Nah, I don't get a kick out of stirring the pot or, for the most part, telling people how they should conduct their lives.
With the caveat that golf as a business tends to be localized- even within a large city, the various parts face very different realities- there are many areas where the price of land and regulation (interesting how the two run in tandem) makes it prohibitive for a profit-seeking entity to build a golf course. I live is one such area that has enjoyed high growth for quite some time, fueled in good part by high-paying jobs created by companies with strong sales and earnings relocating here.
I am in the minimalist camp not only in golf architecture, but even more so when it comes to government, especially at the federal level. Closest to the people, with local government, in theory but certainly not in practice (reference typically dismal voter participation in local elections), at least a good portion of those paying the bills have an indirect say on how the money is spent.
So, if a wealthy city, with ample resources after having met all the needs of the community (as determined by its leaders and eligible voters) is keen to spend $10+ Million for public access to a local golf course that less than 10% of the population will directly enjoy, then I guess that it can be said "Well Done!" (tongue-in-cheek, but we're talking about a 1st World problem, right?).
I understand that the city under this scenario could lower its tax rates and allow property owners and consumers to directly spend their own money in better ways, but that would be too much out of character- you know the story of the hammer and the nail, just as the hammer must pound nails, the government must govern. If not a golf course, would a money-losing concert hall or miles and miles of wide, beautifully landscaped, manicured medians with ornate street lights be a better use of "the people's" money? Or better yet, how about "investing" in the most expensive building in the town- city hall! Might a golf course which is not otherwise competing directly with a taxpayer be Ok, maybe?
And No, this tiger has not changed his spots. I often wonder what would happen if all property owners without regard to profit motive had to pay property taxes. Might the base be much larger thus requiring substantially lower rates? Would the use and costs then be more congruent with the benefits? Just saying, the Taj Mahals we build on humongous sites for public schools down here are incredible.