Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, July 27, 2006

Unfair burden

July 27, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

Although I believe the financial problems at Alvamar are due, in part, generally to the poor economic climate for golf courses and specifically to mismanagement, the impact of Eagle Bend is significant. The privately owned golf courses in Lawrence are forced to compete with the heavily taxpayer-subsidized Eagle Bend course.

The taxpayer subsidy goes far beyond Eagle Bend's annual $150,000 loss. Eagle Bend was built on free government land and receives free water from Lawrence. In addition to these subsidies, unlike privately owned courses, Eagle Bend does not pay property taxes. If Alvamar had these benefits it would be the most profitable business in Lawrence. The fact that Eagle Bend loses money despite these benefits demonstrates government inefficiency and the need to limit government to essential services.

Eagle Bend has not only placed an unnecessary burden on taxpayers, but also damaged the centerpiece of west Lawrence.

Ed White,

Lawrence

Comments

DuQuesne 8 years, 4 months ago

A golf course is such a hideous misuse of land and other resources, I don't understand why there's even any discussion.

monkeyhawk 8 years, 4 months ago

This is not about golfers. It is about government interference in the private sector. The impact of the city golf course, which every taxpayer subsidizes, was almost immediately apparent. What if the city got into ...say.. the real estate business, or the taxi business. (oh wait, they already are), makes you pay for it and then puts you out of business. Then they raise your property tax and sales tax to finance a hike in every city employees' pay or to purchase art or roundabouts?

Mr. White has a very valid point. The land is free, they have never been in the black (have they?), they do not generate anything in the form of revenue, and they get their water free while our water bills are going up to finance their freebies.

Can you say drain?

acg 8 years, 4 months ago

I also think he has a good point. Why should the city pay all of this money so people can golf? They're thinking of raising our sales taxes again, and all of this money is going down the drain so people can chase a white ball around a green field. I understand that recreation is necessary but right now our country is facing a harsh fiscal reality. It's time to tighten our belts and do away with the unnecessary, like a subsidized golf course!! When people's personal finances are in shambles, they can't afford to play. So why should it be any different when the city's finances are in the same shape?

acg 8 years, 4 months ago

Why? Is it that necessary? Is it as necessary as say, fixing the streets or schools? Is it as necessary as rebuilding our sewer and electrical infastructure. Sorry logic, generally I agree with your line of reasoning on things but this is where we part ways. I don't think that golf is so darned important that the city should be paying for it. Whether it be at Eagle Bend, Alvamar or Twin Oaks. It's golf. If people don't have it, the world won't end.

acg 8 years, 4 months ago

Well I'll give you that much. The city is wasting our money as fast as we give it to them.

Ken Miller 8 years, 4 months ago

Golf courses. Hmmmm. Should be very very VERY low on the priority scale, y'all. Let market forces take care of this one. They don't make enough money at Alvamar, they close. Then Doug Compton can buy the property and put more cheap apartment housing there.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.