Slag,
I'm not the first guy on this thread to question the impact that several hundred homes will have on the golf course, nor was I the first to suggest 'play it now' before the houses are built.
How about visualizing
20' to 30' high mounding in what are now housing corridors, or how about thousands of
20' to 30' tall trees planted in the same area? They, like housing, would block the off-course views, the wind, and have a negative impact on the golf.
Given the site, can you imagine how laughable those choices would have been? What makes housing a 'better' choice?
Greed can be defined as wanting more of something than is needed, and hubris might be considered as exaggerated self-confidence. A quick scan through the project list of the land planners, Redstone International,
http://www.redstoneii.com/communityplanning.html, leaves me with the impression that their main concern is maximizing the number of housing sites (greed) and that tenet is their mantra, no mattter the site (hubris).
As I said, this is my assessment of why this type of development is wrong headed, it's not meant meant to be an opinion of people who I don't even know.
The golf course itself looks great, and the guys who built it should be proud.