City parks, shorelines, public spaces, cross country trails, playgrounds, and golf courses do not have to make money for someone - or for anyone - to enjoy them. If they did, we would have to start taking down things like Enger Tower, Bayfront Park, the safe harbor, and more.

I still golf and curl and have been a member at the Lester Park and Enger Park golf courses for decades, but I don't really care if Lester and Enger remain as golf courses.

Everyone should care dearly, however, that public property remains public property.

Exchanging property that is now a golf course is a terrible idea ("Golf course plan inches forward," May 9). Trading Enger Park and/or Lester park land for other land anywhere in Minnesota is not in the public's interest. It primarily would be in the interest of private land developers.

In the 1930s, residents of Duluth agreed to set aside some of the most beautiful parcels of land in Minnesota for future generations. How does anyone make the leap from a struggling golf course to sacrificing any of that beautiful parkland, to give in to the temptation of the money anyone could make? The precise reason the land was set aside was the understanding by our 1930s residents of the desire to preserve the best of the best for generations to come.

To piece off public green space for most any reason is public theft for the benefit of a private few. It is a poke in the eye of past Duluth citizens from the 1930s who had the foresight to preserve this beautiful Duluth green space for generations to come.

Virgil Boehland

Esko