and what the hell does "environmentally sound" mean?? good luck trying to reach consensus on that!
"p.s. Paul.. have to laugh when people question whether you know what environmentally sound might be!"
Steve,
If your smug laugh is at the less intelligent for even thinking of questioning if Paul knows what "enviornmentally sound" means and the definition is SO simple then why even post the question. Is posting his question and statement a slap at the others knowledge on here if its silly to even question Pauls knowledge of it? How about instead of posting hollow statements, enlighten us with what you do know about the subject so you can truly add to the discussion.
And do you really think I am going to name names and malpractices on a public forum? You've got to be smarter than that.
Back to the topic.....
Posted by Jim Kennedy-
-Bessemer, Ala., wants $7,000,0000 to replace the greens and landscape the Frank House Golf Course;
-Lake Havasu City, Ariz., wants $14,800,000 for the clubhouse, maintenance building, and grading and another $10,200,000 part of which will go to a 320-acre golf course;
-Des Moines, Iowa, wants $1,300,000 for a clubhouse at the Grandview Golf Course;
-Louisville, Kent., wants $2,100,000 to energy retrofit golf clubhouses;
-Brockton, Mass., wants $1,500,000 for their field park and golf course restoration project;
-Roseville, Minn., wants $1,500,000 to replace the club house and maintenance shop a the golf course;
-Florissant, Mo., wants $1,100,000 for a golf course water reclamation project and another $1,100,000 for a new maintenance building;
-St. Louis, Mo., wants $2,100,000 for their Forest Park Urban Golf Course renovation;
-Dayton, Ohio, wants $500,000 for environmentally friendly golf courses;
-Arlington, Tex., wants $6,000,000 for the CW Ditto Golf Course renovation;
-Austin Tex., wants $4,000,000 for the Walter Morris Williams Golf Course renovation and $1,300,000 for the Hancock Golf Course
Before this thread goes way off topic still nobody has answered anything........
Should the federal government grant millions of dollars to golf courses for clubhouse, maintenance shed and golf course renovations right now?
As a specific example-
Should the federal government grant $500,000 to Dayton, Ohio golf courses? The tag line is for "enviornmentally sound" golf courses. There is only one course in Dayton that has attempted to show it is enviornmentally conscious in the past by getting certified as an Audobon Sanctuary. Isnt Ohio (and that whole section of the country) one of the states that is getting hit relatively harder than the rest of the country?
If a golf course in Dayton receives a check for $100,000 to go towards becoming more "enviornmentally sound" do they use it for what its really intended for or do they use it for the utterly needed equipment repairs that couldnt be done because of membership loss and budget cuts? Also, who monitors how the money is spent and spent accordingly?
Could someone PLEASE discuss this?