If cost recovery is the sole or primary consideration in a sports worth to the city I'd like to see if comparable summer sports run at a full cost recovery such as baseball, soccer, football, tennis, etc or how about other labour intensive sports such as skiing; if the golf courses operate at a better profit, or lessor loss per year would that make it a better option.
- Recreation Ctrs in Toronto include a large number of facilities designated as 'free'. So any programming at those locations is not cost-recovery for those sports that are programmed.
- Outdoor Pools and Family/Free Swim are also typically free City-wide.
-Typically, adult, league-based sports are based at or close to cost-recovery; while kids sports are generally lower (if they are run by non-profits).
****
There are always sports that heavily subsidized, modestly subsidized and not subsidized.
For Instance, the City doesn't generally support Squash/Raquetball
The sports-based argument (as opposed to environment/housing etc.) is really bang for buck (users vs space required); exclusivity of use, and whether or not the price charged really provides affordable public access.
One could legitimately apply that argument to hockey and ask if the City's pricing policy is correct.
But that is a separate discussion.
The best suggestion I've heard is to include trails and biking paths along the boundaries of the courses
Not feasible at Dentonia or Don Valley.
It was looked at, at Don Valley, but determined to be not feasible without a 7-figure reconfiguration of the course.
This is, in part, due to the notion that trail users can't be 'trapped' with a fence on one-side, and riverbank or steep slope on the other.
At Dentonia, a proposal was reviewed to put the trail through the course, and use netting as required to protect trail users.
It was decided to be unworkable both from a trail-use perspective, but also golf-managers were worried about people sneaking onto the course.[/QUOTE]