County Commission backs rules to save golf courses -- Services ...

It's NOT fair to the homeowners. I purchased my home on a golf course because I wanted to live on a course with a beautiful view.

Luckily I don't see my course going anywhere anytime soon. However, I would be furious if one day I looked out and not only saw construction, but after construction, huge condo buildings only a few yards from my previously beautiful view. There goes 75% of the property value in my opinion.

I support this effort wholeheartedly and ask only that any
action taken to discourage the loss of park land, manufactured lakes and golf courses also be applied to mobile home parks.

Mobile home parks are land banks for the future. They generally occupy unpolluted land free of pesticides and fertilizers, with a mature tree canopy. Any arguments for preserving a golf course apply equally to mobile home parks and would preserve much needed affordable housing at the same time.

The poor, elderly, city, county, retail, service and school board workers happily house themselves in mobile home parks at no cost to the county.

"This is magic," said Don Hall, lobbyist for American Golfers' Club. "This is alchemy. It is not fair and has no basis in law."

Wonder what Mr.Hall would think if a developer decided to build a 20 story low income housing project behind his home??

Wanna bet he'd be singing a different tune??

The owners bought a Golf Course, not a housing development

Anyone heard of property rights? I have a golf course with weeds across from me, and I'd rather see something there rather than a bunch of weeds. Give me a break, the County Commission is on a power trip.

People...the courses are privately owned. Although you make think it, this land is not yours to claim as your backyard. Imagine if you try to build an addition to your home and you were stopped because the County claimed your backyard as open space.

What this article doesn't show is that the League of Cities proposed compromise language and the County Commission ignored them and moved forward anyway. The Miami Herald got this right, here is their article.

Posted March 22
BROWARD COUNTY
FIND COMPROMISE ON GOLF COURSE RULE

Broward County Commissioner Ken Keechl likes golf courses for the open space they represent in a county at build-out, if not build-up, status. In his run-up to defeating former District 4 Commissioner Jim Scott in 2006, Mr. Keechl led the fight in Fort Lauderdale's Coral Ridge neighborhood to stop a golf course from being converted into luxury homes.

Now he wants the County Commission to approve a comprehensive development plan amendment that would ''strongly discourage'' residential conversion of the county's remaining golf courses. According to the proposed amendment, before a land-use change for a course could be obtained, the developer would have to mitigate the loss of open space in the surrounding neighborhood and scientifically document the absence of contamination from the use of pesticides and herbicides on the land.

The amendment deserves the commission's approval but not until it has earned the support of the majority of Broward's cities, and that may mean tweaking it some. While several cities back the measure, others are campaigning against it. The amendment comes up for the first of two commission votes Tuesday.

Developers claim that the proposed policy amounts to a ''taking,'' where a government denies a land owner the use of the property. But the amendment wouldn't deny land owners all uses; it limits them to what the county deems is appropriate to a particular locale.

For the greater good, governments have the authority to control how land is used. What they can't do is prevent any and all uses without also compensating the owner.

What's more, the amendment offers a process whereby a developer could obtain a land-use change, albeit a rather stringent process as relates to the contamination issue. But contamination documentation is an important public-health standard.

Broward cities have chafed over what they see as the county's interference in what should be municipal decisions on local development issues. The county and cities should sit down and find a compromise that both can live with. Golf courses aren't environmentally neutral considering the chemicals used to keep them green; but they are precious oases in the urban landscape and worth preserving where possible.

Great idea.....but it's too late..already construction at former courses..one question...who is going to buy these "condos"...thank you DEVELOPERS

Obviously most residents will be happy that golf courses will be protected. Some cities will be upset that their choices have become more limited. Golf course owners will be upset because they will have fewer choices. But at issue here is a policy that limits what a private land owner can hope to tomorrow do with his own land, simply because he once built a golf course on it. What it says basically is "once a golf course, always a golf course."

So why would anyone build a golf course? Further, when the built it, the rules were different about conversion to other uses. Now the rules of the game have changed. I see a lawsuit on the horizon. There are legitimate interests here -- public interest in maintaining open space should be protected by government who BUYS that open space and keeps it open for them. Businesses use land to make money, create jobs and economic opportunity. They have no interest and should have none in preserving space as open. Yet this law forces private business into the governmental mode, and that needs to be questioned.

If government wants open space for the people, which undeniably is a good public goal, let them buy the land to shut the hell up in my view.

The guy is like Castro trying to take rights away from people. I guess this was his big campaign promise so he is attempting to deliver at any cost.

Anyone know what will happen to Cooper Crusty?

Keechl Castro wrote:

The guy is like Castro trying to take rights away from people. I guess this was his big campaign promise so he is attempting to deliver at any cost.

EXACTAMONDO

In the US a person does NOT have the right to develop a property the way they see fit. When you sell someone a home with a golf course view, the view is part of the price and taking it away is stealing. The only right an owner of a golf course has is to use the property for recreation and open space uses. This is like expecting a city to let me wreck my home for a condo building because that will make the property more valueable. Don Hall is dead wrong and whores like him are why I'm not an attorney. Interesting to see which of our county commissioners are owned by the Forman family.

Private Property RIghts wrote:

Anyone heard of property rights? I have a golf course with weeds across from me, and I'd rather see something there rather than a bunch of weeds. Give me a break, the County Commission is on a power trip.

Good..I propose we build a low income housing project or maybe a halfway house.

The fact of the matter is that the land owners have to get the local politicos to change the zoning or get a variance to develop the land.

Hasn't the County heard of home rule by the cities? I guess not. The County loves to play big brother.

what has happened to Oaktree? i know that is was private and had an on again off again sale that made them go public because everyone quit....Another supposed sale had them close down but it fell thru again. did they reopen????

Don't be fooled by born-again protector of open space Lieberman. She now supports preventing golf courses from becoming residential? She backed paving over hundreds of acres in Tamarac along with Ritter's father, who is on the Tamarac commission. She lobbied for developers in Pompano Beach and south Broward, while on the county commission. Lieberman is a hypocrite.

Commissioner Keechl keeps his promises. Finallhy, a politican with guts!

keechl is a joke, he hasn't done anything in the year + he's been on the commission. the guy is dead weight, and just wants to pick on any landonwers.

Bob wrote:

It's NOT fair to the homeowners. I purchased my home on a golf course because I wanted to live on a course with a beautiful view.
Luckily I don't see my course going anywhere anytime soon. However, I would be furious if one day I looked out and not only saw construction, but after construction, huge condo buildings only a few yards from my previously beautiful view. There goes 75% of the property value in my opinion.

If you didn't buy the golf course, you don't have a property right to it. Many golf communities include deed-restrictions requiring the surrounding properties to approve development of golf courses. Yours probably doesn't. This action by the County takes property from its lawful owners, for use as "open space" without being compensated for it. I will laugh heartily when this is overturned in court. Neighbors of golf courses have no more right to a view of a golf course than the residents anong A1A have a right to a view of the ocean, than residents of Las Olas Boulevard have a right to a view of the New River. Your rights are in your deed. If you own it, you have rights. Typical Democrats.

Very good move, now we can continue to waste water in obscene amounts to keep the elit happy.