Leave the Land Alone: Why We Don’t Need Another Golf Course
There is a certain kind of frustration that builds slowly, almost quietly at first, until one day it becomes impossible to ignore, and that frustration comes from watching something irreplaceable be treated as if it were expendable. Not because we lack space, not because we have no other options, but because somewhere along the line, we decided that “development” automatically means improvement, even when what we are replacing is something far more valuable than what we are building.
And nowhere does that feel more real than when the conversation turns to places like the Everglades National Park — a landscape that is not just land, not just scenery, but a living, breathing system that has existed long before us and will not easily recover if we decide to carve it up for the sake of convenience or entertainment.
Yet somehow, we keep circling back to the same idea: that more land should be cleared, reshaped, and repurposed into something “useful,” something profitable, something that fits neatly into a version of luxury that often benefits a very small group of people.
Another golf course.
Another development.
Another piece of land that once held something wild, something natural, something irreplaceable — turned into something controlled, curated, and, ultimately, artificial.
We Don’t Have a Land Shortage — We Have a Priorities Problem
The argument is often framed as progress, as if the only way forward is to keep building, keep expanding, keep transforming land into something that can be monetized or packaged as an experience. But the reality is far simpler and far more uncomfortable:
We do not need more golf courses.
We already have them — thousands of them, spread across the country, many sitting underused, many maintained at a level that requires enormous amounts of water, chemicals, and upkeep just to keep them looking pristine. They are not a necessity. They are not a solution to any urgent problem. They are a luxury, and more specifically, a luxury that tends to cater to a narrow demographic.
So when we start talking about clearing or altering land — especially land as ecologically significant as the Everglades — for something like that, the question is not whether we can do it, but why we are choosing to do it at all.
Because this is not about a lack of space.
It is about what we choose to value.
The Everglades Are Not “Empty Land”
One of the most dangerous misconceptions about places like the Everglades is the idea that they are empty, unused, or somehow waiting to be developed. On the surface, to someone unfamiliar, it might look like open wetlands, water, grass, and scattered wildlife — but that simplicity is misleading.
The Everglades are one of the most complex ecosystems in the world.
They filter water.
They protect against flooding.
They support an enormous range of plant and animal life, many of which exist nowhere else.
They act as a natural barrier, helping stabilize the environment in ways that cannot be simply replicated by human-made systems.
And once you disrupt that system — once you drain it, reshape it, or build over it — you are not just changing the appearance of the land.
You are altering how it functions.
Sometimes permanently.
Building for the Few, at the Cost of the Many
There is an uncomfortable truth that sits at the center of developments like this, one that is often softened by language like “economic growth,” “tourism expansion,” or “community investment,” but becomes much clearer when you strip it down to its reality: these projects are rarely built for everyone.
They are designed, funded, and maintained with a very specific audience in mind — an audience that has the time, the money, and the access to enjoy them — while the costs, both environmental and long-term, are carried by far more people than will ever directly benefit from what is being built.
Golf courses, in particular, exist within a space that is almost entirely recreational and often exclusive, requiring not only large amounts of land but also constant upkeep, water consumption, and chemical maintenance to sustain the pristine image they are known for. They are not essential infrastructure; they are not solving urgent public needs, and they are certainly not something the majority of people rely on in their daily lives.
Yet, when land is considered for development, especially land that holds ecological significance, these projects are still put on the table as if they carry the same weight as necessities like housing, conservation, or public resources.
What makes this even more difficult to justify is the imbalance of who benefits versus who is impacted. The people who will use and enjoy these spaces represent a relatively small portion of the population, while the environmental consequences — water use, habitat disruption, long-term ecological strain — extend far beyond the development's boundaries. Communities surrounding these areas feel the effects, wildlife is displaced, and natural systems that once functioned without interference are forced to adapt to changes they were never designed to handle.
And yet, the framing of these developments often avoids that imbalance entirely. Instead, they are presented as opportunities — opportunities for jobs, for tourism, for economic stimulation — creating a narrative that suggests widespread benefit, even when the actual usage remains limited.
While there may be short-term gains tied to construction or increased activity in the area, those gains rarely compare to the long-term value of preserving land that serves a much broader purpose, especially when that land contributes to environmental stability in ways that cannot be easily replicated.
