[Northern Light]

So if there is already a review going on then she is essentially promising something that is already on the books and being talked about.

Yes and No, she is promising to preempt the review by closing those specific courses, then mandating community engagement as to exactly what will replace them.

The review may well recommend the same thing, but isn't out yet, and won't be until next year.

Either way, I don't know all the financials and usage of courses. It could be that with a bit more support it could me more accessible and attract more users.

The report approved by Council has some of the numbers.

Report is here:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-110461.pdf

Usage was down 15% in the 5 years ending 2016.

Gross revenue generated from fees is 4.5M per year, which roughly equals the cost of direct operation, excluding capital and overhead.

Suggested base investment is 9.7M in the 10-year plan, but that does not include any investments to improve the properties or make them more competitive.

From the report:

A preliminary review of short and long term
needs include:

Updated and digital/mobile booking systems and customer-facing technology to
compete with current industry standards which now useon-line tee time booking systems
and instant communication connectivity, and data for tailored marketing approaches

Flexible fee structures that allow for demand-based pricing
to ensure full utilization.

Updated and expanded facilities suitable for events and tournaments


Updated food and beverage facilities and options. Significant investment is required
for improved food and restaurant facilities

Updated and expanded
Pro shop facilities.

9.5 million over 10 years is really not that much when you consider how much the parks department is paying for capital projects.

Agreed; though, there is a massive overall backlog, and the 9M and change is a low-ball number that might well exceed 30M with the improvements listed.

Given that, is the money better spent elsewhere?

I don't think this was really on the minds of potential voters and she may actually lose more votes from the individuals that actually use the courses.

A definite risk

 

[marcus_a_j]

How about converting portions of the golf courses to pitch-and-putts like they have in Vancouver. A smaller space is required for golf purposes that is affordable and fun for everyone, while opening up new park space and trail connections.

I wish Donalda was a public course that could be converted to park space. It would provide an awesome linkage between the Betty Sutherland Trail and East Don Trail.

 

[Northern Light]

How about converting portions of the golf courses to pitch-and-putts like they have in Vancouver. A smaller space is required for golf purposes that is affordable and fun for everyone, while opening up new park space and trail connections.

I wish Donalda was a public course that could be converted to park space. It would provide an awesome linkage between the Betty Sutherland Trail and East Don Trail.

An idea worth considering.

And

Donalda partially sits on public land, whose lease could be non-renewed. Sadly, a long term renewal was approved not so long ago, but there are means to open a conversation.

 

[rbt]

So are all recreation programs going to get assessed on whether they make money?

Of course we do; every single year we hold property taxes below the rate of growth in expenses we're asking the public to make do with a bit less and that means something gets removed. That's not my policy and I don't typically vote for those who advocate it; but I'm in a minority most elections.

So the measurement is some combination of # of users and cost to maintain the activity. Maintaining greens and fareways is quite a bit more expensive than standard parkland. I don't know if the fees cover the difference or not.

Toronto has 5 public golf courses in the GTA. Do we need 5? Would 4 be enough? Perhaps we should have 6 courses; that could be achieved by killing the Portlands development or converting the Toronto Islands. What makes 5 courses the magically correct number other than being what we currently have?

A few sit in the way of connecting cycle/pedestrian trails which would see far more users. A cycle path through Dentonia Park may see more users in a week than the golf course does in a year.

Incidentally, Toronto (the city) doesn't fund numerous recreational programs which require special structures/spaces; the city has zero squash courts, zero bowling alleys, no velodrome, no trails for horse/pony riding (some LA burbs have 10's of km of sand paths for them), etc.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

I really love progressive class warfare. You always here the no service cuts period mantra from people under the progressive label.
However, the "progressive" choice for mayor is willing to attack the one city service that is seen as an upper class activity, and that is golf courses. I mean she is not advocating for a systematic review of other potentially unneeded city services, she is only looking at golf courses.

The only real explanation to me is that they don't think that poor people should have a chance to play golf. I would be more willing to accept this from a libertarian candidate but I will not accept this line from a candidate who pushes large government everywhere except golf courses. Why single this out as a major policy platform?

Imagine if Tory said we are going to consider cutting funding to women's shelters only because they are underused(hypothetical situation). The outcry would be enormous, even if it was 100% justifiable.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I really love progressive class warfare. You always here the no service cuts period mantra from people under the progressive label.
However, the "progressive" choice for mayor is willing to attack the one city service that is seen as an upper class activity, and that is golf courses. I mean she is not advocating for a systematic review of other potentially unneeded city services, she is only looking at golf courses.

The only real explanation to me is that they don't think that poor people should have a chance to play golf. I would be more willing to accept this from a libertarian candidate but I will not accept this line from a candidate who pushes large government everywhere except golf courses. Why single this out as a major policy platform?

Imagine if Tory said we are going to consider cutting funding to womens shelters only because they are underused(hypotehrtical situation). The outcry would be enormous, even if it was 100% justifiable.

Golf courses aren’t exactly women’s shelter. Using this as an analogue is off point. Besides canning golf courses is an easy decision on environmental ground alone.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Toronto has 5 public golf courses in the GTA.

Slight correction, sort of.

There are 5 City owned and operated courses.

But the City owns 2 others (total of 7) that are leased out.

The 5 City O&O courses are:

Don Valley Golf Course
Dentonia Park Golf Course
Humber Valley Golf Course
Scarlett Woods Golf Course
Tam O'Shanter Golf Course

While the 2 City owned but leased out courses are:

Centennial Park Golf Course
Royal Woodbine Golf Course

 

[Northern Light]

I really love progressive class warfare. You always here the no service cuts period mantra from people under the progressive label.
However, the "progressive" choice for mayor is willing to attack the one city service that is seen as an upper class activity, and that is golf courses. I mean she is not advocating for a systematic review of other potentially unneeded city services, she is only looking at golf courses.

