Stewart, to be clear, I'm a fan of municipal golf personally. But when I'm having a discussion with a non-golfer about it, it's hard for me to make a convincing case for it.
Swimming pools, tennis and basketball courts, and baseball, softball, and soccer fields are all far less resource intensive than golf courses. They don't cost much money to build and maintain, relatively speaking. They provide legitimate public health benefits, as people using them are getting real exercise in a setting that's generally very social. Considering that their primary constituency is children, those benefits are especially important. The ROI is through the roof, as they make our neighborhoods healthier, friendlier, safer, and just plain fun.
Municipal golf just doesn't share those same benefits. Courses are expensive to build and maintain. It's a lazy game of leisure when played in carts. For many participants, drinking is just as much a part of the on course experience as putting. It's a less diverse setting and a less youth friendly setting.
Now don't get me wrong. All my favorite hobbies involve booze and leisure. I love municipal golf, but looking at it objectively, it's hard for me to see it as a worthy government expenditure. When non-golfers tell me that they wish the government would get out of the golf business, or that they don't think their tax dollars should go to golf, the only response I can come up with is the one centered on public health benefits and preserving green space. That argument is much more convincing when applied to courses that have a strong walking culture though. To be fair, many municipal courses do. But I don't have any issues with a muni that encourages walking through higher cart prices or other creative policies, provided that they still make them available to players who have a real need for them.