Though the Jan. 1 Sports article “Trump tears up lease for D.C. golf” rightfully expressed concern regarding the president’s interest in Washington’s three public golf courses, if properly developed, I think they would be huge assets to D.C. They could provide the region with a tour level course as well as two well-kept municipal layouts.
D.C. courses should follow the model at Bethpage Black, where prices for green fees are very reasonable, especially for in-state residents. If green fees at East Potomac Golf Links cost more after its renovations, some of that revenue might aid in maintaining affordable prices at Langston Golf Course and Rock Creek Park Golf. I grew up playing two of these courses, and such an approach might ensure the viability of all for many years into the future.
Frank Pollack, Fairfax Station
I live just a couple blocks from Rock Creek Park Golf, and I can’t wait to see the changes there. I volunteer with National Links Trust, and it is an enjoyable, community-oriented group. I’ve pulled up invasive plants and have helped with some work on the buildings. And I’ve dislodged the driving range balls at East Potomac Golf Links a couple of times.
You meet great folks at these courses. Some 40 years ago, a bud and I decided to take up golf again after many years. My friend had not played since high school, and I hadn’t played since my caddying days. We tried East Potomac and were teamed in a foursome with two older guys, Bill and Harry. We played with them for a couple years. Now that we’re the older guys, my friend and I joke that we’re Bill and Harry, and we always quote them while we play. “That’s a golf shot!” is a favorite.
In short, the District’s golf courses are a great asset for us D.C. residents. I hope that after their renovations, the courses keep their identities and value to the community.
Tom Martella, Washington
Save these historical buildings
Regarding the Dec. 31 news article “Citing safety, DHS wants quick razing at site in D.C.”:
The reasoning used by the Department of Homeland Security as it seeks to demolish 17 of the beautiful, historical buildings at the St. Elizabeths Hospital’s West Campus is absurd. It wants to fast-track this demolition, despite the fact that most of the buildings have been vacant for over a decade. What’s the hurry?
DHS argues that the vacant structures make agency personnel vulnerable to attack from “unauthorized individuals” or “malicious insiders.” But it would be exceedingly difficult for outsiders to access a site with the highest security classification in the government, as the property is heavily enforced by security. It would also be difficult for malicious insiders to emerge, given the extensive background security checks and weapons detection devices monitoring anyone accessing the site.
I represented the General Services Administration on the National Capital Planning Commission at the time that the St. Elizabeths master plan was approved. GSA recognized the historical nature of the site and pledged to retain and renovate almost all of the existing buildings, as well as constructing a new ones that did not jeopardize existing structures. While subsequent analyses indicated that some buildings were so far gone that saving them was impossible, many buildings could be saved.
It is obvious that DHS did not like the approved master plan. It would be a shame if they demolish the historical character of the elegant campus. The buildings should be preserved.
Michael S. McGill, Alexandria
On presidential power
Jason Willick, in his Dec. 15 op-ed, “In this Supreme Court case, a sledgehammer might be best,” raised the question of the standard the Supreme Court should use concerning when the president has complete power to fire federal agency directors and when Congress may constitutionally impose some kind of “for cause” requirement. A case can be made that the right standard is suggested in the unanimous 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
In that case, the Supreme Court said that certain agencies are not primarily executive or political in nature; rather, such agencies by the very nature of their duties are nonpartisan and must act with entire impartiality. The court said such agencies’ duties are “neither political nor executive but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”
Based on this distinction, today’s Supreme Court might want to draw a line between those agencies that are predominantly executive or political in nature and those that are quasi-judicial and/or quasi-legislative. If so, the president could be free from a congressional “for cause” requirement in the former but not in the latter, and in the case of the former, he would have absolute authority to replace agency directors.
Walter Smith, Washington
Following Marc A. Thiessen’s Dec. 30 online column, “The Who, Chicago and ’80s galore: My favorite concerts of 2025,” Post Opinions wants to know: What were the best concerts you saw this year? Share your favorites, and we might publish your response as a letter to the editor.
The post Bring on D.C. golf’s revamp appeared first on Washington Post.
