Trump take over of golf course and give away of Carter Barron

[Anonymous]

Yes, but Trump is giving public land to private developers thereby restricting access to the public. DMV will loose access to to both the tennis Courts and golf courses. The tennis redevelopment will be focused on the needs of the tennis tournament and Mark Ein. Regular folks like you and me will no longer have access to picnic spaces or the fields and track. Mark Ein needs to recoup his 25 million dollar investment. Picnic spaces and playing fields won't pay the bills.

[Anonymous]

Sign this petition if you care about keeping Carter Barron open for all to enjoy.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-destruction-of-a-national-public-park-rock-creek-park-carter-barron

Not sure if there is a petition for the golf courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but Trump is giving public land to private developers thereby restricting access to the public. DMV will loose access to to both the tennis Courts and golf courses. The tennis redevelopment will be focused on the needs of the tennis tournament and Mark Ein. Regular folks like you and me will no longer have access to picnic spaces or the fields and track. Mark Ein needs to recoup his 25 million dollar investment. Picnic spaces and playing fields won't pay the bills.

What's your evidence that public access will be restricted?

[Anonymous]

Look at the proposals. At least on of the main picnic areas is removed (run down but provided lots of shade, popular place for parties). Its unclear what will happen to other main picnic area (very popular for groups, already reserved for weekends in the summer) but the size will at the very least be reduced.

Even if all the picnic areas and playground space remained as is, the new owners will need to increase use of the space in order to recoup their investment. That alone will reduce access. The one week tournament in the summer results in a six week closure of the field space (not to mention destroyed fields after). Who is going to have priority? Residents who want to play sports or the owners?

This is not a public private partnership. This is public land being given to a private developer to develop the land in ways that he will make money. That's it. DMV residents will have no say. Neither will the DC government.

here is a link from an NYT article. Different problem but same theme

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/16/climate/theodore-roosevelt-family-boundary-waters.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MlA.8r0E.CnGpGK9C2_oE&smid=url-share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the proposals. At least on of the main picnic areas is removed (run down but provided lots of shade, popular place for parties). Its unclear what will happen to other main picnic area (very popular for groups, already reserved for weekends in the summer) but the size will at the very least be reduced.

Even if all the picnic areas and playground space remained as is, the new owners will need to increase use of the space in order to recoup their investment. That alone will reduce access. The one week tournament in the summer results in a six week closure of the field space (not to mention destroyed fields after). Who is going to have priority? Residents who want to play sports or the owners?

This is not a public private partnership. This is public land being given to a private developer to develop the land in ways that he will make money. That's it. DMV residents will have no say. Neither will the DC government.

here is a link from an NYT article. Different problem but same theme

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/16/climate/theodore-roosevelt-family-boundary-waters.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MlA.8r0E.CnGpGK9C2_oE&smid=url-share

Are people playing golf in the picnic area? Your previous claim was that the new operators would segregate access on the basis of race to the golf course. The primary purpose of a public golf course is not to provide rundown picnic areas.

As for an article about about a different project in a different state involving different groups as evidence, uh, no.

[Anonymous]

The tennis courts and the golf courses are two separate problems. Same general issue but different situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What's your evidence that public access will be restricted?

The problem is that there has been little transparency either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tennis courts and the golf courses are two separate problems. Same general issue but different situations.

OP is worried about the picnic areas. The feared racial segregation of golf and tennis court access is gish gallop.

[Anonymous]

Will the kids Saturday soccer games be cancelled now that the park is in private hands? I remember my kid participating in the youth soccer teams at the Kennedy Street field at RCP.

[Anonymous]

Good question. I think the fields are going to remain but I am sure that the, at the very least, the rates will go up. The developer has to make 25 million dollars just to break even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Suing over the spirit of an agreement isn't going to go well.

