News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

Would you support the River Valley becoming an Urban National Park?


  • Total voters
    44
Park system is generally fine. If you want to spend more money improving parks go for it, but we really don't need more parks.
Says who?

Golf courses are well used, and shouldn't be going away any time soon to make for even more public parks. Have no idea what this push is to get rid of golf courses from people, seems like a pretty strange proposal.
Golf courses are not nearly as well used as parks would be, by not nearly as many people. The push to get rid of gold courses is simply due to the very excluding nature of the sport, their high maintenance costs, the absurd amount of space they take, to benefit a fairly small number of people, on land that could be much better used by the general public.

Probably the same cohort that wants more money spent on bike lines I assume.
And your colours show. I won't even bother commenting on this, because your positioning speaks for itself.
 
There is no shortage of parks. There is not overcrowding at a single park in the city.

And golf courses are pretty great. We could use more courses, not less. So yeah, I guess the game is exclusive, just like private vehicles are exclusive. In all honesty, so what? It's nice to have nice things in the city.
 
There is no shortage of parks. There is not overcrowding at a single park in the city.

And golf courses are pretty great. We could use more courses, not less. So yeah, I guess the game is exclusive, just like private vehicles are exclusive. In all honesty, so what? It's nice to have nice things in the city.
Try to find a table at Hawrelak on a hot summer afternoon, it's not easy (or possible, often).
 
To illustrate the problem here's a map (I only included courses in the main North Saskatchewan Valley which are inside the Henday as these generally speaking are the worst offenders):
EdmontonRiverValleyGolfCOurse.jpg


I calculated over 3 thousand square kilometers of our River Valley dedicated to golf courses. Compare this to the amount dedicated to any other sport (which most are far more used) and it's simply ridiculous. Imagine if we had 3 thousand square kilometers of pickleball courts in the River Valley, now that would certainly be a sight.
 
There is no shortage of parks. There is not overcrowding at a single park in the city.

And golf courses are pretty great. We could use more courses, not less. So yeah, I guess the game is exclusive, just like private vehicles are exclusive. In all honesty, so what? It's nice to have nice things in the city.
Oh, so we should have more public land dedicated to entertaining a very exclusive group of people, at the detriment of having uses that benefit the population at large?

Also, depends on who you ask. To me, golf courses absolutely suck. A complete waste of space, with no real use other than having huge swats of land lightly stomped on for a few short months every year, by a handful of entitled folks. Not to mention the loss of natural habitats to what is basically an overextended front yard with two dozen holes, all for a sport that is about as exciting as watching paint dry (I would say watching grass grow, but we don't get that because the most active folks in a gold course are the people mowing the grass).

We might not have overcrowding parks, but we do lack public spaces for the practice of sports, especially in our central areas. A few soccer/football pitches, baseball diamonds, tennis, volleyball and basketball courts (that could become ice rinks in the winter) that could serve Downtown and Oliver (which have absolutely no public spaces for these purposes) would benefit far more people than a massive golf course. Golf is an extremely elitist, space demanding sport, that does not justify the amount of space it uses for the amount of people it benefits, especially in the areas that they currently occupy.
 
Would it be possible to get City Council to publish the financials for the 3 city owned courses? IMO the private courses are untouchable (as much as I dislike them) but it seems like we should be able to make a case that the City shouldn't be subsidizing the operation of 3 city owned courses in our shared river valley. If any of them are unprofitable that seems like a slam dunk to push for a shut down. Imagine how good Victoria or Riverside would be as a Hawrelak comparable park!
 
Country Clubs -- if you bother to check them out -- often contain many other sport activities such as curling, tennis, and yes, even pickle ball. They do have membership fees -- granted -- but they are businesses that need cash to sustain their existence.
1697643031463.png
 
Country Clubs -- if you bother to check them out -- often contain many other sport activities such as curling, tennis, and yes, even pickle ball. They do have membership fees -- granted -- but they are businesses that need cash to sustain their existence.
View attachment 513869
The problem is, as you said you need a membership. In a time of economic hardship, there is a large percentage of the population who simply can't afford that. If you're living paycheck to paycheck as many of us are it's simply not feasible to purchase a country club membership. Do those people deserve access to quality sporting facilities any less than the lucky few who can afford it? It's much better to have these services provided by the city, so people can simply go to the park and do it, no membership, entrance fee or otherwise.
 
Would it be possible to get City Council to publish the financials for the 3 city owned courses? IMO the private courses are untouchable (as much as I dislike them) but it seems like we should be able to make a case that the City shouldn't be subsidizing the operation of 3 city owned courses in our shared river valley. If any of them are unprofitable that seems like a slam dunk to push for a shut down. Imagine how good Victoria or Riverside would be as a Hawrelak comparable park!
When you think of it, Hawrelak could more than double its size, if it were not for the golf course (which, sadly, is private).
I could get behind keeping ONE of the public gold courses (Rundle, most likely), it's worthy to note that I find it absolutely preposterous that we ceded so much of the river valley space to private golf courses.
 
Country Clubs -- if you bother to check them out -- often contain many other sport activities such as curling, tennis, and yes, even pickle ball. They do have membership fees -- granted -- but they are businesses that need cash to sustain their existence.
View attachment 513869
For a measly $5000 entry fee, annual fees that can be in excess of that amount, and a substantial tax subsidy (in the form of Lowe property taxes than anything that occupies the same space), that does seem like a very reasonable choice for the average citizen. And that was for the cheapest I could find, out of the Country Clubs in Edmonton... the most expensive, such as the Royal Mayfair, are so outrageously expensive that I refuse to even post the numbers, as they're obscene.
 
Would it be possible to get City Council to publish the financials for the 3 city owned courses? IMO the private courses are untouchable (as much as I dislike them) but it seems like we should be able to make a case that the City shouldn't be subsidizing the operation of 3 city owned courses in our shared river valley. If any of them are unprofitable that seems like a slam dunk to push for a shut down. Imagine how good Victoria or Riverside would be as a Hawrelak comparable park!

Basically, they all lose money for the City, with the exception of Victoria's driving course.
 
When you think of it, Hawrelak could more than double its size, if it were not for the golf course (which, sadly, is private).
I could get behind keeping ONE of the public gold courses (Rundle, most likely), it's worthy to note that I find it absolutely preposterous that we ceded so much of the river valley space to private golf courses.
I would be OK with Mayfair, if we actually charged them anything in the realm of fair $ value for their lease. The City of Edmonton heavily subsidizes the Mayfair by leasing them the land for literally peanuts--something to the tune of $350/acre per year for the best parkland available in this town.

And I'm not an anti-golf guy. I worked at a golf course for years as a teen and I like golf. But there are over 100+ gorgeous golf courses within 50 km radius of Edmonton. Is it really such a killer if we free up some more prime river valley park land?
 

Back
Top