DC, parks planning, and golf

Parenthetically in past entries I've mentioned golf as a parks planning issue.

Golf participation is down significantly, so such uses are less in demand and less economically viable.  (Another comparable issue is the decline in baseball participation and the increase in soccer participation.  So lots of park spaces have too many ball fields and not enough soccer fields.)

Of course, nearby residents would prefer they be converted into other park uses, rather than redeveloped (e.g., Reston, "After Ownership Change, Future of Reston National Golf Course in Question," Reston Now).

Or they will get a different entity to take it over, such as switching agencies if publicly owned (e.g., in Montgomery County a golf course was shifted from the revenue authority to the parks department, Sligo Creek Golf Course Reuse Plan).

Or getting a public agency to buy a privately owned golf course ("Mission Viejo Council Approves Acquisition Of Golf Course," Patch) which either keeps it operating as a golf course or converts it to a park like use ("The grass is greener: City planning to buy 100 acres of Pine Grove Golf Course for conservation," Daily Hampshire Gazette).

Although the libertarian Reason Foundation doesn't think public agencies should be involved with golf courses at all ("City-Owned Golf Courses Should Be Sold or Privatized").

Golfers walk the course at East Potomac Park Golf Course. (Matt McClain/ The Washington Post)

DC's Federal City Council (the city's Growth Machine coordinating organization) is right to be interested in reviving the city's golf courses run by the National Park Service --"The Langston Initiative: A new for DC's public golf courses") -- and they first proposed this in their magazine a few years ago.

After agitating about it for a few years FCC is now about to take them over ("Federal City Council to negotiate lease for federally owned golf courses in D.C.," Washington Post)

Because the Park Service put out a new tender, which was awarded to the FCC's newly created affiliate, the National Links Trust.

While a Washington Post  sports columnist thinks it's a good idea ("Golf courses that are public, affordable and good? Sounds like a major victory"), and obviously, it's better to invest in the golf courses than let them languish, there wasn't a public planning process.

Which illustrates my general points in DC about:

(1) lack of a public parks plan

(2) that a "DC city" parks plan should provide guidance on federal parks ("Defining National Park Service installations in DC as locally or nationally serving," 2019)

(3) and how ideally, the locally serving parks that are run by the NPS or other agencies should be transferred to local government control -- except that DC doesn't want the authority or financial responsibility and is content with a sub-average parks and recreation system (which gets highly rated regardless, because of the amount of facilities available, even though they are mostly run by the federal government).

The "Defining" entry didn't mention golf courses.  It should have.

I'd say East Potomac is yes, federal, because of its location on the Potomac River and within the NPS parks along the River.  Otherwise, we should be asking the question, why does the federal park system have a golf course?  Is it really a priority in the context of the system's overall mission and goals?

Langston Golf Course is important historically as the city's original federal course for African-Americans.  The Rock Creek course is part of the federal Rock Creek Park, which for the most part is a locally serving park.

But in any case, there isn't enough demand for all three golf courses.

There's also a federal golf course, not really open to the public, at the Armed Forces Retirement Home.  Why not deal with that one too?

DC's parks "system" is comprised of both local and federal facilities, but the federal facilities provide the bulk of the larger park spaces, what in other jurisdictions would be called "regional parks."

But because they are federally controlled, even when there are friends groups organized for specific parks, it's difficult for residents to weigh in, and the federal parks planning processes, because they are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws, are very involved, and it can be very difficult to develop policies and practices that make the parks usable for local residents.

So I argue that despite the fact that DC "doesn't control that space, so why should it bother to weigh in?," if DC DPR doesn't weigh in, than for the most part resident interests are ignored.

This is the case with the golf courses.  The Federal City Council's first question was "these golf course are undermanaged and need investment, what can we do?"

But they never asked the question, "Does DC need three public golf courses, especially given trends in golf participation and the potential for serving other needs with at least one of the courses?"

And, "What about the AFRH course, could that be included as part of a comprehensive review, and at least one of the facilities converted to other uses?"