Lincoln -- the City, that is -- now owns five golf courses: Highlands, Mahoney, Pioneers, Holmes, and Ager. The courses require zero tax dollars, with user fees taking care of all expenses. All the courses are paid off in full.
Let's do a little thought experiment. (And that's all this is; I'm not actually proposing anything.) Why should a city own a golf course? Would Lincoln be better served by selling off one or more of the courses to private buyers? We sure could use an influx of a few million dollars. Why not go for it?
One argument against such a sale might be that the private buyer could close off access to the public or otherwise limit accessibility. There are many variations on that basic concern, some likely more valid than others. Those concerns could at least theoretically be put to rest, however, if the City were to place conditions on the sale. Would anybody want to buy a course with X, Y, or Z conditions? I don't know.
Rather than continue with pros and cons I'll open the floor to discussion. Should Lincoln hold on to its golf courses?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Wouldn’t it be more logical to keep the golf courses that generate revenue and sell the parks that don’t?
I suspect parks (in general) have a larger economic value to the City than any profits that could be gained from golf courses. That’s just a guess, though.
What are the property tax implications? Do the courses not have to pay them because they are public? Maybe that’s why it’s unfeasible for a private entity to own such huge tracts of land in the middle of town. That’s just a guess.
That’s a good question. To build on it: what if the organization that purchased the course were a nonprofit?
Having a (nice) park nearby increases the property value of your home.
Why should the city own basketball courts? Or playgrounds? Or swimming pools? Or softball fields? Why are some sports regarding as being more “public” than others?
My guess? It’s good for the city if its residents have healthy recreational opportunities. It’s a quality of life thing. And as with other activities, especially given the start-up costs, there aren’t many private organizations interested in operating them not-for-profit.
You know, Tiger Woods was a middle-class kid who was taught to play on public courses by his retired-Army dad.
I like the public courses. I think they’re as much of an asset as the parks. The public courses are the cheapest rounds in town, I think. The privately owned public courses generally are nicer than the city courses, but also cost more to play. Keeping the city courses publicly owned gives us three options: private, membership type courses; privately owned public courses and publicly owned public courses. As a strictly occasional golfer these days, I like those options. It would be a shame to sell off a great mature course like Pioneers to some schlocky outfit that runs it into the ground.
I’d rather see the city sell off some of its unused/surplus land, i.e. the northeast corner of S. 27th & Old Cheney south of the fire station. Years ago, the plan was to build a library there, but that ended up on S. 14th. Of course, I suspect access is an issue, so I have no idea what could work there. It just seems like an odd spot for minimally maintained green space.
Maybe the city doesn’t own much other surplus land, but I’d sell that off before the golf courses.
For years I’ve wished the City would dig a giant hole at 27th and Old Cheney. It would make a nice Sunken Gardens 2. That or put in a totally bodacious skate park.
Possibly, but if we can develop those parks into some nice commercial space, the city could make some nice scratch.
Personally, I like our public golf courses and parks even though I don’t use them very often.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.