News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.4K     7 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 949     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

The Future of City-Owned Golf Courses in Toronto

Sadly, the 2-year lease extension has been passed by Council.

There are some sops in terms of report requests for alternative uses in general, opening up the courses to the public in winter, and possibly applying the Welcome Policy (waves fees for low-income people) to the Golf Courses.

But zero chance we will get rid of or alter even one of these for another 2 years minimum.

I am so disheartened by staff who have worked to undermine any change to the status quo.
 
Northern Light said:
Let me fix that for ya:

Great news for current paying subsidized users of these facilities.
Click to expand...
To each his own, if they turn it all into parkland who will pay to maintain the park? No more paying customers so it will be even more subsidized by the tax payers, you want them closed down and repurposed for other uses, a lot of other taxpayers want them to be used for existing uses, you can't please everyone. And by the way all city recreational facilities are subsidized with the exception of indoor hockey arenas.
 
thaivic said:
To each his own, if they turn it all into parkland who will pay to maintain the park? No more paying customers so it will be even more subsidized by the tax payers, you want them closed down and repurposed for other uses, a lot of other taxpayers want them to be used for existing uses, you can't please everyone. And by the way all city recreational facilities are subsidized with the exception of indoor hockey arenas.
Click to expand...

Right.

First off, if simply going with my preference, it would be to naturalize the space, with the only amenity being a bike path and perhaps a few benches.

No lights, no nothing else.

In that context, after the one-time capital cost of restoration, the maintenance cost would be exceeding low.

***

That said, I'm very open to a mix of uses, including preserving a form of golf "Pitch n' Putt" which caps fairway size at about 100 yards. It generally results in a course that occupies less than 1/2 the area, reduces the cost of playing the game, and makes it faster too.

I'm also open to some other uses on table land.

There are a shortage of soccer fields in the City; and the subsidy rate for those is not materially greater than golf on a per person basis, but serves far more people with less land and total gross cost.

***

Finally, as I noted, I'm open to a variety of different outcomes, including preserving some courses in their entirety.

What I'm truly angry about is that Staff were directed to bring a report to Council by last fall discussing 'options' for the future of the golf courses.

They are a year late and produced no such report, and are being rewarded with a 2-year lease extension that again kicks any debate down the road.

I simply want to have the debate.

Lets have a fair discussion, lets poll Torontonians as well; and offer more than 1 option.

Then we can decide the best course of action of the next 2+ decades having considered the evidence.

Instead we got no discussion, no evidence, no popular opinion.
 
Northern Light said:
Right.

First off, if simply going with my preference, it would be to naturalize the space, with the only amenity being a bike path and perhaps a few benches.

No lights, no nothing else.

In that context, after the one-time capital cost of restoration, the maintenance cost would be exceeding low.

***

That said, I'm very open to a mix of uses, including preserving a form of golf "Pitch n' Putt" which caps fairway size at about 100 yards. It generally results in a course that occupies less than 1/2 the area, reduces the cost of playing the game, and makes it faster too.

I'm also open to some other uses on table land.

There are a shortage of soccer fields in the City; and the subsidy rate for those is not materially greater than golf on a per person basis, but serves far more people with less land and total gross cost.

***

Finally, as I noted, I'm open to a variety of different outcomes, including preserving some courses in their entirety.

What I'm truly angry about is that Staff were directed to bring a report to Council by last fall discussing 'options' for the future of the golf courses.

They are a year late and produced no such report, and are being rewarded with a 2-year lease extension that again kicks any debate down the road.

I simply want to have the debate.

Lets have a fair discussion, lets poll Torontonians as well; and offer more than 1 option.

Then we can decide the best course of action of the next 2+ decades having considered the evidence.

Instead we got no discussion, no evidence, no popular opinion.
Click to expand...
The city staff and most government staff in all levels of government move at a snails pace when it comes to preparing reports on many different issues, wether it be transit, traffic, parks, affordable housing , unfortunately that's the way things work.
 
^I was surprised at the lack of challenge to more than one Councillor‘s commentary who seemed to view golf as a perfectly normal part of anyone’s day.... why would City courses be an affront to anyone ? One commented about how important the walk around the golf course was for fitness, sidestepping the point that with broader public access many others might benefit from the same walk, without even having to buy clubs.

Maybe it was just too late in the meeting for any energy on the issue.

- Paul
 
thaivic said:
Great news for current paying users of these facilities.
Click to expand...

Like worm-pickers. Oh, my aching back.
53000076-2813-4ca8-9a2a-575a13a08e07.jpg

From link.
 
crs1026 said:
^I was surprised at the lack of challenge to more than one Councillor‘s commentary who seemed to view golf as a perfectly normal part of anyone’s day.... why would City courses be an affront to anyone ? One commented about how important the walk around the golf course was for fitness, sidestepping the point that with broader public access many others might benefit from the same walk, without even having to buy clubs.

Maybe it was just too late in the meeting for any energy on the issue.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Probably because there is no substance to the issue. Can't make a meal out of the public being able to walk about courses, when there is more than enough parkland accessible to the public.
 
picard102 said:
Probably because there is no substance to the issue. Can't make a meal out of the public being able to walk about courses, when there is more than enough parkland accessible to the public.
Click to expand...

Its insufficient that you are entirely wrong here, and that your position bares no resemblance to the facts.

Its the malice in your tone towards your fellow citizen and poster that has you viewed unfavorably by so many.
 
picard102 said:
Oh fun, where are the conventions being held where it's decided whom everyone likes?
Click to expand...

No convention required. One can read replies and see your reaction score.

Your capable of putting up quality posts; but you enjoy provoking others are/or are indifferent to causing offense. I don't think that's at all necessary. Its possible to disagree with respect.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top