Letter: Taking exception on the story about Ridgemark changes

I would like to take exception to this article which makes the closure of 18 holes at Ridgemark sound positive and progressive. This assertion is beyond reality. Let me tell you why.
First, the author contends that the closure of 18 holes is entirely due to the water shortage. This is partially true, but the real motive behind the closure is to provide space for additional housing. If this is truly the “New Era”, I would hope the owner, Mr. K, as he is affectionately known, has planned to compensate those homeowners who now live in the “Old Era” of the golf course, which is now dirt and weeds.
Second, I have lived at Ridgemark since 1977 and know most of the residents including the golf addicts. I would like to challenge your sports editor to identify any group members of the “New Era” course who are excited and enthusiastic about its potential. Personally, I find it extremely convoluted, lacking any sense of synergy, and absent of two of the best holes at Ridgemark – Gavilan nos. 11 and 12.
After my first round of the “New Era” course, I’m of the opinion that Bolado Park is a better alternative, especially since it is the recipient of most of the greens and sand from the “Old Era” course at Ridgemark.
Next time you want to honest and illuminating opinion on the changes at Ridgemark, please contact me instead of the head pro. He works for the ownership, so what else can he say?
By the way, I will not be playing in the fabricated Ridgemark “Course Record Tournament”. The only record set in this outing will be way over par.
Dave Edrington, San Benito County