i have played rounds of golf on every course listed in this article and i also agree that south mountain is not a premium top dollar course. it has nothing to do with slope ratings or brush lined fairways. it just is not a good public course. the location is difficult and the layout is weak. perhaps with a change in ownership it could be every bit as good as park meadows (not holding my breath) or salt lake country club. the county should never have pursued this project for as long as they did. although i understand why they did. at the time the county took a risk in the hopes it would pay off and it didn't. as a taxpayer my advice to the county is to dump this white elephant as quick as you can. the county has better performing courses in the stable. courses that provide the quality of life and the return on investments that the county is committed to providing to its residents.

Golf courses should be private. No plublic ownership. They drain money to benefit a few lazy people who don't want to go to the effort at real exercise.

Dump the courses.

Why is the government in the business of providing golfing recreation for people anyway? It's an expensive elitist sport that doesn't appeal to the average person. I can understand providing swimming pools and even skateboard parks, but golf courses should be left to the private sector to provide. Unless the county can make a substantial income from the course and thus lower taxes elsewhere.

To those who ask what a better use of the Transient Room Tax might have been... here's a little project that could have used that funding.

I won't be back. Plus the green fees were higher than average.

Plus the green fees were higher than average. I won't be back.

Dingo- are you really comparing a public course to two of the best private courses in the state. Private golf courses have HUGE budgets to work with. SL country club has a huge budget and they also have a superintendent who came from a world class resort.

The problem with south mountain is not the course itself. its the fact that every time you play there the wind blows like a hurricane which makes it zero fun to play. Ive played it many times vowing to never go back each time. but it is a good course and would be better off as a privately owned club.

Why did the county fight so hard to get this white elephant? Terry Diehl had Horiuchi in his pocket....Horiuchi forced the deal through (same way Diehl got his project approved at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon). Shame on all the county councilmen who turned their heads and let this happen. The course was already built - there was absolutely no need for the county to buy it. $17.9 million? Highway robbery - all to enrich, or bail out Terry Diehl. Thanks Randy - please go away - you've done enough in your political career to hurt Salt Lake County for decades to come. Corrupt politics to the fullest!

The course doesn't fit the mission statement of providing golf and recreation for the county? What? There are probably good legit reasons for the county to sell the course, but saying that it does not provide golf and recreation for the county is moronic. That person should be fired.

I will not play South Mountain because it is a golf cart mandatory course and I am a strict walker when I golf (4 rounds/week all season long). You know, playing golf the way the game was meant to be played. And by the way Mountain Dell is my home course.

And making it a privately owned club would remove the "hurricane" situation you refer to, how?

Golf is no longer an elitest or expensive sport and provides excellent exercise for millions of players. You can purchase a complete set of clubs for less than $100.00. A set of club normally lasts a player many years. Golf balls can be purchased at Walmart for 50 cents a piece, or if you want some exercise, go hunting for balls in the rough or woods around the public courses, or make a deal with the club pro and break out your scuba gear, the lakes contain thousands of balls.

It looks like former County Attorney Doug Short was right all along about South Mountain. It was a sweetheart deal between Randy Horiuchi and Brent Overson and their money buddy Terry Diehl because Randy and Brent liked playing the course for free. Why do so many voters ignore Randy Horiuchi's sweet heart deals that he pulls off for developers and even his political friends like Tom Dolan at the expense of the county tax payers? Lets sell South Mountain and throw in Horiuchi for free. It would be the first time he hasn't been "bought."

I have played South Mountain several times. I am not from the Salt Lake area. However, I have found the course to be fun and exciting to play.

The interesting point that the county should consider is the land is now worth more than the revenue the course generates. They should sell it off as building lots. That would upset all those people on that hill who have property there.

South Mountain golf course is neither easy nor difficult. It is about average in difficulty and it is a golf course with almost no water hazards and spectacular views. However, I have seen beginners struggle there and have a very long day. It can be windy at times but no more than Riverbend, Thanksgiving Point, or Mountain View. The problem South Mountain has is marketing and pace of play. I receive regular marketing promo's from Westridge, Stonebridge, and the Ranches but nothing from South Mountain. Secondly, the pace of play is too slow. This is partly because beginners get completely bogged down there. South Mountain should market this course as a premium course for intermedate to advance golfer with guaranteed faster pace of play and occasional special discounts. Many golfers would flock to South Mountain if the County would provide marshalls to maintain pace. The small difference in cost would be well worth it to most non-beginner golfers. Golf courses are a business whether private or public. If South Mountain is not do well financially, it is because of poor management. The County must look at the strengths and weaknesses of the course and manage accordingly.

Handyman13 - You are probably one of many that does not think houses should be built around golf courses and so when your drive sails to the right, or left, and breaks a window or some damage to the house you say,"you shouldn't build a house on a golf course." Take some responsibility and learn how to play the game and hit straight shots, then you might not be making stupid comments like, "They should sell it off as building lots. That would upset all those people on that hill who have property there."

For those who are less informed, the South Mtn GC is dedicated as open space and will not be able to be divided into lots or developed. The SLCo Council was motivated by personal greed in the acquisition. Brent Overson was the broker in the deal while on the commission. Sweet deal for him huh? Just remember who he is if he ever runs for public office again. As for selling the course, that makes no sense inasmuch as the course will hold its own financially as the bonds are paid off on it and other two county course which still have debt.

The truth of the matter is this, whatever shady side deal was done is done. Maybe SLC county decided it wanted South Mtn back because all of the other courses in the county aren't any good. Sure there are good holes here and there but being the major metropolis in Utah, Salt Lake has no good public golf courses with the exception of Wingpointe and South Mtn. Sure South Mtn isn't the best and may not be a tourist attraction or demand premium prices, but its a lot better than anything else in the county if you're looking for a challenge. I mean Bonneville and River Oaks are okay, and Riverbend has some good holes, but the truth of the matter is that courses in Davis and Utah county are better than courses in Salt Lake County, and thats a shame.