I share Kevin's sentiments on this matter. While it is outrageously presumptuous for me or anyone to suggest how the extremely wealthy utilize their wealth by suggesting a fellow like Keiser, or Kohler, Trump, and other known entrepreneurs of golf development could better use their wealth and efforts to truly re-invigorate the game with the wider demographic of potential golf enthusiasts; it would be wonderful if one of these elite developers would take up an approach similar to the Andrew Carnegie model of charitable giving to widen the access to the great works of GCA that they are involved in developing. Not that the charity of giving to spread of popular access to golf is as momentus as the knowledge and freedom that mass access to libraries has had in the historical sense. But, designing-in affordability and access to these projects that would be accessible to the average person, certainly seems to me to be the key to walking the walk of truly 'growing the game' or 're-invigorating the mass appeal'.
Reading the article, I have no doubt Mr. Keiser totally understands and has in mind these notions of how the game can flourish on a wider base of the demographic spectrum. But, then when asked about future projects, he alludes to a site in Cabo, and Ireland- somewhat remote.
In my humble opinion, the only way to achieve a wider demographic to have access and affordability is to prospect and mine the existing aging golf courses in and around where the people live. There are so many failing or barely getting by mom and pop sort of courses, that are boring and without any architectural merit. The dilemma for the developer is acquiring any virgin or undeveloped land in or near the population centers. It is understandable that even the most wealthy of these developers isn't about to spend that sort of cash and then just give it and any chance of self sustaining financial operations away when the upfront costs take the punter market right out of it from the get-go.
So, it seems to me that the better financial model is acquiring the failed, boring, out of date courses that are wasted or sunk costs to the original owners and that are located near the populations, and bringing in a Doak/Renaissance style operation to jazz up and remodel what is there, balancing economy with excitement of GCA features archies like Doak are known for, where a modest green fee that promotes access to the masses can still be done.
The other model that ruminates in my mind, is to use the prestige that a fellow like Mr. Keiser has earned in creating world class golf, in conjunction/collaboration with municipalities or entities-units of public ownership of public land, that may be given on a lease of land basis to develop golf courses to boost local economic development of the area, and a dual purpose of providing "the people" with pleasurable and affordable recreational opportunity that golf offers, if families and community can access it. But, that takes something of the Andrew Carnegie approach.
BTW, doesn't Trump somehow identify his family heritage to Carnegie?
But, Mr. Keiser seems to me to be the one among some of these recognized leading developer figures in the golf world, best situated by reputation for excellence and depth of understanding the spirit of the game to take the lead on bringing more golf to more folks, via a popular model for affordable development.