A letter from the City Clerk on September 17th advising that on September 15th that Council "took the following action in connection with the Countryside Golf Course:"
Countryside Golf Course remain an 18-hole golf course; that the City design improvements necessary to preserve an 18-hole golf course and to create a quality golf course and to provide cost estimates for those improvements; that after the drawings and estimates are completed, City staff prepare and distribute a Request for Proposal (RFP); that the RFP allow the potential golf course operators the flexibility to propose a lease-term sufficient for the improvements of the golf course as have been identified; that the City Administration also prepare its own response to the RFP for the City's payment of improvements and operation of the golf course so that it can be compared to the private-sector responses; and in addition, that City staff bring to Council before the RFP is distributed, identification of "potential" land that can be sold by the City for residential and non-residential purposes that is in excess of what is needed to operate a quality 18-hole golf course.
1 comment:
The last segment of the statement regarding "potential" land for residential and non-residential purposes disturbs me.
"Potential" land is a subjective term that is only quantified by a subjective description (in excess of what is needed to operate a quality 18-hole golf course).
What land surrounding the current course configuration is "excess?"
What land is necessary for running a quality 18 hole golf course?
Could some person or group determine that one of the holes is "excess" and not necessary for running a quality 18 hole golf course?
"Preserve[ing] an 18-hole golf course and ... [creating] a quality golf course" are two possibly different ideas.
Would the preserved course be the same as the current course in lay-out?
Perhaps I'm just too cynical.
Post a Comment