Although it may seem like a stretch to ask the beloved golfers who keep our economy running to give up pursuits, let me offer this: A small city like Wichita has no place hitting a tiny ball at the expense of undermining cornerstones of our community such as parks. 

Last month, Wichita declared a stage two drought emergency and released a response plan that included locally enforced restrictions on individuals’ water usage. However, some business sectors were exempt from these mandatory measures in an effort to maintain economic growth — golf courses being one of them. 

There are several strategies to mitigate the drought and help conserve golf course water use, such as using grasses that naturally require less water, like buffalo or Bermuda grasses. 

This does not address the inherent fact that Wichita’s public golf courses are already in bad shape, and require a larger financial plan to resolve their issues.

Due to the low quality of the irrigation systems of Wichita’s four public golf courses — Arthur B. Sim, Auburn Hills, MacDonald and Tex Consolver — they face a risk of permanent closure. Fixing the state of these golf courses has been a topic in Wichita for months.

In a budget review last month, Mayor Lily Wu voted “no” on whether courses should increase their funding to support better irrigation systems, later defending her vote by saying that she was “very concerned” that the city was dismissing some of the park’s much-needed improvements and added that the city is “really just focusing on golf.”

Troy Houtman, director of Wichita Park & Recreation, agreed, saying “Without those funds, there would be a lot of things that we would not be able to address and repair within our park system.”

Despite the worried sentiments, $4.2 million was allocated to replace the irrigational systems in Wichita’s golf courses. The Wichita Eagle reported that the funds were “originally earmarked for park enhancements.”

It’s not beneficial to a community like Wichita, where water is already being rationed, to invest in a recreational activity that only benefits a small portion of the general public. Before funding from the budget increased, the city council increased golf course membership fees to help alleviate maintenance costs, causing concern for the fee’s affordability and the overall accessibility of membership.

If we’re increasing golf’s funding for the sake of the economy, why not invest in something that will benefit all, not just some? 

Parks, a tried and true attraction, can be useful to virtually any demographic — and above all, they’re free. Golf courses, on the other hand, are funded by members who pay a maximum of $18 a month to play, along with an annual fee of $50.

In a 2022 survey conducted by Wichita on golfers’ demographics, nearly 80% of the respondents who made a $75,000 yearly income had a high satisfaction rate. 58% of satisfied respondents made less than $50,000 — nearly a 30% difference in income. 

For reference, the median household income in Wichita is currently $51,690.

With Wichita looking to expand its tourism, largely from sports revenue and large investments like golf, targeting a high income may be a clever strategy with an even higher financial return. But, not only is that non-inclusive, but Kansas Sen. Mary Ware says a lack of park maintenance and growth could backfire on the very revenue the city is seeking. 

The park budget cuts strain the relationship between Wichitans and their trust in what the city is willing to do for the greater good. 

At another public hearing discussing the city budget in August, Kansas Sen. Mary Ware emphasized how the decision to cut park funding isn’t the only option for gaining revenue. 

“If people are considering coming to Wichita, the number of parks does matter, having parks spread evenly throughout the city at all economic levels is a real benefit,” she said.

Last year, Kake News spoke to golf course member Jim Todd who said the golf courses were “an embarrassment” to Wichita.

Why, despite the clear rationale for enhancing and increasing parks, and given the valid arguments from highly influential people, are we catering to the feelings of members embarrassed by the state of our lowly golf courses? 

Some simple financial advice I’ve learned (instinctively) is this: focus on aesthetic wants after you prioritize your budget’s needs first.