I get it that college was tough for you and you found making money in business easier. I therefore get it that you resent those for whom education came easier and stew in jealousy when your business experience doesn’t bring you the respect you feel entitled to. However, these are only your personal biases, and you have zero authority to demand that others abide by them.

Here’s therefore an idea: Why don’t you try to contribute to the discussion of the issues instead of tearing me down? If your background is as valuable as you believe it is, I’m sure that it prepares you to contribute to rather than destroy the discussion.

Please either contribute or stop trolling.

Assuming that the chamber’s numbers are right (probably an unwise assumption, since these folks invariably exaggerate to the point of lying) golf is worth $260 million annually and supports 2000 families.

If we do the math, we therefore see that golf generates revenues to the tune of $130,000 per family it supports. While I would imagine that some members of the chamber have incomes of $130,000 annually from golf, I would be very surprised if most families supported by golf gain even $13,000 a year. This therefore tells us that for each family golf supports, golf costs around $100,000 a year for other things.

This makes golf very capital intensive, but this then raises the question of what the heck the capital outlays are. I suppose that some of them go to importing clubs and balls and others to advertising, but it sure looks like most of the outlays are devoted to land and water.

And this would appear to be the point of the bill banning golf–that bang for the buck, the industry is an overuser of land and water while an underuser of labor.

Hey, the chamber’s own figures show this.

Another figure not supplied that would be interesting to see is what amount of land and water is required to support each family living off of golf. This number could therefore be compared to other industries, say even pineapple production, to assess how economically efficient golf is compared to other industries that use a lot of land and water. My bet is that golf’s efficiency would be pretty lousy.

Of course, the chances of a bill passing that bans golf courses are pretty slim. Most people will probably dismiss it as another nutty leftist idea, and the tourism industry will continue to purr along with its inefficiencies. Ironically, however, depending upon what a careful analysis of the numbers show, it may not be a nutty idea. It might even be a good one.

But I will stand my ground against anyone who wants to ban billiards.

Like mentioned below, there ARE many options to reduce water usage. Do these golf courses have their own wells? THAT should be mandatory so it’s not taking from the people!!!

I’m NOT a fan of them because of all the extra resources they use – BUT – I’m realistic about what they DO do for the economy.

I DO think the AMOUNT of golf courses could be limited & owners of said courses MUST be FORCED to do some things to give back to their community specifically geared towards the environment – maybe a part of their space have the windmills or solar that is GIVEN back to the municipality &/or a well near the entrance that is given back to the muni as well.

I DO think the AMOUNT of golf courses could be limited!