Originally Posted by tarazarr
Note the term "usually" which means commonly but not always. Country clubs exist, it's part of life. Not everyone can play in an age protected division either. Exclusitivity is everywhere.... Bridgeland isn't maintained with public money, just as Spring Valley isn't. Meaning both can "choose" who they let play. Spring Valley chooses to let only those who "pay" to play. Same with Oak Meadows... They just charge a higher price... The cost of a house and HOA fees..
Sorry there are those who feel "entitled" to play everywhere a basket is put in the ground.....
Spring Valley doesn't call itself a "Park." Oak Meadows does. OM isn't a park, it's a country club or private facility for residents. My objection isn't that they chose this to be a residents only facility, only that they call it a park when it isn't. I think that Kingwood falls into the same category since they also refer to it as River Grove Park.
So, isn't every park in America essentially built with tax-payer money? I know that where I grew up at, there were city-owned/managed parks and they were free to anyone whether they lived in the city or not. (Just the same as what the City of Houston does.) There were also Parks which charged a small fee in order to enter and use them, but they were still open to the public and therefore fits in the definition of a "park."
In the case of OM and River Grove however, they call them parks, but they don't fit the definition of a "park" because they aren't open to the public. They are both exclusionary and discriminatory that regard. Anyone can go to Spring Valley, and anyone can go to Shawshank and play if they pay the green fees. In my mind, they are both more park-like than either Oak Meadows or River Grove.
And Scott, I am not one of the people you think suffers from entitlement issues just because they have baskets on a piece of property.