When an opponent of the project pointed out that the county's complicated Unified Development Code seems to say open space must be controlled by a maintenance corporation or a nonprofit organization, he was told he was taking the code out of context. It might be too late to raise this argument over Odessa National. When a developer has complied with the rules, it's unfair to stop him using simple distaste on the part of neighbors. If we're merely trying to preserve views of natural objects like trees and creeks, a golf course works. If we're trying to cut down on housing density to lessen the burden on schools and roads, we'll have to settle for, at best, one out of two.
Golf courses generate their own traffic, especially on weekends.
But if we require open space because it improves the quality of life for county residents, we should rethink the inclusion of privately owned golf courses. Unlike parks or land left in an undeveloped state, golf courses assault the environment. Very few courses are carved out of nature. As with a housing project, drainage is important, especially in an area like Odessa that's studded with wetlands. Not much of the previous natural habitat survives the process.