RJ has the best take on it. When I interivewed for the project, I read their feasibility study. Basically, that stated that this investment would yield far more in future real estate taxes than it would cost them. And after they build the course, they can recoup some of that cost by selling off or leasing land to hotel and residential developers, so they will probably get most of that $94 MIL back, and the greens fee cost won't be passed on to the golfer.
Also, I think they had some kind of tax set aside fund which they had to use, or the money would revert to the state of California. In essence, some of that was "free money." Lastly, other cities have used golf to spur development, and LaQuinta didn't want to get left behind.
The other thing to consider is that they are just being honest in their reporting. Many cities buy land, or have it (this ranch is at the base of the mountains, and is beautiful, it made sense to buy it when available) but don't report that cost in the construction cost of the golf course. Naturally, everything is more expensive in CA.
As to $94MIL, for comparison, the Dallas Cowboys just asked the City for a $425 Million Dollar stadium, claiming similar economic benefit to the city of Dallas. Somehow, I think the La Quinta project is more viable in that regard.....