I play golf.
Poorly.
But I love to play. It's a great excuse to be outdoors for a few hours, usually with friendly people who are eager to separate me from my pocket change, in a place we fondly call the Sunshine State, and more specifically, the Nature Coast.
Just another day in paradise.
That said, I'll say this. Hernando County doesn't need any more golf courses.Not one more virtually impossible 500-yard par 5, or one more 375-yard-dogleg-right-with-an-oak-tree-in-the-fairway par 4, or even one more 9-iron-to-the-green-110-yard-surrounded-by-four-sand-traps par 3.
Hernando County already has 17 golf courses. One more is already approved and if the developer of a huge tract in the Spring Lake gets his way, you can add one, or maybe two more, to that total. As a comparison, Citrus County has 15 courses. Pasco County has 25.
It's fair to ask the questions: Are we reaching the point of saturation? Is the supply outdistancing the demand? And should the County Commission and the Southwest Florida Water Management District consider imposing a moratorium, at least temporarily, on golf courses?
If not, maybe the economic development and tourism experts should start a nationwide campaign to market Hernando County as a golfing destination, akin to the Grand Strand around Myrtle Beach, S.C.
But if that's not the plan, maybe the commissioners should consider some of the reasons they should balk at approving more golf courses.
Golf courses take up lots of open space, which is becoming more precious as the county's population continues to increase rapidly. Golf courses also displace native wildlife. In addition, the nitrates from the fertilizers used to keep them green pose a threat to our groundwater supply.
And last, but certainly not least, they require huge quantities of irrigation water, which is a commodity that even developers and politicians agree is becoming too scarce.
Would a moratorium on golf courses have a negligible effect on the economy or tourism? I doubt it. The demand just isn't that great. Most of the times I'm out there, there is no backup, even when winter visitors are here. Sure, sometimes, usually on a weekend morning, you will find a few middle-aged men leaning on their oversized drivers in the tee box, grumbling about the slow-play delay they must endure before slicing one into the woods.
But more times than not, you can play a round of golf, especially in the summer, without being crowded by other golfers on the hole in front of you or the one behind you.
It seems our policymakers have bought into the developers' idea that that every subdivision needs its own golf course so they can jack up the prices of home sites with the promise of exclusivity and convenience.
But how much of an inconvenience would it be to hop in your car and drive out the security gate of your subdivision and travel 10 minutes to another course, public or private?
And let's acknowledge the reality of golfing: It's not an inexpensive game. Even though prices here are considerably less than they are in more populated areas to the south, it's still pricey. Greens fees at public courses (with a cart, of course, because no one walks any more lest they actually benefit from the exercise) range from a low of $20 per round, up to $80, per person. At those prices, most people in the county simply can't afford to play very often, or at least not often enough justify the need for new venues.
So, how many more courses do we need? I searched unsuccessfully last week to see if there was some sort of demographic formula for courses per capita. Admittedly, that lack of data makes this just the opinion of an interested observer and high-handicap golfer.
In a county that doesn't even have a few acres set aside for dog owners to take their best friends for a stroll (although that may be remedied soon, thanks to the Spring Hill Central Rotary Club), should our emphasis really be on building more land-greedy, water-thirsty and chemical-steeped golf courses?
There are lots of other activities people in the county could benefit from that would take up much less space, have less of an environmental impact, be less expensive and offer better exercise opportunities.
How about a public pool - or two? How about more tennis courts? Softball and soccer fields? Racquetball, handball or basketball courts? Another beach park? Or - hold on to your saddle horns - an equestrian center?
In other words, maybe we should explore a little diversity, both in terms of the type of recreation and the associated costs.
Hernando County has some beautiful golf courses. A couple of them are consistently ranked among the top 10 public courses in the state. But it's time to step back and consider when enough is enough.
There are some people who are beginning to talk about an all-out building moratorium in Hernando County, complaining that the developers are smarter and faster than the government that regulates them, and that our infrastructure can't keep pace. That observation is not without merit.
But, while I agree that an outright building moratorium is drastic, shutting the door on any more golf courses might be a reasonable intermediate step to conserve water and land, at least until the county commissioners finish updating the comprehensive plan.
If they don't consider it now, they might as well pull over in the middle of the fairway and yell "play through" to the developers.
Source: St. Petersburg Times (Fla.)