Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
In many Canadian cities, a private golf course would not survive if there was a free market for land. They need government regulation or subsidy (like, why are there even city-run golf courses?) or both.
We're at the point now where governments in municipalities have to designate the most exclusive golf courses as "heritage landscapes" to prevent their owners from selling the land to residential developers.
|
Municipal politics often get weird around green space and recreation. Another area is hockey rinks and the idea that it's a core job of municipalities to provide ice time for amateur and/or professional hockey teams. I think that municipalities should try to provide greenspace and recreational opportunities for residents but the costs of the activities and their popularity should be taken into account. If golf requires 100x more land than say basketball then maybe golf isn't a good activity for high land value areas. It's unreasonable to demand certain amenities in a vacuum without regard for costs and demand.
In Halifax there's a small minority of greenspace activists who have an outsized voice in the media. They are treated like the experts on parks and the local journalists apparently have them on speed dial. The median person in this group appears to be a 60-something professor who owns a Victorian-era house with a backyard. You rarely hear from the 20-something single mother with little kids or teenaged apartment dwellers. The park professors don't like if the city decides, say, to replace 2% of the dog walking area they use once every 2 weeks with a skate park that ends up packed every day; they consider that the ruination of a nice quiet park. The perspective on golf reminds me of this. Yes, there are people who really like golf, but what is the overall sentiment and demand, and what's the best possible use? Are we really hearing from everybody, or just special interests?