Is a golf course a publicly funded necessity? That’s an obvious question, but not one taken seriously in Wilmington. They already have one course, and are prepping the next for opening soon. But they’re also spending another $700k to renovate the one they already have. Is that what citizens consider a high priority?
(PortCityDaily.com) Beatty said the first nine holes would receive focus in fiscal 2014 and the second nine in fiscal 2015, with the entire course back in form by July 2015. Each nine was estimated to cost $350,000, for the $700,000 total.
At the same time, staffers are noting revenues the course would lose during the closures. The downtime could add up to $509,000 not generated, that estimation representing half of what the course would make if it remained open as usual.
The issue here is simple. If this can be run as a private enterprise why shouldn’t it? The staff claims the course will be renovated with funds generated at the course. So be it, make it private, let it become a tax generator instead of a tax loss.
The John Locke Foundation has spent almost a decade illustrating that municipal courses are a bad idea. Here, here and here are but a few examples of their work on the matter.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Squall Line's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
