Who needs nature? Just pave the entire state of Wisconsin while we’re at it. Speaking of mosquitoes, y’know?
For Pete’s sake, I thought the battle over leaving some natural land laying around handy (and convenient to the shops) had been fought and won. I was obviously wrong.
It would be profitable (if it was) because the large amounts of land they would use to do it would be “free”.
Try buying a couple hundred acres and then see how much your green fees will need to be just to cover the loan, much less the additional cost to make the course, the facilities, maintain them, and pay for employees.
So, you would be taking “free” land thats supposed to be left in its mostly natural state (which is the whole idea of the parks, preserving that which is to the point of being rare in Florida) and turning it into “free” land thats no longer remotely natural. Land that you can find in that condition in 1500 other golf course in the state of Florida.
Taxpayers are paying to build the golf courses. Will your run-of-the-mill taxpayer be able to afford to play on a Jack Nicklaus designed golf course? Will youth golfers be able to afford it? Is there anything in the bill limiting the cost for (for example) residents of the community? Will the golf courses be profitable without the private industry hotels? How much income will the state derive from the golf course and the hotels?
Maybe you should have looked into those questions before you claimed that the golf courses would be subsidized. Admitting your ignorance up front is sometimes pretty tough, though.
Any project has contractors who will make money, and the bidding process is often shady. That doesn’t mean that the state isn’t going to make some money after their expenses are paid.
If folks want to complain about the way the state of Florida conducts business, then I’m not going to get upset. Most of the ire in this thread, however, seems to be directed toward golfers and golf courses in general.
Guess that complicated word “free” in my post kinda threw you for a mental loop. Sorry about that.
And they could put up Walmarts or go cart tracks or apartments or strip joints or god knows what on state park land and probably turn a profit as well.
Thats not the point. The point is, why take a rare thing, land in its natural state, and turn it into common crap that can be found throughout the state to provide a service that private enterprise seems quite capable of providing to the public in 1500 locations.
One could also point out that State run golf course would be competing with private ones, taking away their business. And competing unfairly because their land was free and they don’t have to pay property tax on it (and probably some other advantages that escape me at the moment that they would have over private courses).
Are you sure that’s the fucking point? I don’t honestly know if that’s the case.
I haven’t played golf much in the past 20 years, and I sucked as a kid. Handicap would be quite high.
We have 1,481 in Florida, with six more scheduled to open this year. That’s about one for every 12,500 residents.
Yes, you read that right. We each have to share our courses with 12,499 other people. It’s practically impossible to get a tee time. And that number includes a couple dozen private courses, so we might all really be sharing our greens with 15,000 people.
Lack of golf facilities is undoubtedly the biggest problem facing Florida today.