I would have to think that it is the Trump course with the least architectural pedigree.
I do wonder why it matters if the receiver of taxes can or can't play at the facility.
What is a golf course worth in that I am sure the locals would object to any alternative uses? Don't cut the tax bill and I can foresee Mr Trump selling the acre lots that would be taxed at a very high rate (lowering the burden for others as the article states).
But then again, these people want a golf course (though probably not one owned by Trump) not Mcmansions that they would tax at $40,000 an acre when developed.
I suspect Mr. Trump knows what it is "worth" as a golf club in his portfolio and what it will be worth if developed. BTW, why argue, I think it is wonderful that president Clinton has a place to play for free.