Should Cities Own Golf Courses

Should Cities Own Golf Facilities?

Over the past four decades—and particularly during my twenty years in the government sector—I’ve been asked this question more times than I can count. My answer, while perhaps not headline-grabbing, remains the most honest one:

It depends.

The decision for a municipality or government agency to own and operate a golf facility hinges on several interconnected factors. Each community’s goals, structure, and demographics play a significant role in determining whether public ownership makes sense—or whether it’s an uphill battle from day one.

1. Defining the Facility’s Purpose: Amenity or Profit Center?

Every golf operation exists somewhere along a spectrum between being a community amenity and a profit-driven enterprise.

Privately owned facilities often lean heavily toward profitability, though even there, ownership priorities sometimes override the bottom line. Publicly owned courses, however, vary widely. Some cities use golf courses to attract tourism, drawing thousands of visitors who spend far more locally than other recreational users. Others view golf as an essential part of a comprehensive parks and recreation system, alongside swimming pools, trails, and sports fields.

In some cases, a profitable municipal course can help subsidize other community amenities such as cross-country skiing or disc golf. Additionally, golf can serve as a valuable youth development tool, promoting engagement, character building, and community pride. Where a course lands on this amenity–profit spectrum is often a defining factor in its sustainability.

2. Management and Organizational Structure

How a course fits into the broader government structure can dramatically affect its performance.

For example, whether the facility is managed as part of an enterprise fund—operating with its own revenue and expenses—or housed within a parks department can change the operational flexibility and financial expectations.

Similarly, the form of local government matters. A strong mayor system versus a city manager model can influence how consistently the golf operation’s goals align with political priorities. Election cycles and shifting agendas can create instability unless there’s a clear, long-term management plan.

3. Leadership Strength and Vision

No matter the ownership model, leadership remains the ultimate determinant of success.

Strong, experienced leadership—both at the course and within city management—can balance short-term pressures with long-term sustainability. When decision-makers have the autonomy and expertise to manage strategically rather than reactively, municipal courses stand a far greater chance of thriving.

4. Community Demographics and Demand

Finally, understanding the community’s demographic profile is critical.

Is there sufficient demand to justify the operation? Does the course align with the recreational interests of the community’s current and future residents? A city with a growing, active population may find golf to be a valuable offering, while a region with declining participation or limited disposable income might struggle to sustain the facility without substantial subsidy.

In Summary

Whether a municipality should own and operate a golf facility doesn’t have a universal answer. It requires an honest assessment of goals, governance, leadership, and community needs.

When thoughtfully structured and managed, municipal golf courses can serve as vibrant community assets—supporting tourism, recreation, and local engagement. But without alignment among vision, leadership, and financial realities, even the best-intentioned public golf operation can find itself in the rough.