Based on the comments made recently in The Leader by Mr. Van Lelyveld, there appears to be considerable confusion about costs and benefits associated with the ongoing attempt to change or eliminate the Port Townsend Golf Course. 

Much has been made of the so called subsidization of the golf course by the city, and therefore, by the citizenry. So let's set the record straight.

The land on which the course operates as a private business is owned by the city of Port Townsend — most of which must be used exclusively for municipal purposes. Since the city owns the property, all costs for water and general upkeep of the property are the responsibility of the city regardless of what business or other activities occupy the land. 

Fortunately for the city, the maintenance described above has been accomplished, and paid for by the private golf businesses that have run the course for the past 100 years. If the course were not there, the city would have to water it; mow it, care for the trees; clear invasive plants, and do upkeep on the irrigation system, as well as purchase and maintain a myriad of specialized equipment. All this would be necessary unless the city decided to let the property go to a massive unsightly brush field.

If the city chooses to eliminate golf on its land, continued maintenance would likely require (at a minimum) funding of two or more employees, and the investment in large gang mowers that cost many thousands of dollars.

If the city were to add play areas, trails, game courts, etc. the additional costs for upkeep would skyrocket. There's nothing "free" about maintaining a 58-acre park. 

In summary, the golf business saves the city's citizens many tens of thousands of dollars in maintenance, and contractually returns $9,000 or more from golf income to the city each year.

Any argument against retaining the golf course that depends on the falsehood that the golf business is costing the city money is baloney to put it nicely.

George Bush

PORT TOWNSEND