So are all recreation programs going to get assessed on whether they make money? There was a big stink a few years back when the city was trying to raise money by increasing recreation user fees to cut costs. I don't play golf , but I know a lot of people that started out playing at municipal courses. If we get rid of them then Golf becomes more exclusive. And by the way. the parks department has been working on a 20 year facility master plan for the past year and has billions of dollars of unfunded projects in the pipeline. This new golf course conversion scheme will already add to a massive parks plan that has been trying to address access and deficiencies in the parks and recreation system. This is just a publicity stunt.
Let's work backwards, shall we.
A) not merely a publicity stunt. The future of all public golf courses, not just 3 of them, is under review, as mandated by council with a report due back late next year. The sitting Mayor has acknowledged one more courses may be re-purposed, he simply isn't campaigning on it.
B) One of the reasons for said review is that the courses are due for significant financial investments, roughly 9.5M in the current 10-year capital plan. That number is more than sufficient to repurpose 3 courses as alternate
forms of greenspace.
C) All programs are vetted on a regular basis, including their net cost after any revenues, as well as total demand, wait lists, and comparisons of those metrics to alternatives. How many people are lined up to play golf as compared with the waiting list for soccer, cricket, summer camps, before and after school etc.
None of the above is a definitive argument against providing public courses. However, it is a land-intensive, high-cost per person recreation experience, serving a relatively small user pool as compared with many other activities.
I might be open to supporting the courses, if there land use was better shared with other users, for instance by building bike trail linkages at Dentonia and Don Valley; or by considering opening the courses as walking and picnic areas on Sundays.
I'd also like to see an honest discussion of the cost, which while very much cheaper than private courses remains out of reach for many in Toronto. At $29 per person, plus club rental, not too many folks of modest means are using this course. (That's Dentonia, other courses are more expensive)
Though if you were to set fees more in line w/say swimming, free for youth, $3 per round for adults, demand would likely surge well beyond capacity, and where would one add 5 or 6 more courses to meet demand?
You've also discounted the benefits of repurposing, including the ecological benefits and those of finding space for much needed soccer and cricket pitches without having to buy new land.
