Opponents of Golf-Course Conversion in the Rough
Minnesota has too many golf courses, even if golf is popular there. Owners of money-losing courses are retiring, and want to cash in by selling to developers. Building new golf courses that make money off of charging premiums for course-side lots is more profitable than running a closed-in, decades-old course. Developers find old courses attractive: they've got trees, and roads to get to the course are already there. And finally, there are always people who will jump at the chance to buy a new house.

Put these factors together, and you get a controversy over whether privately owned courses should be allowed to be developed into housing. Says one manager, speaking of closer-in courses, "In the long run, if municipalities don't develop golf courses, there are not going to be golf courses."

As a golfer, I lament that possibility. I'd rather drive 15 minutes to an old, scruffy course than an hour to an immaculate course that combines stunning design with super-high greens fees. At this point in my game, I play too poorly to appreciate a higher-priced course.

But as a policy analyst, I have to ask ... if governments doesn't develop golf courses, so what? It's not as if golf is like education funding or public safety--something so vital to everyone's well being that we decide it is necessary to invoke the power of taxation to make sure that the service is provided.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)