IMO two things can be true at once:
(Urban) Golf courses are a horrible land use.
A landowner should have every right to underutilize their property.
However, I think it is reasonable that private golf courses should pay their appropriate property tax, which doesn't appear to be the case as most are incorporated as nonprofits.
While l don’t dislike golf, l also don’t think the taxpayer should be subsiding inefficient land use either; given the value of the land inside 128 courses occupy, I’m assuming its a heavy subsidy.
Other than that, let the market / individuals sort it out. My hunch is at least most of the ones inside 128 would be redeveloped once they saw the tax bill.