TEPaul,
Initially, I felt as you do, but, the more I thought about the seemingly transient nature of today's memberships, the more I moved away from that position.
What pleases a membership today, may be unpopular just a few years later, and as such, I think memberships have to have more global vision, and not just vision for the moment, or for the project at hand.
When I think of all the golf courses that were disfigured by the invasiveness of tennis courts built upon the golf course at clubs like Metropolis, Montclair and others, it reinforces my beliefs. The tennis fad of the 70's disfigured some fine golf courses, yet today, the tennis courts are underutilized, while the golf course remains the drawing card of the club.
Time after time I've had members tell me that they wished that the tennis courts had never been built, or, that they had been built at another location, one that didn't result in the elimination of some nice golf holes.
Even your club built tennis courts, only to remove them years later.
So, is there an ultimate, or higher degree of responsibility to the golf course, one that transcends specific projects, time and current memberships ?
I think there is.
And that is where I believe that the value of constructive criticism exists.
All too often golf course projects are agenda or ego driven, and they should be scrutinized with a more discerning, a more global eye.
It might have been Joe Dey who said, the only way to reward a good tee shot is to penalize a bad one, and perhaps the same philosophy should exist with respect to clubs that embark upon projects that disfigure their golf courses.
Life is all about choices, and bad ones shouldn't be ignored or swept under the carpet because those making the choices don't want any scrutiny or criticism focused on their decisions.
The evolution of a golf course isn't a sprint, but rather a marathon, and as such, interim tinkering should be carefully examined. Time, not a snapshot at a given point in time, is the ultimate test.