Floridians balk at DeSantis administration plan to build golf courses at state parks

The Scale of Proposed Development

The administration's vision encompasses significant construction projects at some of Florida's most ecologically sensitive and popular state parks. At Topsail Hill Preserve State Park near Destin – renowned for its 25-foot high sand dunes that stand as one of the last undeveloped stretches of the Gulf Coast – plans include up to four pickleball courts, a disc golf course and a hotel capable of accommodating 350 guests. Eric Draper, former head of the Florida Park Service, characterised this scale as 'more in line with a conference centre than a quiet beach retreat', noting that visitors currently enjoy unobstructed views for miles along the beach without sight of development.

Further south, Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County faces proposals for a golf complex that would necessitate removing existing boardwalks and observation towers, relocating park staff residences and offices, and displacing visitor cabins. The park, situated north of West Palm Beach on the state's southeast coast, has become a focal point of opposition, with a Change.org petition against the golf complex gathering over 60,000 signatures by mid-week. Other parks included in the nine-site proposal are located near major tourist hubs including Miami, Tampa, Panama City and St. Augustine, suggesting the development targets areas already experiencing high visitor numbers.

Ecological Concerns and Wildlife Impact

Opponents argue that the proposed developments threaten fragile ecosystems that have found sanctuary within state park boundaries. Julie Wraithmell, executive director of Audubon Florida, emphasised that these parks 'are the last strongholds for a lot of wildlife in rapidly urbanising communities in Florida'. She highlighted the Florida scrub-jay – a threatened species endemic to the state – as particularly vulnerable, noting that state parks provide outsized importance not just for conservation but also as places where people can experience 'what Florida was like'.

The ecological stakes extend beyond individual species. State parks represent islands of biodiversity in a landscape where sugar sand beaches, mangrove forests and other natural habitats have largely given way to urban development. Advocates warn that introducing intensive recreational facilities like golf courses – which require significant land clearing, irrigation, chemical maintenance and habitat fragmentation – could undermine decades of conservation work. The concern is not merely about immediate construction impacts but about setting a precedent that could erode the protected status of these lands over time.

Unexpected Bipartisan Opposition

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the backlash is its cross-party nature, emerging in a political climate where Governor DeSantis typically enjoys robust support from Republican lawmakers. The opposition includes outgoing Republican Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, who stated on social media that her 'vision for state parks did not contemplate the addition of golf courses and hotels, which in my view are not in-line with the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of nature'. She added that 'the proposal should not move forward in its current form'.

This resistance echoes historical patterns where similar proposals from Republican administrations have faltered due to public pushback. In 2015, then-Governor Rick Scott's administration abandoned plans to allow cattle grazing and timber harvesting in park lands after public opposition. Even legendary golfer Jack Nicklaus' long-standing efforts to secure state funding for golf courses in parks have previously 'fizzled following public pushback'. The current controversy suggests that state parks hold a unique place in Floridians' affections that transcends typical political divides.

Administrative Justification and Public Access Debate

The DeSantis administration defends the proposal as an effort to make public lands 'more accessible to the public', quoting Theodore Roosevelt's belief that national parks exist for 'the benefit and enjoyment of the people'. A spokesperson characterised the plans as complementary to existing investments in conservation, arguing that development and preservation are not mutually exclusive goals.

However, critics counter that true accessibility does not require transforming natural spaces into venues for organised sports or large-scale lodging. Wraithmell suggested an alternative approach: 'Absolutely there is demand for more people to enjoy state parks. The solution is not to try to cram as many people into a park as we can …. The solution is to create more state parks.' This perspective frames the issue not as a choice between access and preservation but as a question of whether development should occur within existing protected areas or through expansion of the park system itself.

What this means

The controversy over developing golf courses and hotels in Florida's state parks reveals a deep-seated public attachment to these spaces as refuges of nature in an increasingly developed landscape. While the administration argues that such facilities would enhance public access, opponents contend that the true value of state parks lies in their current state – as places where visitors can experience unspoiled Florida landscapes and observe wildlife that struggles to survive elsewhere. The bipartisan nature of the opposition suggests that, regardless of political affiliation, many Floridians view these parks not as underutilised assets awaiting commercial development but as essential components of the state's natural heritage that require protection rather than transformation. As public meetings proceed and petitions continue to gain traction, the outcome will likely serve as a bellwether for how other states balance development pressures with conservation imperatives in their own protected natural spaces.