By DAVID RULE
Tesuque
There has been a bit of a local controversy going on around proposed changes to the Los Alamos Municipal golf course.
The Council has decided to extend the driving range – at considerable cost and impact to the golf course at large.
Last week I wrote in and commented that it is pretty common for old courses to outgrow their ranges, but this is typically handled simply by extending or raising netting to contain practice balls.
The Council is apparently not interested in this simple solution – and argue that the extending the driving range is “a safety issue”.
Oh … I guess if you play the “safety” card – that pretty well justifies anything and shuts down the conversation.
Frankly, I didn’t know that playing golf at Los Alamos posed a significant safety hazard. From a risk management point of view, I’m pretty certain that my driving up from Tesuque is more dangerous than actually playing golf. This is a risk I gladly take. If the Council wants to justify extension of the range on the grounds of safety – I, for one, would like to see some hard data as to how many golfers have been killed or seriously injured over the last 75 years as a result of the existing driving range.
I’m pretty sure that the most significant risk to golfers is actually posed by lightening. If the Council would like to enhance golfer safety at Los Alamos – I would argue it is much more cost effective, in terms of risk reduction, to install a lightening proximity warning system than it is to extend the driving range.
By playing the “safety” card – the Council has fallen into the common trap of claiming to eliminate all perceived risk – no matter the cost – to justify a decision that actually has very little to do with safety.
But I digress. Clearly the Council has made their decision, and risk management logic is not going to make any difference. I would argue that they are acting without considering the input of the local golfing community, or without any serious cost / benefit analysis of the safety benefits of the actions they propose vs other alternatives.