Neither will restricting access to recreational resources that have long been available to the community as a public good — including one of the few golf courses where Black Americans were, historically, able to play. Hmm. “Black” and “segregation “ are on Trump’s banned words list, so substitute “African Americans “ for “Black Americans” and assume that most are educated enough to understand that “historically “ points to the long history of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws in DC.

There's no evidence of this happening.

No? So you have some special spidey sense that the Langston course will be left as it is? Or you just like to make: “There’s no evidence of this happening” posts without providing any clarifying information ?


https://www.eenews.net/articles/it-was-ours-trump-interest-shakes-historic-black-golf-course-in-dc/

Why is the burden of proof on me to prove things won't happen? So far, you have not shown any evidence to support your claims of racism and racial segregation.

The burden is on you to support your own assertions— if you want anyone else to take them seriously. As to the rest, if you so little understanding of the history of racial segregation in DC and the historical importance of the Langston golf course to Black golfers — and you couldn’t be bothered to read the link that I posted, nothing that I can say here is likely to educate you in a meaningful way. Enjoy your bliss — as they say. Peace out.

To date, there is no evidence of Trump reviving racial segregation for the federal golf courses. In fact, none of Trump's private golf courses have racial segregation policies. Mar-a-lago was opened to Blacks and Jews after Trump purchased it.

Ahhh. I guess you missed the word “historical “ in my original post. Which explains — perhaps — your blathering about burden of proof.
Trump does, indeed, have a history of imposing segregated policies. I have no idea what he does with his golf courses. My point was simply that one of the very few golf courses that was available to Black golfers when (“historically “) such facilities were racially segregated will be getting the Trump treatment, which will — one way or another — result in less available access. Note that I did not say “racially restricted access”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Suing over the spirit of an agreement isn't going to go well.

Neither will restricting access to recreational resources that have long been available to the community as a public good — including one of the few golf courses where Black Americans were, historically, able to play. Hmm. “Black” and “segregation “ are on Trump’s banned words list, so substitute “African Americans “ for “Black Americans” and assume that most are educated enough to understand that “historically “ points to the long history of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws in DC.

There's no evidence of this happening.

No? So you have some special spidey sense that the Langston course will be left as it is? Or you just like to make: “There’s no evidence of this happening” posts without providing any clarifying information ?


https://www.eenews.net/articles/it-was-ours-trump-interest-shakes-historic-black-golf-course-in-dc/

Why is the burden of proof on me to prove things won't happen? So far, you have not shown any evidence to support your claims of racism and racial segregation.

The burden is on you to support your own assertions— if you want anyone else to take them seriously. As to the rest, if you so little understanding of the history of racial segregation in DC and the historical importance of the Langston golf course to Black golfers — and you couldn’t be bothered to read the link that I posted, nothing that I can say here is likely to educate you in a meaningful way. Enjoy your bliss — as they say. Peace out.

To date, there is no evidence of Trump reviving racial segregation for the federal golf courses. In fact, none of Trump's private golf courses have racial segregation policies. Mar-a-lago was opened to Blacks and Jews after Trump purchased it.

Ahhh. I guess you missed the word “historical “ in my original post. Which explains — perhaps — your blathering about burden of proof.
Trump does, indeed, have a history of imposing segregated policies. I have no idea what he does with his golf courses. My point was simply that one of the very few golf courses that was available to Black golfers when (“historically “) such facilities were racially segregated will be getting the Trump treatment, which will — one way or another — result in less available access. Note that I did not say “racially restricted access”.

Again, when Trump purchased his golf courses in Florida, he increased access. It's a golf course, not a picnic area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good question. I think the fields are going to remain but I am sure that the, at the very least, the rates will go up. The developer has to make 25 million dollars just to break even.

Have rates ever gone down at any government facility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good question. I think the fields are going to remain but I am sure that the, at the very least, the rates will go up. The developer has to make 25 million dollars just to break even.

You have no way of knowing any of this. And, btw, if you did know anything, you would know that Trump was sued four days ago to halt.