The cost to build a golf course, even in LCFPD's inflated projections, is about $10 million or less. And the referendum that would fund it has already happened, multiple times over the last decade or more. We're already paying for this, especially the homeowners in Fort Sheridan whose home prices were inflated based on proximity to the golf course and this have more of a tax burden (and HOA assessments) than similar homes elsewhere in Highland Park.

Thus LCFPD has the funds to pay for the golf course construction, and if they don't intend to see it through, they should give the land back. More importantly, the golf course will cover its expenses, so it's completely different than a tax increase to pay for the high school improvements. I'm not against updates to the high schools - I am against the magnitude of the project.

Imagine if the referendum for D113 passes and in five years, none of the work has actually been done. Wouldn't you take a "promises made, promises kept" approach to the situation?

The proposed golf course is not a tot lot for the benefit of the local subdivision. And the objective of this course is not to make Ed Brill’s life complete.

Virtually everyone agrees that another municipal golf course is undesireable. Commissioner Michelle Feldman called it a “bad business idea.”Commissioner Anne Bassi said that, “we don't need another golf course.” PDHP commissioner Elaine Waxman said, “I agree, we don’t need another golf course. Sadly , none of these folks have had the guts to act on their beliefs.

The proposed course is projected to reduce revenue to surrounding municipal courses by as much as $1 million per year. It would be irresponsible to dismiss these sobering costs as “what if” politics.

There is certainly no unity among Fort Sheridan homeowners. A minority of self-interested residents bully their neighbors and bludgeon the rest of the community who must foot the bill for this fiasco. The weapon of choice is the ill-conceived deed restriction requiring this land be a golf course until hell freezes over. The merit of such a deed is quite disputable in spite of Ed Brill’s assertions.

The leadership we need is for our officals to join with Lake Forest, Lake Bluff and 100's of County residents who have expressed their opposition to this golf course.

Golf at Ft. Sheridan will cost every taxpayer MORE money. It threatens our existing golf course infrastructure. This is a high cost for making Ed Brill’s life complete.

Sonny, you keep trying to claim a minority of homeowners - well, by the statistics you have quoted, 72 wrote to LCFPD in favor and 10 wrote against. That's mind you because most of my neighbors believed they didn't NEED to write letters -- of course the LCFPD would honor the legal commitment they made to operate a golf course on the site. Why do we have to write letters to advocate doing what has already been agreed to be done? 100s of county residents - gee, in a county this big, I guess that means that most people really don't care, and I suspect most would want LCFPD to honor a legal commitment they made.

I would like to understand something. Why is taxpayer-subsidized golf wrong, while taxpayer-subsidized bird watching OK? I mean, the LCFPD uses money from taxpayers to buy new properties for a variety of purposes, and few generate revenue to cover the acquisition or construction costs. Isn't that the business the LCFPD is in? (Wait - wait - I know, "Enterprise fund". Yes, that's why the golf course can generate revenue to cover its costs, as the LCFPD's consultant says is possible even without amenities like a banquet facility)

Can you prove why the "merit of such a deed is quite disputable"? It is a contract signed by two parties which was relied upon by Highland Park, Highwood, and homeowners.

Forest, here's what you said in the Q&A:
"Barbieri: The last thing we need is another golf course in these times. We are not the lead on this issue as Lake County is. We need to obtain community input, reflect and stand ready to voice our interests in order to serve our constituencies’ best interests. I would like to see it preserved as open public use land for now, to the benefit of the surrounding communities. "

So you are on record as saying you want it preserved as open public use land. That position is untenable given the commitments made by other government entities.

I agree with you that the business impact to PDHP could be a negative one. However, as I understand it the golf operations at the Country Club are not the reason that property is losing money (ref. Mayor Belsky comments at City Council in response to public question -- I can find the date if needed). If PDHP, City HP, and LCFPD got together -- the intergovernmental cooperation that you have espoused in other postings -- I am sure a solution would present itself whereby there do not need to be three public golf courses in such close proximity. Having said that, if Fort Sheridan becomes a destination course, it might be water raising all boats as opposed to canibalization. Nobody has proven canibalization, it's purely a what-if put forward by opposition.

Forest you are saying two different things. In the Q&A that I quoted you said that it should be preserved as open space for the benefit of the communities. In your response now you are adding an "until..." clause. Well, of course it should remain open until a final decision is made as to what is done with the land - though a Whole Foods would be mighty nice there.

This is not just a homeowner issue. This is about a promise that LCFPD made to the US Government and to the voters of Lake County. The Park District, by the way, was on last year's Advisory Committee and supported the construction of the golf course, despite understanding it could impact play at their current course.

That logic applies to anything LCFPD does - fishing piers, horseback riding, snowmobile trails. Why should government build anything that is already available? In this case, because they signed a contract that says they would.

In my last column, I solicited other ideas for the land. No real takers.

The open space isn't improving property values. The developer built tons of open space into the residential neighborhood, again paid for by the HOA. Almost every corner lot is vacant, for example, and maintained by the HOA. So leaving the weed fields where golf used to be is hurting property values and turnover. A neighbor has had their home listed for sale for months -- and not a single *showing*. The real estate market is bad, sure, but not even one lookie-lookie. Why? Because every realtor in the area knows that the status of the LCFPD property is unresolved.

Part of the problem? I hardly see pressuring a government entity to fulfill a legal obligation as being a problem. Quite the opposite - those trying to disingenuously dismantle a multi-government master plan that has already been funded and will cover it's costs, well, that is a problem.

