This is a step backwards in my opinion. Why would we give up an established course that gets a lot of play to add onto another course that is rarely used? I'm not saying that we should pull Sioux, or that 36 at Sioux wouldn't be awesome. Sioux is one of my all time favorite courses. But, I still have to question how much resistance was given to the news of "pulling" CC. Of course all volunteers should be appreciated, so thanks for setting and going to the meeting. But, seriously, we send some of the most passive people in the club to this meeting?
All that aside, CC was probably only mowed 3 times last "season" anyway, so we have to look at what we are loosing (a great course) vs what the Parks Dept is loosing. Why don't they stop cutting the field south of the course/Heldman shelter? In fact, that entire field from Heldman shelter to the Southern most lower parking lot is never used by anyone. Or, for that matter, the field across the jogging path from Tremayne Shelter. Back on point, I think it will be more difficult to get a course back in the ground than it would be to convince them to continue mowing, or fore-go mowing in other areas.
Are they planning on mowing the new 18 at Sioux? So what is the difference? I can certainly understand that times are tough and the Parks Dept is looking to cut costs when/where they can, but I believe there are plenty of alternatives that should be reviewed prior to pulling an established course. Lets not forget that when/if we get permission to put a course back in the ground we would then need to purchase 18 new baskets, since we wouldn't just pull the original 18 from Sioux.
In lieu of pulling the course completely, could a moderate re-design help reduce maintenance at the course by giving them less to cut? I think we could continue roping off areas of OB at CC that would effectively reduce the area that needs to be cut while shaping the course into a true Par 72 championship course. Then, we could invest in a one-time thatching of the course and some zoysia grass seed for the fairway areas because it does not grow tall, but rather thickens.
There is also the little the consideration that the RCF needs to put $3,500+/- into our courses as per the agreement with the Parks Dept to off-set the cost of the pavilion/course rentals. Can we use that money to contract the cutting to a landscaping company? Or, could we (volunteers) offer to bring push mowers to the course and lend a hand. I know the current agreement dis-allows non-park employees from bringing motorized equipment into the course, but as the situation evolves, so must that alternatives and potential solutions.
Again, I understand the necessity of presenting an allied front with the Parks Dept because we don't want to screw ourselves, the way we did with the Bridgeton course. That said, I DO think we need to show a little back bone and help show them a better solution to the problem they've presented us with. In the 5 minutes it took me to type this, I offered multiple viable solutions to the problem. In my opinion, our elected officials need to be our voice to the Parks Dept and fight for what is in our (the membership's) best interest. At this time, I do not feel sacrificing a perfectly good course is in the best interest of the city, RCF or local DG scene. I would ask that our elected officials sharpen their pencils and negotiation skills and go back to the Parks Dept with some alternatives that not only allow us to keep CC open, but also allow us to install an additional 18 at Sioux!