Forcing private golf courses to compete with (and subsidize) public courses on land that could more efficiently be used for neighborhoods or businesses would be impossible to justify if the big-government types were forced to do so.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Compared to what?
I would love for anyone to explain to me why Lexington taxpayers wouldn't be better off selling their public golf courses. The fact that the Lexington Herald Leader editorial page insists that they are a "bargain" should cinch it.
Forcing private golf courses to compete with (and subsidize) public courses on land that could more efficiently be used for neighborhoods or businesses would be impossible to justify if the big-government types were forced to do so.
Forcing private golf courses to compete with (and subsidize) public courses on land that could more efficiently be used for neighborhoods or businesses would be impossible to justify if the big-government types were forced to do so.