The only real explanation to me is that they don't think that poor people should have a chance to play golf. I would be more willing to accept this from a libertarian candidate but I will not accept this line from a candidate who pushes large government everywhere except golf courses. Why single this out as a major policy platform?

Imagine if Tory said we are going to consider cutting funding to womens shelters only because they are underused(hypotehrtical situation). The outcry would be enormous, even if it was 100% justifiable.

Why is it not possible to have a thoughtful conversation about City owned golf course without 'warfare' being brought into it?

That to me is such gross hyperbole.

If we discuss the number of Cricket facilities is there a war on Brits, Kiwis and South Asians?

If we discuss the number of pools is it a war on swimmers (who by the way are disproportionately Caucasian)

If we discuss the number of yoga classes it is a gender/sex war? (apologies to male adherents).

There is no war, its a rational conversation on how to invest limited public dollars.

Before you tell me that public courses allow the poor to play golf, let me point out the cost of a round varies from $30-$70 per person, plus, you have to rent equipment if you don't own it, which most low-income earners will not.

If you want to argue it would be good if low-income earners had access to golf, then your going to have to argue for new subsidies to lower fees.

If you want to do that, I think that's fine and applaud your consistency.

But I would advise that its not anti-elite or anti-poor to ask if that would be the most useful investment if the same amount of money would allow low-income kids another week of summer camp, or give another 2,000 kids access to after school programs.

Its a reasonable debate to have without hyperbolic pejoratives being thrown around.

 

[adma]

Frankly, it's hard for me to think of a sporting activity whose "public" disappearance would be *less* lamented than golf. So it becomes a more "elite" pursuit? Big deal. Let it be.

 

[pman]

Why is it not possible to have a thoughtful conversation about City owned golf course without 'warfare' being brought into it?

That to me is such gross hyperbole.

If we discuss the number of Cricket facilities is there a war on Brits, Kiwis and South Asians?

If we discuss the number of pools is it a war on swimmers (who by the way are disproportionately Caucasian)

If we discuss the number of yoga classes it is a gender/sex war? (apologies to male adherents).

There is no war, its a rational conversation on how to invest limited public dollars.

Before you tell me that public courses allow the poor to play golf, let me point out the cost of a round varies from $30-$70 per person, plus, you have to rent equipment if you don't own it, which most low-income earners will not.

If you want to argue it would be good if low-income earners had access to golf, then your going to have to argue for new subsidies to lower fees.

If you want to do that, I think that's fine and applaud your consistency.

But I would advise that its not anti-elite or anti-poor to ask if that would be the most useful investment if the same amount of money would allow low-income kids another week of summer camp, or give another 2,000 kids access to after school programs.

Its a reasonable debate to have without hyperbolic pejoratives being thrown around.

I think it’s not possible to have a reasonable conversation on golf courses without invoking class war because that’s our society’s default mode of discourse. The left frames almost every public policy issue in terms of identity-based grievances, excoriating people like whites, heterosexuals, males and the gainfully employed along the way, and throwing around ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense. While I don’t play golf, I would guess its devotees are disproportionately white, old, male and middle class - people normally the targets of SJW rage. So all of a sudden a bunch of old white guys throw back some of the shit that’s been continually hurled at them over the past few years and the left is...offended? Really??? Good on them for crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of stupid. Identity politics and hysterical exaggeration shouldn’t only be the preserve of the left.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Millennials are killing golf.

As one such millennial, I am fine with seeing some of the golf courses re-evaluated for a better, more accessible public use.

 

[Richard White]

Millennials are killing golf.

As one such millennial, I am fine with seeing some of the golf courses re-evaluated for a better, more accessible public use.

Golf is a game for the older generation. Now people don't have time to spend an entire day on the links.

 

[Richard White]

First I've seen her signs but Iaugh at her slogan..

 

[Northern Light]

I think it’s not possible to have a reasonable conversation on golf courses without invoking class war because that’s our society’s default mode of discourse.

For better or worse, UT is not representative of society at large; lets not use that as an excuse for how we converse.

The left frames almost every public policy issue in terms of identity-based grievances, excoriating people like whites, heterosexuals, males and the gainfully employed along the way, and throwing around ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense. While I don’t play golf, I would guess its devotees are disproportionately white, old, male and middle class - people normally the targets of SJW rage.

What SJW rage was posted in this forum, on this thread? Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember anyone slagging whites, older folks, men or rich people in the course of this discussion. There's simply no need to take it there.

So all of a sudden a bunch of old white guys throw back some of the shit that’s been continually hurled at them over the past few years and the left is...offended? Really??? Good on them for crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of stupid. Identity politics and hysterical exaggeration shouldn’t only be the preserve of the left.

What bunch of old white guys? This was a discussion involving one poster, who certainly I, and I expect most UT'ers know very little in respect of their demographics.

***

@pman while you and I would not agree on all matters of public policy, we have a agreed on several, and even where we disagree, I've often found you to be a thoughtful contributor to conversations here at UT; this was not your shining moment.

Extrapolating a discussion point which need not be a left-right one (the future of City owned golf courses) and somehow making it not only about ideological struggle and class warfare but also imagining that every poster whose position on this issue might differ from your own also needs to be branded as both 'the left' and 'SJW' and further that that merits slagging them and then using that as justification for spewing hyperbole is just not on.

I know you can do better.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 160231

First I've seen her signs but Iaugh at her slogan..

Substitute any other Mayor Candidate and put this slogan at the bottom:

Keeping Toronto Safe from Faith Goldy.