At only $47, it looks like a great deal. I realize Tom eschews perimeter berms but in this case a litttle earthwork at the property lines behind some of the greens coupled with some tree/shrub planting would mitigate the housing issue. That said, I have to remind golfers that the real estate paid for the course and developers have this crazy notion that if someone buys a golf course lot, they must provide unobstructed views of the course. Also, you can plant 2,000 trees on a new course and not know they are even there for 5 yrs and only after about 10 will they be big enough in scale to begin to visually screen adjacent houses. So, how many developers want to spend a couple hundred thousand on trees at the end of a project?
Another housing element that should be looked at is the actaul setback distance of the house. In most cases, 35' is typical. We always fight for 50' min. because most people who buy on a golf course proceed to build decks/patios (outside rooms) to take advantage of the setting. The average is about 15'-20' deep so that can put it just 5 steps off the course. Granted, pushing for bigger rear yard setbacks eats up some real estate but helps in the long run from both the homeowner's and golfer's perspective.
Maybe they could raised the rates by a couple bucks and began a perimeter tree planting program? They could get one a day
Tom - how did the engineer miss the water level by 4'? Was is a water table issue or was it a final engineering adjustment to a preliminary estimate?