Oh one other point -- last summer, for three successive weeks, my neighbors and I exhibited the plans for the 9-hole golf course hybrid at the Highwood evening farmer's market. We talked to about 500 people. While unfortunately, not all of them wrote letters to LCFPD, almost every person we talked to was in favor of the golf course. Less than ten were against. Most were shocked to learn that there was any debate or opposition. LCFPD is such a small part of the tax assessments in Lake County that they understood it was a worthwhile shared investment, especially since we as taxpayers in lake county got the land for free.

Tripp,

N matter how bad it looks? You mean how much it costs. Really? There is no limit to how much we should subsidize the cost of a golf course? None? The sky's the limit? Forever?

Highland Park is approaching a $1 million dollar annual golf subsidy. The impact on surrounding courses is projected to be $1 million dollar loss of revenue. Do we just keep counting? In perpetuity? Is that what you are saying?

It may have been a good idea 20 years ago. It does not make sense today.

Sonny:

Don't put words in my mouth. Who's fault is it that the County has not lived up to their end of the deal? I am also not advocating the quality or the cost of a course. Like I said, the County should have left what was there, which I believe would have satisfied the requirement. They didn't, so now they have to find a way to fix it. Right now, all I've heard is a golf course. Maybe the answer lies in going back to the original signators of the agreement and negotiate an amendment. No one has suggested that yet. They have just suggested that the County uni-laterally renig.

For historical reference, by the way, when the City of Highland Park took over the Country Club it wa not without controversy. There was a development plan on the table. The City decided that it was in the best interests of the community to maintain the course. Perhaps it, or Sunset Valley should be rethought under your scenario.

Sonny, Mayor Belsky himself told you that the HPCC losses you ascribe to golf are the result of other operations and not golf. So why do you keep repeating it? Also the LCFPD enterprise fund is profitable, and probably would be moreso if they would outsource golf operations at the two other courses as is proposed by the advisory committee for Fort Sheridan.

Well, I don't know if there is a specific deed restriction. All I was saying is that I remember an agreement that led to the development. Assuming that exists, I was simply suggesting that if a party wants to change that, there is a mechanism. Otherwise, one should expect the parties to live up to it.

And for the record, I support the theater purchase.

Another Fort Sheridan homeowner joins the refrain "I want MY golf course".

Hi Russ, you're right - "The uncertainty creates confusion". Leaving it as open space while the pro/con forces go at it over the eventual use just leaves everything ambiguous - I don't know if I am buying a house next to a golf course, a weed field, or a Wal-Mart. So I just don't even consider buying. That's not exactly fair to the 500 homeowners here now who did buy into the total vision as embodied in a master plan more than a decade ago. Only one government body isn't holding up its part of the deal here -- all the others (three cities, school districts, even state and federal) are all doing what they promised.

How did you come to the conclusion that leaving the area as open space seems the best option? What other options did you consider?

Ed,

You aren't doing your neighbor's home values any favor. Referring to the grassland planted with rye and black-eyed susan and hosting Bobolink and Meadowlark as a weed field certainly supports the narrow and selfish agenda of the tiny cabal of golf supporters. But you convey a marketing message that is inaccurate and unappealing. Suggesting that the disputed property might become a Wal-Mart instead of the open space specified by an act of the US Congress accentuates the uncertainty that will keep buyers away from your property. Your campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt might make you a hero among your cult. But notes from people like Russ demonstrate that you're inflicting self-injury. It would appear that you are your own worst enemy.

@Ed.
Walmart??? Seriously???? You know as well as anyone that the only uses for that land are the ill-advised golf course or the open land prairie (aka the "weed field" as you are so fond of calling it). Introducing Walmart as a scare tactic is absurd. However, thank you for exposing yourself as a buffoon on this topic as it has saved the rational thinkers among us the effort of demonstrating your inability to think beyond the mantra of "I want MY golf course now".

There are a hundred other uses for that land. LCFPD builds fishing piers, snowmobiling trails, faux-lakes (e.g. Independence Grove), nature centers, etc. If the land were to end up in other hands it could be housing, retail, or any number of other things. Since Sonny has pushed so hard to remove the deed restriction, why does it seem unreasonable that the land could then be sold off to a private developer?

@Ed,
As soon as I stop laughing at you I will hand you a shovel so that you can continue to dig the hole that you have mired yourself in. Sonny was so right about you being your own worst enemy.

I agree at the costs that have been estimated by the Lake County Forest Preserves, it wouldn't make sense to build a golf course. But there are many cheaper approaches to doing so - they are $5 to $10 million off from what other courses cost, and that's for 18 holes. Besides, the alternative won't cost zero. LCFPD is never going to leave this property completely barren in the state it is in today. At a minimum they'll have to build parking and restrooms. They'll have to make the trails more permanent. They'll have to increase service and patrolling. The alternative to a golf course does not cost zero, and if they did an Independence Grove-like facility it would actually COST MORE THAN GOLF, with no revenue to offset. But apparently that would be OK as long as it isn't golf.

For the anti-golf people to think that the land will be left as-is is incredibly naive.

I agree and it's why I bought here. My mother was the base architect for more than a decade before closure, I have a long history with the Fort.

As for HOA, the dues are high. We pay collectively for the maintenance of historical buildings (e.g. the Tower), open spaces (e.g. the meadow and every corner lot, loop, and play lot), and even odd burdens like a whole ravine (the only privately-maintained ravine in Highland Park). The HOA pays for all the landscaping and the bridge on the entry road, even though this is technically Forest Preserve land (you're welcome, Sonny). OpenLands pays for maintenance of another ravine (Bartlett) and some of the lakefront that LCFPD wouldn't step up to. LCFPD maintains a weed field that is also known as the parade ground (wait until dandelion season), as well as the lands north of the residential section which used to be the airstrip and Nike Missile silo.