Nearly four times Tampa’s Motor Enclave acreage, in a county with approximately 94% fewer residents and 92% fewer employer establishments.
Brad Oleshansky, the developer of Tampa’s Motor Enclave, has a blunt rule for building a profitable private motorsports club: “You can’t be in a rural area.”
That statement deserves attention as developers propose Emerald Coast Motor Club near DeFuniak Springs. The question is whether this location can provide enough nearby garage buyers, members and corporate clients to finance and sustain the proposed development.
Oleshansky’s experience offers a useful comparison. He developed Michigan’s M1 Concourse before building Tampa’s Motor Enclave, combining private garages, track access, memberships and events. In a Cars & Culture interview, he explained how customer research guided his location choice—and how garage sales and corporate events served different financial purposes.
The Motor Enclave occupies 200 acres, with a 1.72-mile circuit and more than 300 private garages. ECMC proposes roughly 751 acres, a longer circuit, garages, villas and other amenities. Its footprint would be nearly four times larger.
A larger site does not automatically produce a larger customer base. What evidence shows that the surrounding market can support the proposed scale?
Tampa was selected through customer research
Oleshansky described developing five customer profiles from his Michigan club, then studying wealth, growth and vehicle registrations to identify promising markets. Tampa emerged from that research. The decisive factor, he said, was “location, location, location.”
He selected land beside a freeway and Tampa Executive Airport. His typical garage buyer was often a professional, executive or business owner looking for a social community close to home.
He described the appeal of a club “20 minutes away”—somewhere owners could spend time with friends and still be home for dinner. That model depends on convenient, repeated use.
Walton County has affluent residents, second-home owners and substantial tourism. Those are genuine market advantages. But beach visitors are not automatically year-round garage buyers in DeFuniak Springs, and vacation demand does not establish how often prospective members would use a track inland.
The county comparisons are substantial. The Census Bureau figures used here put Walton County’s population at 93,288 and Hillsborough County’s at 1,574,115—nearly 17 times as many residents. Hillsborough had 42,977 employer establishments in 2023, compared with Walton’s 3,348, nearly 13 times as many.
County boundaries do not capture every potential customer. ECMC could attract buyers from neighboring counties and beyond. Nevertheless, these differences make a documented analysis of the actual customer area essential.
Garage sales fund construction; events sustain the business
Oleshansky said approximately $130 million of Tampa’s roughly $150 million project came from garage presales and installment payments. That describes money collected over time, rather than cash received entirely before construction.
He also described strong sales helping absorb cost overruns that threatened the project. Even in a large metropolitan market, execution was challenging.
For ongoing profitability, he emphasized corporate events: “You’ve got to be close to where the corporate clients are because that’s the business end of it.”
That raises a second location question. Can ECMC attract enough recurring corporate business after its garages are sold?
Visit Tampa Bay reported more than 28 million Hillsborough County visitors in 2025. Walton County’s tourism report reported 4.586 million visitors.
Tourism totals alone do not establish demand for a motorsports club. The relevant evidence would identify corporate customers, likely booking frequency and the revenue needed to cover operations.
Investors should be asking the location question
ECMC developer Steve Denton has said his team commissioned a financial feasibility study and investment memorandum and aligned 12 investors, according to MRC Motorsports. Those statements deserve consideration.
They do not, however, give the public the underlying market assumptions, detailed construction budget, financing commitments or garage sales figures.
Prospective investors should ask what evidence supports the proposed scale: Who are the likely buyers? How close do they live? What sales commitments exist? Which corporate clients would book events regularly?
Tampa’s financing model is not the only possible approach. Other investment, borrowing, property sales and phased construction could change ECMC’s financial requirements. None eliminates the need for sufficient customer demand.
County approval cannot create garage buyers or corporate bookings. If financing stalls, projected jobs and tax benefits may not materialize. If construction begins and stops, surrounding residents would live beside the unfinished result.
Oleshansky’s experience does not prove ECMC will fail. It makes the location question unavoidable: What evidence shows that a much larger development can succeed in this much smaller market?
