As a golfer in the city I felt like I may be able to provide some useful input. This might get a bit long as I have a few opinions on this.
There are definitely some valid concerns regarding the optimization of city owed space, however there seems to be a special distaste for golf. Perhaps it is the sense of snobbery or elitism that is baked into the general culture of the game but people seem to feel much differently about the city providing golf as an amenity than say, soccer or baseball. As a regular at some of the municipal courses I can confirm that these are the places where seniors, juniors and those of lesser means come to learn the game. At Scarlett Woods for example the green fees range from 16$ to 46$ depending on the time of day and day of the week. Compare that to the nearest private course where the initiation fees alone are often close to 100k$
There maybe some issue around snobbishness for some; but for most of us here, the concerns are more practical.
The first is efficient use of land, within the context of sport/park space.
Golf has very few people per acre of land even when a course is in maximum use.
A typical course is in the range of 40ha or 100 acres.
Assuming a golfing party of 4 at every single hole, (x18) you have a maximum of 72 people being served.
For comparison a soccer pitch takes 0.7ha (or 1.75 acres) and has 22 players on the field plus subs and coaches.
So if you replaced a golf course with soccer pitches, you could serve more than 1,000 people on that space as opposed to 72.
Even if you compare it to a passive/nature park, the use is low. Taylor Creek Park, not far from Dentonia would have 72 people just on 1km of path; never mind the group picnic spaces, fire pits etc; while also being cheaper to maintain, and free-access.
****
There is the second point; the claim that people of modest means can golf on a City course. With great respect, I don't think so.
at even $16 per round, which would be off-peak junior rate I believe.........(for only 9 holes)
You need to reasonably compare it with the the price of other outdoor recreation activities funded by the City.
So let's take a 3-month window and weekly participation as our bar.
13 golf outings would set our junior back $16 x 13 or $199 for one person playing by themselves.
Given that one generally does not play the game alone, you also need a partner to pony up the same sum.
But that presumes your modest means person owns their own clubs; not common, or cheap.
Elsewise, you're looking at $20 club rental per round.
That's another $260 for a 13-week season.
So your entry level price, for a child, is $459 for one round a week for 3 months.
An Adult fee, on a weekend is $46 per round - $598 for once a week for 3 months, + $260 if they need to rent clubs for a total of $858
Ain't too many folks of modest means eating that bill!
By comparison, Outdoor Pools are free to use, typically accommodate around 200 people at a time; and about 3,000 over a typical day, while occupying a tiny portion of the land.
Playgrounds are free, Leisure skating is free, Even premier soccer fields are much cheaper on a per person, per use basis. ~$12 for 2 hours (a game) for children/youth non-profit use. (not per player, total).
Adult fees at $33 per hour or $66 per game would still be only $3 per player.
So lets compare that as a weekly, 3 month activity. Cost per player, Youth = $7, Adult= $39 for the entire 3 months!
Golf is not an accessible sport financially.
We're it accessible that would remove one objection.
But how much of a subsidy would that entail?
****
Also noted above is the obstruction courses posts to bike paths.
****
Also to be noted, the golf courses are fenced off and use by non-players prohibited during times when the course may be empty, be that late evening or off-season.
By contrast, soccer pitches are always available for a pick-up game or a picnic if not in active use.
****
Finally, there is the environmental objection.
Golf courses are irrigated and heavily mowed and dominated by a non-native plant (Kentucky Blue Grass).
They don't contribute in the way they could or should to managing storm water run-off, ameliorating water quality, attracting pollinators, cleaning air and furnishing wildlife habitat.
Other than that, they're perfectly fine!
In truth, notwithstanding the above, I'm open to compromises that keep some form of golf.
But I think the key is pitch n'putt or holes with much shorter fairways that take up roughly 1/2 the land area of conventional golf.
That, as a start, would allow re-naturalization, ecosystem connectivity, and continuous bike trails through existing course locations.
It would also improve the efficiency of land-use, and thereby allow cheaper golf w/o additional subsidies or much cheaper with a subsidy enhancement.
I think if you could bring down the cost for adults by 1/2; (including 1/2 for club rental); the numbers get considerably more interesting.
Finally course design and policy needs to allow for community use in the off season.
