2004-12-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Session 1941 December 6, 2004 defeat this proposal. Curt Paul, 747 Harvard, is a resident and a golfer and asked the Council to not adopt any proposal which calls for tearing up the first and the ninth holes of the Ruth Park golf course to build a driving range. To do so, he said, would destroy the identity and the integrity of the course. He favors a teaching center and suggested that the practice area of the course could be used for this purpose. He expressed concern about funding of the proposal and that it might evolve into privatizing a public course. He urged the Council to oppose disrupting the first and ninth holes of the course. Ron Akin, 8211 Groby Road, golf professional at Ruth Park, said a teaching center is important to continue the game of golf at Ruth Park. He said nothing in his contract requires him to train a certain segment of the City. He noted that changing two holes of the course would offer variety in style. He sees many benefits associated with a teaching center. To generate more play in a safe and comfortable setting is the goal of the proposal and it would benefit Ruth Park. He stressed the importance of a practice area. Privatization was suggested as a last resort means of funding if the City cannot afford to do it any other way. The important thing is not funding, but offering a facility which is an asset to the City and to its schools. Mr. Wagner said the driving range is called a teaching center in this proposal. There are no problems with either, but he does not think Ruth Park is the place for "squeezing in a driving range." Also, University City Parks and their facilities should not be regarded as profit-centers; their purpose is to be affordable and available for citizens to use. He does not see a need for Ruth Park to be competitive with Forest Park. Mr. Wagner affirmed his opposition to this proposal. Ms. Welsch said members of her family are golfers and that she has a life-long familiarity with Ruth Park Golf Course. She agrees with Mr. Wagner about supporting a teaching center and a driving range, but she opposes placing these facilities in Ruth Park because she believes it will impact negatively the park and the land surrounding the park and its neighbors. She believes it could be situated elsewhere in University City and could be a partner with public/private collaboration on an indoor tennis center to provide teaching, health, and recreational benefits. She opposes not the idea but the suggested placement of it in Ruth Park. Mr. Sharpe concurred with Mr. Wagner. When Mr. Sharpe used the phrase "privatizing Ruth Park" Mayor Adams interrupted him to point out that there was some confusion. Mayor Adams said it is not a matter of private or public funding of the facility which is under consideration and it should not be brought into the discussion as such. The issue is developing a Master Plan for Ruth Park, a delineation of changes, how it should be improved, and whether there should be a teaching facility and a driving range. The question is: should there be a teaching facility in Ruth Park? Mr. Sharpe then said "at this point he would not like to see a teaching facility at Ruth Park." At this point Mayor Page 7