[Maurice R. Kelly]

On Mar 20, Geoffrey Holland wrote:

> 'accessable only to a priveleged few wealthy male persons on an exclusive
> basis'
> 
> 'particularly a private golf course which limits the access of even wealthy
> women '
> 
> at least attempt to get your information first hand and not just the usual
> BS...I work at a public golf course which has a clientele of almost equal
> male and female, all races, kids get to play for a cheaper rate to try and
> get them outside and not playing video games.

But there's often a world of difference between public golf courses, and
private courses. I know the course I used to play on had (and still has) a
ladies day, where ladies actually get priority, because men get priority
on Saturdays (and a lot of the other times.) Private golf clubs have a
tendency to be exclusive and elitist, and, in my opinion, are generally
less benefit to the majority of the local population. Same local course is
surrounded by residential areas, the inhabitants of which are not affluent
enough to pay the yearly fees required by the club. So the way I see it,
private golf courses cater for a small, elite subset of any community.

I'd prefer to see the land used for a golf course made into a public park.
Something that everyone can use. But most importantly, something that can
be used by the local kids, who see these huge tracts of green, but are
confined to the streets.

Oh, yes, and the area I am talking about has 3 golf courses. 2 private, 1
public. I've never checked the ration of municipal to private courses, but
I imagine there are more private.

So there is some first hand information, and not just 'the usual BS.' I'm
not saying that all golfers are bad, and obviously I'm basing this solely
on my experiences of golf courses in the developed world and can't comment
on what Kathryn (sp?) said of the developing world.

Cheers,

-- 
Maurice R. Kelly
mkelly@deadheart.org.uk