Retire’s helpful cost of living chart that compares cities across the country and conclude that the rest of magazine is objective. It isn’t, at least not in the July/August issue.
        Many deserving high-quality communities do not make the Top 50 list in Where to Retire; I won’t list even a few of them here because, well, that would be employing my own biases. Suffice to say that of the Top 50 communities listed in the July/August edition, I counted a couple dozen who advertised in that very issue, and others I recognized from past issues. My advice may be free –- contact me if you are searching for a golf home –- but at least I do not accept a marketing fee from any communities I recommend.

No Established Communities Considered
        Lacking any objective criteria for its selections, and the obvious large number of worthy communities left off the list, the magazine’s choices are suspect. The editors explain those choices, in a manner of speaking, in a response to a letter from a reader who asks why they don’t “publicize” more communities than those that are “developer owned.”
        “We cover more closely locales where thousands of retirees are going,” the editors respond.
        Seriously? That implies retirees don’t buy resale homes by the thousands in the many already developed communities across the country. Developer-owned communities, of course, spend more on marketing to get noticed and to sell their properties. Established communities don’t typically have the discretionary budgets to take out a full-page ad for a few thousand dollars in a retirement magazine. In their response to the letter writer, the Where to Retire editors imply that if thousands of retirees are moving to new communities, then they are not moving to established communities, a notion that is demonstrably false yet may be disorienting to some retirees searching for the best possible community.

Pay to Play
        Where to Retire, which claims to be “The Authority on Retirement Relocation,” could be a guiding light for couples looking for the best place to retire. But true guidance requires objectivity. By promoting almost exclusively in its editorial content the communities that advertise in the magazine, and by ignoring the benefits to retirees of well-established, built-out and financially stable communities, Where to Retire does not live up to its claim of authority.
        A more accurate title for this annual list would be “50 Best Master Planned Communities that Advertise in Our Magazine.”

        I subscribe to Google Alerts for mentions of golf communities and related terms, and so I am treated to a daily stream of stories from media around the world. A fair percentage of the topics have to do with failing golf courses, and it is sad to contemplate what that means for those who own properties in those communities.
        There are a few different types of owners of golf community clubs. The most secure, generally, are the property owners themselves. If a golf course owned by residents fails, they have only themselves to blame. (I have visited a few communities in which there is friction between residents who are club members and residents who believe the club members get special privileges. My advice to those non-golf member residents who might feel that way is to tread lightly; the values of your homes are tied closely to the health of the country club.)
        A developer of a golf community typically owns the golf course and associated amenities but offers it for sale eventually to residents when the community is substantially sold out of properties. In some cases, the original covenants indicate that the club must be offered to residents at a certain time and, sometimes, at a pre-stipulated price. In other cases, the developer will simply begin negotiations with the residents and if they break down, will look to sell it to an outside firm. In a few cases, the developer will keep the course and either manage it himself or herself or hire a management firm to run it.
        These latter situations are the ones that, most of the time, can devolve into chaos through mismanagement. Given all the horror stories I have read about golf courses going under, my advice to anyone who lives in a golf community in which the signs point to mismanagement, try to rally your fellow members together as soon as possible in the process and see if there is a way to take over the club from the owner. This could involve a pooling of resources to buy out the owner, or a visit to a local bank to see if a purchase loan to the community is possible.
        I know; your first instinct is to recoil in horror at the thought of spending money to “own” a golf club that someone else couldn’t run. But consider that the golf course at the heart of your community is abandoned or taken over by the bank or, if permitted by local covenants, sold to a developer to turn into 150 acres of new homes. That could erode the value of your home substantially, especially if the golf course becomes an eyesore. Let us say, for the sake of argument, your home is worth $300,000 today. An adjacent white elephant golf course could cause it to lose 10%, 20% or even more of its value. Suddenly a modest investment by each of a few hundred residents doesn’t seem like the worst type of protection money.
        Let us hope it never comes to this but for those currently living in a golf community, keep a close eye on the operation of your golf club and if trouble seems to be brewing, don’t wait for things to go south. And if you are looking to relocate to a golf community, don’t ignore those communities that “bundle” golf course membership with the purchase of your home. Yes, you are obligated to pay monthly dues, but since is everyone else has the same obligation, you can be confident that, barring outright embezzlement, your club will have enough ongoing revenue to survive and thrive. In other cases, find out who owns the country club and make sure they have the reserves and the experience to make it work.
        If you would like to read about some communities facing problems with their golf courses, here are some links:

Bank forecloses on golf course in Arkansas 

Myrtle Beach Homeowners Take Donations to Cut Grass on Course

Homeowners protest golf course land use  

Nevada community course closure 

Residents upset about consolidation of golf courses