There is also a deeper layer to this issue that speaks to how we assign value in the first place. Land that remains natural is often seen as underutilized, as if its worth is tied to what can be built on it rather than what it already provides.
This way of thinking reduces complex ecosystems to empty space, ignoring the roles they play in supporting biodiversity, regulating water systems, and maintaining balance in the environment. When we view land through that limited lens, it becomes easier to justify transforming it into something more “productive,” even if that productivity is narrowly defined and benefits only a select group.
Over time, these decisions add up. One project becomes another, one development leads to the next, and gradually, the amount of untouched land continues to shrink.
What was once expansive and resilient becomes fragmented, pressured from multiple directions, and increasingly vulnerable to collapse. The cost is not always immediate or visible, which makes it easier to overlook, but that does not make it any less real.
At some point, it becomes necessary to question not just the individual project, but the pattern itself. Why do we continue to prioritize developments that serve so few while placing a strain on resources that belong to so many?
Why is convenience or luxury allowed to outweigh long-term environmental health? And perhaps most importantly, why do we treat shared natural spaces as negotiable assets, rather than essential parts of a system we depend on?
Because when you step back and look at it honestly, the exchange being made is not balanced. It is not a fair trade, and it does not reflect the needs of the majority. It is a decision that favors short-term gain and selective access over long-term sustainability and shared benefit.
And once that land is changed, once it is cleared, reshaped, and repurposed, there is no easy way to reverse it. The impact extends beyond what is visible, affecting systems and relationships within the environment that took far longer to develop than they will ever take to disappear.
So the question is not simply whether we can build these things, or even whether they might yield some economic return. The real question is whether it makes sense to continue doing so, especially when the cost is carried by so many for the enjoyment of so few.
Leave It Alone — And Let the Wildlife Live
At some point, the conversation has to become simpler, more honest, and far less dressed up in language that tries to justify what is, at its core, a very straightforward issue.
Not every piece of land needs to be developed, not every open space is an opportunity waiting to be turned into profit, and not every natural environment should be reshaped just because we can. Some places — especially places like the Everglades National Park — are not meant to be improved upon or reimagined, because what they already are holds far more value than anything we could realistically replace them with.
When we talk about land, it is easy to focus on what we see — open space, potential, something that could be transformed into something else — but what often gets overlooked is everything that already exists there, functioning in ways that are not always visible but are absolutely essential.
The wildlife, the ecosystems, the delicate balance that allows everything to coexist — these are not extras or background details; they are the very foundation of what makes these places matter.
The Everglades, for example, is not just land — it is home. It is a habitat for countless species, many of which rely on that exact environment to survive.
Birds that migrate through and depend on its waters, reptiles that have adapted over time to its unique conditions, and plant life that contributes to a system far more complex than it appears on the surface. When land like that is altered, it is not simply a visual change; it is a disruption of an entire network of life that has taken generations to develop.
And wildlife does not have the option to relocate as humans do. When their habitat is destroyed or fragmented, they do not simply move on to another suitable area, because those areas are often already limited or disappearing.
They are forced into smaller, less sustainable spaces, pushed closer to human development, or, in many cases, they do not survive the transition at all. The loss is quiet, gradual, and easy to ignore from a distance, but it is real and permanent.
There is also something deeply flawed in the way we often justify these changes, as if the presence of wildlife is secondary to human use, as if the land’s primary purpose is to serve us rather than to exist as part of a larger system of which we are only one piece.
This mindset allows us to treat natural spaces as flexible, negotiable, and something that can be adjusted to fit our needs without fully considering the consequences.
But the truth is, we are not separate from these systems — we depend on them. The health of environments like the Everglades affects water quality, climate stability, and the broader ecological balance that supports life beyond what we can immediately see.
When we disrupt that balance, the effects do not remain contained within the development; they ripple outward, impacting areas and communities far beyond the original site.
And all of this brings us back to a question that feels almost too simple, yet carries more weight the more you sit with it:
Why can’t we just leave it alone?
Why does every piece of land have to become something else?
