It has been suggested that the limited use of golf courses by non-golfers as the reason to make this land available for future residential construction, but there is no mention of using parks and ballfields for similar usage. The maintenance and upkeep of these municipal facilities are paid for by our tax dollars. Golfers, however, pay an additional fee for the opportunity to play these courses.
My responses as follows: “Golf courses are great for golfers, but aren’t accessible to families for hiking and picnics.” Families do golf and there are tons of junior golf programs. Golf is a hike when you walk. “Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize them.” They don’t; golfers pay fees to golf. If the contract is bad, then it is the fault of the county. “… selling off the properties could help cities pay off pension debts and fund infrastructure projects.”
The bullet train is infrastructure? Close public courses to pay off pension debt while explaining to seniors on limited income: go play private courses they cannot afford? Fore!I don’t use public parks but enjoy spending approximately four hours or so enjoying the views and abundant wildlife while I play golf. Cranes, ducks and ducklings, geese, hawks, and many other birds and even coyotes are everywhere. Lakes only add to the beauty.
Oh I get it … Use land they, the government, is supposed to run with their money, to more cramped drug-’filled useless housing that the taxpayers would have to pay for, thus footing the bill for their inept way of handling the real issues. Oh, I don’t think so.Another ill-conceived idea from politicians who can’t leave well enough alone. The governor’s proposed budget is $296.9 billion. Public golf courses lose $20 million or 0.0067% of the budget.