If LuLu is indeed an equity club, doesn't the granting of a conservation easement constitute adequate consideration? If the property cannot succeed as a golf course, its likely highest and best use is future residential development, which is no longer permitted - i.e., the membership has given up its economic exit strategy. The public gains green space and the potential added impact on infrastructure from dense residential development is estopped. If so I can't the say the public is entitled to golf their ball over the club's marvelous golf course.
Mike
For the bargain price of $72 (a buck for each stroke of par at my favorite golf course) I have full access to this institute of highest learning and Professor Hendren's cutting-edge analysis.
For sure, the owners of LuLu should be very gratified. Getting a couple million to keep open space open is indeed a coup, particularly if they aren't giving up any additional rights. Depending on where the money is coming from, the taxpayers may wish to see if there are any politicians appearing on the membership rolls with the marking "Emeritus" next to their names. It would be interesting to know the source of the $2 Million.
Oh to live in a world where highest and best use has some real meaning! What is the probability that zoning and city council would give LuLu's owners permission to build a bunch of homes on the site? And other than the 400 to 500 families who might like to live there and perhaps pay annual property taxes in the same ballpark as the "consideration" (for open space), those already in the immediate neighborhood and us lovers of classic courses may very well find this to be a great deal.
For Pete's sake, if the good people of PA can stomach the passengerless $200+ Milliion John Murpha Airport, what's a measly $2 Million to keep LuLu in the hands of the current private owners? Afterall, many amongst us believe that Dire Straits contributed a profound, new era truth with their lyrics "money for nothing and the chicks for free". Rock'N Roll!
At least in most cases in the past, the public at large got to use the properties acquired by the government when they took them over from a failed owner. I suppose that if we have adopted the notions of "systemic risk" and "too large to fail", that the ideolgical leap to "what the hell, this is only chump change" is not a problem. And if the logic, not to say anything about the propriety, is questioned, it can always be sold on the basis that the government is keeping those evil, greedy developers from our town. Any good government jobs available near LuLu? It seems like a lovely place.