All good thoughts. To clarify the specifics a bit, it will be a privately owned public course in a charming small town (5000 population). The project is part of a large residential project, though, with 2000 homes planned. The golf is core, though, with only perimeter homes.
Reasons for the concept are political, as I said. Thinking of providing something in the golf that gives back to the public. When built out, certainly only a small percentage of the 7000 residents of this community will play golf. Thus, though the free balls/first tee type of concepts are good, not quite what I was thinking. Free junior lessons, etc. are common in such developments anyways in afternoons.
Also, need to develop concept now for political gain, so not really a chance to "test it out" in operations.
Don't know how much net income would be lost, really, as it's only losing 5-6 hours of such an operation. Certainly it's something, but I doubt those hours are a huge profit center. In addition, it's not in a big demographic, where ranges are fully packed at all times. Agreed that if public commons were "marketed", that this could make up for loss of net income in other ways (exposure to course as one). Is possible, as well, that this could open up the grounds to be "rented" for special occasions/concerts/etc. if loss of $$$ was a real issue.
Agree re. the liability issue. Thought of that, and not sure about it as it's not my field of expertise. One of the reasons I'm looking for precedents.
If we do drop the "commons" concept, another thought is that we build the target greens as more realistic interpretation of gc greens than normally do, and maintain them at a decent level. Then open up the "range" as a short course. Whole different concept, really, though, and is back to "just golf".