Regarding Larry Young’s letter (“Repurposing courses not good idea,” Sun City West Independent, Feb. 2, 2022), I agree with much of what he said.
In the defense of his argument, I will add that if the golf courses were “repurposed” there might be a flurry of lawsuits that would tie this notion up for a time.
I have a suggestion that may help a little. Simply make non-Sun City West residents pay an unsubsidized rate. Yes, I know they’ll simply stop coming to play here. Perfect, with the lower attendance we can close a golf course and repurpose it as a park/walking path/exercise park. That will keep the green space and not hurt property values. In my opinion anyway. and yes I know that is not free and the lawsuits would still come. But keep in mind that compared to the cost of maintaining the golf course there will eventually be a break-even. Remember that legal fees will hurt both sides.
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
OPINION
Konopko: Lawsuits would flourish if golf changes
Posted
Regarding Larry Young’s letter (“Repurposing courses not good idea,” Sun City West Independent, Feb. 2, 2022), I agree with much of what he said.
In the defense of his argument, I will add that if the golf courses were “repurposed” there might be a flurry of lawsuits that would tie this notion up for a time.
I have a suggestion that may help a little. Simply make non-Sun City West residents pay an unsubsidized rate. Yes, I know they’ll simply stop coming to play here. Perfect, with the lower attendance we can close a golf course and repurpose it as a park/walking path/exercise park. That will keep the green space and not hurt property values. In my opinion anyway. and yes I know that is not free and the lawsuits would still come. But keep in mind that compared to the cost of maintaining the golf course there will eventually be a break-even. Remember that legal fees will hurt both sides.
Mandated water restrictions are likely coming on account of the drought. They’re stopping the supply of water to small farms in Arizona. How far behind can golf courses be? So restrictions on watering the greens will require a change over to desert landscape (xeriscape). This will not be cheap. Who is supposed to pay for this?
Additionally, if/when water costs and restrictions start to happen will Recreation Centers of Sun City West board simply raise our rec fees again? The lion’s share of the $500 per person yearly fee goes to support the golf course as does the “one-time” fee that we pay when we purchase a home in the community.
The 76% of us who do not play golf to one extent or another have little or no issue with the golf course. More specifically, we have an issue with the cost to all of us for maintaining the golf course. What I say is that there has already been too much subsidy and that the golfers need to pay for any increase themselves. Where do we draw the line?
Add the potential cost of upgrading the golf course to xeriscape to the current shortfall in revenue and perhaps you too may see that there may be a day that the golf course has become too prohibitively expensive to maintain.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here