Get Jessica D.’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Why is untouched nature so often viewed as incomplete, as if its value only exists once it has been changed?
Because sometimes, the most responsible, most necessary action is restraint. It is recognizing that not everything needs to be built, not everything needs to be monetized, and not everything needs to serve a purpose beyond simply existing.
The wildlife does not need us to redesign its home.
The land does not need us to make it more “useful.”
And we do not need another golf course.
What we need is the awareness to understand when enough is enough, and the willingness to protect what still remains before it becomes something we can only talk about in the past.
Because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.
And no amount of development will ever truly replace what we chose to destroy.
What Can We Actually Do About This?
It’s easy to read something like this, feel frustrated, maybe even angry, and then hit that wall of “okay… but what can I actually do?” because the problem feels big, systemic, and honestly a little out of our control. And while it’s true that one person alone isn’t going to stop large-scale development, it’s also true that these kinds of decisions don’t happen in a vacuum — they happen through pressure, awareness, and persistence, and those things do come from people.
The key is understanding that action doesn’t have to be dramatic to be effective. It just has to be consistent.
A lot of development projects move forward quietly, without much public awareness, because most people don’t even know they’re happening until it’s too late. That’s not accidental. The less attention something gets, the easier it is to push through.
So one of the most important things you can do is simply stay aware.
- Look into local proposals
- Follow environmental groups in Florida
- Pay attention to zoning changes or development plans
Once people start paying attention, it becomes harder to make decisions without scrutiny.
It might feel pointless to speak up, especially online, where everything moves fast, but awareness spreads the same way everything else does — through people talking.
- Share information
- Start conversations
- Post about it
- Question it publicly
The same internet that turns drama into a spectacle can also bring attention to real issues, and the more people see something, the harder it is to ignore.
Public pressure matters more than it seems.
There are already groups dedicated to protecting places like the Everglades. They have the resources, the legal knowledge, and the structure to actually challenge these developments — but they rely on support.
That support can look like:
- Donating (if you can)
- Sharing their content
- Signing petitions
- Following their updates
It’s not about doing everything — it’s about contributing where you can.
People often think of voting as something that only happens during elections, but influence shows up in smaller ways, too.
- Support businesses that prioritize sustainability
- Pay attention to policies and local leadership
- Be aware of who is approving these projects
Because development doesn’t just “happen” — it gets approved by people in positions of power.
And those people respond to pressure.
This isn’t just about one golf course or one piece of land — it’s about a mindset that treats nature as something optional, something we can keep taking from without consequence.
So part of the action is shifting that mindset.
Talking about it in a way that makes people stop and think:
- Why do we keep doing this?
- Who is this really for?
- What are we losing in the process?
Because once people start questioning the pattern, not just the individual project, that’s when things begin to change.
At the end of all of this, the conversation really comes down to something much simpler than policies, proposals, or development plans — it comes down to choice. Not just the choices made by officials or companies, but the collective choices we make about what we are willing to accept, what we are willing to question, and what we are willing to protect.
Because places like the Everglades National Park are not just pieces of land sitting idle, waiting for a purpose — they already have one. They sustain life, they protect balance, and they exist in a way that does not need to be improved or redesigned to prove their worth.
And once we start treating spaces like that as negotiable, as something we can trade for convenience or profit, we set a precedent that becomes harder and harder to reverse.
We have already taken so much, reshaped so much, built over so much in the name of progress, and yet the question we rarely stop to ask is whether more is actually necessary, or if we have simply become used to the idea that there is always something else to build, something else to take, something else to turn into opportunity.
But not everything needs to be an opportunity.
Some things need to be left alone.
Some things need to be protected, not because they generate profit, not because they attract attention, but because they matter in ways that cannot be measured in money or convenience. And the Everglades is one of those places.
So maybe the real shift isn’t about stopping one project or one idea, but about changing the way we think altogether — about recognizing that restraint is not failure, that preservation is not wasted potential, and that sometimes the most important thing we can do is choose not to interfere.
Because once it’s gone, there is no undoing it.
And no matter how polished or profitable what replaces it may be, it will never truly equal what was there before.
So leave it alone.
Let it exist.
Let it breathe.
And let it stay exactly what it was always meant to be.
