In his guest column (“Changing uses of the LU golf course,” Friday, Feb. 26) Longwood University Student Affairs Vice President Tim Pierson wrote that finances had no part in the decision to close the Longwood golf course to the general public.

It is reassuring to know that the course’s modest annual operating deficit was not a factor in the decision. But, if not, why close? Where’s a convincing reason? 

My hunch is that the decision involves larger financial considerations that have not been mentioned or considered.

Imagine three restaurants in a small town, two modest and the third upscale. One modest restaurant is right in town, the second modest restaurant is 15 minutes outside of town and the upscale restaurant is also out of town by some 10 minutes. Competing for a limited clientele in a small population, they stay in business with the in-town restaurant being the oldest and most stable, but none of the three having a competitive advantage.

What happens if the in-town restaurant closes? Customers now have only a choice of two, but the remaining restaurants have sharpened their competitive advantage. Were you an investor in the upscale restaurant, you would be happy with this new situation.

One important detail, however, is missing. The upscale restaurant is the centerpiece of a speculative development, a shopping center. Being so far from town, it’s a bit of a stretch. And, what if the investors in the upscale restaurant are not simply individuals but have an institutional financial tie helping ensure eventual success?

Anyone who has followed the story of the closing of the Longwood Golf Course will easily see through my little analogy. 

The course is the modest restaurant in town, the Farmville Municipal Course is the modest restaurant 15 minutes out of town, and The Manor (plus real estate development) is the upscale restaurant outside of town, enjoying the most advantages from the closing of the Longwood course.

I submit that Pierson’s statement that “the decision is not a financial one” is inaccurate and misleading, perhaps a well-intentioned smokescreen to distract attention and scrutiny from the real money involved in the decision.

This issue demands public examination and scrutiny.

James C. Kidd is the Barger Professor Emeritus of Music at Hampden-Sydney College. His email address is jkidd@hsc.edu.