Longtime Shoreline golfers urge council to intervene after Twilight membership is discontinued

Longtime participants in Mountain View’s municipal Shoreline Golf Links told the City Council on April 24 they want the council to review and, if possible, restore the twilight annual membership that Campus Sports and Parks staff recently discontinued.

Multiple speakers said the Twilight membership provided an affordable way for seniors, families and Special Olympics athletes to play regularly and build social ties. Longtime player Clarence Wong said the program has enabled “a wonderful blend of all ages and abilities,” and warned that eliminating the membership “will severely impact the community and the dynamic I’ve described.”

Several members of the Twilight program described rushed notice and a lack of community consultation. John Satcher quoted an exchange from Parks management he said demonstrated the department’s support for discontinuation, reporting an email that said, “I support the decision to discontinue the Twilight membership program. I do not agree to discuss negotiating pricing, modifying playing times, or collaborate on continuing the program.” Satcher asked council to place the issue on a future agenda so that players, the parks department and Campus Sports can attempt to reach a compromise.

Others urged council to treat Shoreline as a public recreation resource rather than a profit center. Mike Pelam, a member for five years, said the Twilight program created intergenerational connections and that “a public golf course should stay affordable and open to everyone.” Eric Chung, an industry professional, told council management companies generally pursue higher profits, and warned that municipal oversight is required to preserve affordability and community access.

City staff did not immediately reverse the operator’s decision during the meeting. Council members requested additional information and several urged staff and the operator to meet with the membership group. Council indicated it would consider how to respond, including options for future study or an agenda item, but did not adopt any directive at the April 24 meeting.

The dispute highlights tensions that can arise when a private operator runs a public recreation facility: residents said the program was civic and affordable; the operator cited business and scheduling constraints when changing its membership offerings. Several commenters asked council for a clear public review so the membership’s impact—particularly on seniors and Special Olympics athletes—can be considered before final program changes take effect.