So some folks in the @ne0liberal community have been shitting on public golf courses recently. @koaleszenz comes to mind...
So, here's the Twitter Ne0liberal Defense of Public Golf Courses

Most localities have taken it on themselves to provide outdoor recreation spaces for their residents. This seems reasonable to me! It doesn't seem particularly efficient for private firms to provide parks, trails, athletic fields, gyms, pools, or golf courses in many situations.

Governments obviously can't provide *every* type of recreational facility that their residents can imagine, so they have to pick and choose which types of facilities make sense to build, balancing the interests of the users and broader government goals with the costs.

Why is golf a sport that is a good target?
- It is widely played. According to an industry group (I know, I know... I couldn't find better data on the first page of Google and am too lazy to dig deeper), 34 million Americans played golf last year. That's about 10% of us!

For organized sports, that's the highest participation rate that I was able to find. Golf players are also overwhelmingly (~90%) adults, much moreso than any of the other organized sports that I could easily find data on.

Children are typically provided access to athletics through their schools, while public recreational facilities are typically the only way that adults can receive this service. The facilities should accommodate their tastes when possible.

2) Unlike most other organized sports or recreational activities, Golf typically isn't particularly strenuous. This allows for seniors or other individuals who aren't in the best shape to play at all and to play with people of different ages or physical capabilities.

Allowing the facilities to be used by and having them promote socialization between people of all ages and physical backgrounds seems good to me! Somewhat uniquely among sports, playing golf with someone of a fairlly different skill level isn't that awful, which is nice!

3) Without public golf courses, many individuals wouldn't have access to golf. Driveway basketball hoops exist, makeshift baseball diamonds are easy to make, and any large, open, preferably grassy space can be used as a soccer or football field. Golf requires a specialized course

You can't really play "backyard golf." Without a public course, you'd have to be a member of a golf club in order to play. Many of those clubs have long histories of discriminating against African Americans, Jews, and women, among others.

Most clubs are improving on that point, afaik, but that is a *long* process.
Even for male WASPs, membership slots are often limited and it typically takes extensive social connections and/or a *lot* of money to have the opportunity to join.

So, we've seen why golf is a sport that governments might like to provide facilities for. Are golf courses really so bad?
When built properly, I'm gonna say no. Let's address some of the common criticisms:

Do they take up valuable land that could be used for something else?
I'm as big of a YIMBY as anyone, but I wouldn't encourage *anyone* to build on unsuitable terrain. Most of the public courses that I'm aware of in my hometown of Atlanta are built on floodplains, for example.

Every few years, it rains very hard and the creeks running through those courses flood. A lot of the course ends up under several feet of water. A (not particularly fancy or high maintenance) golf course can handle that fine! A home would have been ruined.

Well, if structures can't be built there, couldn't it be a public park instead of a golf course?
Sure it can! Why can't it be both, though?
There's currently discussion to turn the public course closest to my house in to a public park on Sundays.

Other options could be facilities operating as golf courses for certain hours and parks for other hours. Use your imagination!

That course I mentioned above already acts as a park on certain occasions. Families sit on fairways there to watch 4th of July fireworks, for example.

Well, aren't golf courses bad for the environment?
Yes, many of them are. Unlike athletic fields, though, they have the capability to substantially conform to the native environment. Athletic fields are always a big patch of grass or a big patch of synthetic turf.

While most of the work in sustainable golf course design is currently being done on private courses, there's no reason that a public course couldn't utilize the same concepts.

These practices include:
-Using native plants,
-Collecting and storing rainwater and excess water for future irrigation,
-Using "island style" fairways and greens to minimize the grassy area that isn't native and demands extra care,
-Providing animal habitats in landscaping/rough

Yes, a golf course will always have *some* environmental impact, but any project would. With very thoughtful design, a golf course may be among the less environmentally costly parks and recreation facility options.

Now, do public courses adhere to these best practices? Of course not! And I'm not going to support any course on buildable land in a housing crisis, or any course when there isn't a more general park for 10 miles, or any lush, green course in the middle of a desert.

It makes sense for localities to want to provide golf facilities to their constituents, though, and it is a reasonably low-cost choice in many circumstances. It's weird to have to say this, but Twitter @ne0liberal s need to be more nuanced on this issue.

Note: I'm not a golfer or hardcore fan. I've played maybe 2-3 times in my life, and never well. I sometimes casually follow Major tournaments. I also believe that golf is a close 2nd behind baseball as the best sport to have on the TV in the background when doing something else.

I think I just wrote this thread because
1) I'm bored during quarantine, and
2) I'm from Georgia and something in the water compelled me to defend golf's honor even though I don't have any particularly strong attachments to it.