Tommy,
Ross wrote that, so it must have some merit......ball on tee, as noted. Also, with multiple tees the gca can control the difficulty by giving all players a 7 iron, for example, which can't be guaranteed on longer holes.
I agree with Jim that par 3 holes for the good player are now often used to create long approaches that just seem impossible anywhere else - par 5 or even par 4 holes for the longest hitters.
I think average players would be just as happy with four one shotters in mid iron range, rather than a mix from 130-230 or so. I can't recall to many players saying they like really long par 3 holes, although the "design standard" is to vary their length.
I have also long thought that par 3's are good places for "concept" shots, like the Redan, reverse slope greens, etc., that may be more interesting as stand alone shots, but not necessarily difficult. As above, I can control the shot length through tee placement. I believe a unique shot type, replaces strategy of locating the tee shot to keep the hole interesting.
Is there really anything great about a "straightforward" par three that simply requires a more precision shot than what you would also get on a par 4? The only situation where I favor that is really long par 3s and really short ones. Again, we can't be guaranteed the good player will ever have a long approach requiring precision on longer holes, which is why I do the long one. And, we can't be guaranteed the average player will have a short approach anywhere on longer holes, which is why I do the short, precision par 3.