Melvyn -
1) Neither I nor anyone else on this thread has said, or even implied, that "land fit for purpose is a joke." It defies belief that you could come to such a conclusion or make such an absurd statement.
2) The subject of green fees was not part of the discussion until you raised it.
As I clearly stated in my post, "In a perfect world, there would be plenty of inexpensive property of gently rolling hills, valleys and streams on well draining soils (land "fit for golf"), near enough to populations large enough to support the enterprise of constructing and operating a golf course."
The practical realities of the world we now live in are that 1) precious little of that land fit for purpose still exists, 2) much of such land is not available for golf course development due to environmental restrictions and 3) where such land does exist (whether it is on South Uist or in the middle of Nebraska), it more often than not too far from enough people and/or in an inhospitable climate to make the operation of the course financially viable.
It is wonderful to travel to a remote location (be it South Uist or Nebraska) to play a charming golf golf at a modest green fee inexpensively built on land fit for golf. But when one factors in the time and cost of travel involved, that modest green is no longer quite so modest.
As a result of the lack of land fit for golf near the majority of people who want to play golf, many golf courses
and many inexpensive publicly-owned golf courses have been built on land that has been degraded in some way and is less than fit for golf. Maybe you should make an effort to see some of these courses, rather than casting stones from your ivory tower.
And, by the way, how many golf courses have you played or visited in Florida?
DT