I went into the third open house for the golf course discussion on June 22 sure that golf is a tremendous waste of space and resources. 

I also went in feeling like the golfers in our community were combative, a little unpleasant, and that their best argument for keeping the golf course was “I play golf and I want to keep it.”

I came out of the open house on their side (for the most part). The golfers finally showed a willingness to work toward incorporating the desires of a greater portion of the community. Someone in their group, who’s name I didn’t get, came up with a hybrid golf plan that keeps the current golf course in its historic design, keeps the driving range, and also allows for more public access to the space. Most importantly, in my opinion, it has trails that bisect the golf course as well as more native plant prairie. These are among other amenities. It also recognizes spaces that could serve double duty.

I don’t know how a plan that differs from the ones Groundswell is proposing makes its way in front of the community at large and the city council, but I would like to see that happen. 

After the meeting on Thursday I don’t think we can possibly say as a community we are ready to recommend any one option to city council, and since the July 17 meeting deadline is mostly arbitrary I think it is in the best interest of the community, both golfers and non-golfers, to bump the timeline back to allow for an investigation into the golfer’s hybrid plan, which differs in significant and important ways from the one Groundswell is proposing. To anyone absent from the meeting, you missed out, it was fantastic.

Christine Jacobson
PORT TOWNSEND