People think the decision about the golf course has already been made. The answer is Yes and No.

The Yes part. First, the city categorized the golf course as a park so it could be put up for repurposing with Mountain View campus which it has nothing to do with other than being across the street. It would be just as silly to include other businesses across the street like the church with room for game courts and Colinwood Farms for frisbee golf. There is no alternate purpose for the golf course just as there is no alternate purpose for the swimming pool.

Second, the city commissioned a report on the golf course from someone in Florida which did not have much relevance and everyone said was ridiculous. Fifty-four pages for $20,000. 

Third, the city commissioned a 658-page Pros Plan report ($$$$) to study parks and trails and which designated the course a special use park for only one type of recreation not multiple things (oops). 

Fourth, the city hired a manager and staff to run the project for the city ($$$$).

Fifth, the city hired a landscape architect and golf consultant from Seattle to advise and oversee the process ($125,000).

Sixth, the city told the public they can have anything they want at the golf course which means it will no longer be a golf course.

It seems this way the city can say you the citizens wanted the golf course gone — not them.

The No part. You do not need to destroy something that is a beautiful part of Port Townsend and only open space because golfers have taken care of it for 118 years. Getting rid of it does not have to happen. 

You can say “No.”

Keep the golf course then work with the golfers for compatible use.

Nancy Erreca
PORT TOWNSEND