In a message dated 11/1/2000 7:37:42 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes, in part, regarding earlier suggestion to sell
Meadowbrook Golf Course:
<< It's a beautiful course, and my kids and I have taken golf lessons there
for very affordable prices. So when people say that the taxpayers don't
derive benefits, I have to disagree. Most folks can't afford to shell
out $40,000 to join a private club like Minikahda, so if they like to golf,
they golf at municipal owned courses (Hiawatha, Theodore Wirth or
Meadowbrook in Minneapolis; Fred Richards or Braemar in Edina) or county
owned courses. I think these municipal courses are a wonderful thing,
comparable to lakes, parks and public swimming pools.
Am I missing something? >>
First off, I'd suggest that most taxpayers dervie no benefit from public golf
courses other than some largely unuseable green space value... naturally the
golfers using the facilities enjoy them and support the concept-- but what
percent of Mpls. households are 'golfing households'? I think there is ample
justification for the parks being supported by the public because they are
available to and used by more of the public, less so for stand-alone public
swimming pools when we have all the city lakes (although they have
experienced deteriorating quality in recent years-- for swimming, fishing,
canoeing, etc.). [Swimming pools in public schools make more sense, and they
can also be opened to the general public during non-school use periods, with
a reasonable userfee that provides a contribution toward upkeep and
maintenance-- similar to gymnasiums in public schools that should be open to
the public as school scheduling permits.]
The above golf course argument sounds strikingly similar to that of a
father/mother that wants to take the kids to professional
baseball/football/basketball games and therefore endorses public funding for
sports stadium(s)- private team ownership/salary issues aside. The fact
remains that much of the population in Minneapolis either isn't that
interested in sports, and/or can't afford to attend the games anyway (also
there is great competition for discretionary income via numerous
leisure/recreation options). Taking a family of five to professional
sporting events (with a hot dog/drink, etc.) costs anywhere from $75 - $250,
a cost not affordable for many city residents... it could just as well be
$40,000... well almost. Meanwhile those same residents will be experiencing
dramatic increases in their property taxes or monthly rent payments over the
next decade-plus, due to City development policies (excessive use of TIF and
excessively large amounts of subsidy per project) and poor fiscal management
practices (i.e. Internal Services deficits due to inadequate transfer
pricing, growing social programs that necessitate annual cuts in basic
services, etc.). I think this argument (excessive government involvement in
things beyond basic services that it can't afford) is also valid for
municipal-supported golf courses- it's another unecessary public subsidy
(especially when Meadowbrook isn't even located within the city limits) that
doesn't provide a public return commensurate to the assets involved.
And when the combined results of all these government excesses and poor
management result in financial harm to our lower-moderate income residents
and elderly on limited fixed incomes, the arguments become more than a
tax-cutting diatribe! They question the very logic of all this DFL
overspending in recent years. As Barret Lane and Lisa McDonald have stated
in several previous posts, it's time to prioritize what we want to spend our
tax dollars on in Minneapolis because we can't afford everything on the menu!
CM Lane has even asked list members for suggestions... I wonder what the
response has been?
M. Hohmann
13th Ward
