I recently attended the open house in regards to the future of the golf course. Weeks before, I personally put together my own hybrid concept that satisfied the needs of the community — at …
I recently attended the open house in regards to the future of the golf course. Weeks before, I personally put together my own hybrid concept that satisfied the needs of the community — at least what they were asking for in the survey.
I tried to maintain the integrity of the historic course. The history of the course and the land where people have played golf for more than 120 years should not be overlooked and I think is an important thing to talk about publicly.
The stakeholders committee (assembled by the hired consultants: liability?) is made up of a diverse group — some of which are very vocal on social media about their opposition to the golf course. They are not unbiased, and they definitely have agendas. How did we get here?
Why are we being forced into excepting a hybridize golf course plan that completely disrespects the historic integrity of our course design. It was designed by a notable golf architect by the name of Frank James, in 1928. The envision team are not golf course architects, and have no right dissecting a historic course that should be on the historic registry given its historic value. If it were a building such as the Hastings Building or a space such as Fort Worden it would be protected. So why is the golf course not being protected given its age and historic value?
Why are we being forced to except a hybrid plan that strips the golf course of the driving range? The driving range offers the course significant revenue, provides a space for practice for youngsters and high school kids and people new to golf to learn the basics. It provides a place for seasonal golfers to practice their game and a space for warm-up before charitable tournaments.