1988-11-7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1480, Minutes Page 3 November 7, 1988 He and his neighbors believe this project will downgrade the neighborhood both in appearance and economically. He said he found no evidence of this proposal anywhere in the City budget, and that there were no other municipalities that operated a driving range. He suggested that the City and its residents would get little for what was given up. However, if a decision is made to go ahead with a driving range, he felt the City should seek other bids. If the range is an integral part of the golf course operation, then the entire golf con- tractor service should be rebid, since the City can't be sure the proposal is best unless it gets more than one bid. He and his neighbors felt this propos- al was designed by the golf contractor to increase his revenue, and although entrepeneurship should be encouraged, it should not be at the expense of the city and its taxpayers. He urged Council to reconsider its decision in light of this neighborhood's concerns, and asked that the neighbors be notified when the matter is considered again. He read a letter from the Young Israel Synagogue which objected to the establishment of this golf driving range. Dr. Robert Williams, 8052 Amherst, said that many in the audience were opposed to the construction of a golf practice range at Ruth Park. He said he repre- sented the University City Golf Club, which was unalterably opposed to the construction of a for-profit golf practice range. He agreed with Mr. Gale that the amount of revenue the City would realize from the range was negligi- ble, and felt that the range was not in the best interests of the immediate residents nor the general population. He felt such a range might increase vandalism at the course, increase the risk of accidents, downgrade property values, and mar the esthetics of the neighborhood. He asked that the Golf Club be notified of future discussions on this matter. Mr. James B. Woods, 7147 Princeton, said he uses the golf course several days a week and thought there was a real need for a driving range in the area. He agreed that controls would be nece�y, but it would also provide protection that does not now exist on the fairways, pointing out that practicing golfers often hit their balls onto the fairways where others are playing. He noted that barriers would be erected on three sides of the driving range to give needed protection. He understood that nearby residents might have concerns about this facility, but thought they were worrying unnecessarily. He noted that those moving into this area were aware that a golf course was there. He also noted that the golf course was currently the only revenue-producing oper- ation for the city other than taxes. He felt that with current improvements, the need for a driving range will ba even greater in a year or two. He urged the City, with proper controls, to proceed with a driving range at Ruth Park. Mr. William Offer, 7335 Wellington, said he was a former professional golfer who felt that a golf driving range at Ruth Park was unnecessary. He thought it was quite likely someone would be hurt. He pointed out that screens that were installed some time ago lasted only two months because of vandalism. He said the neighborhood was too beautiful to be ruined by this driving range. Mr. Michael Marks, 1163 81st Street, said his concerns were the same as Mr. Gale's, and he also felt the City would receive little financial benefit from the range. He was concerned about this encroachment perhaps being followed by other incursions, such as elimination of the nature study area. He thought there had not been enough input from golfers or other interested people to see