The logic here is that golf is a recreational service and should not be the sole domain of the rich. We are, after all, talking about recreation - something that is firmly within the city's wheelhouse. Let's not kid ourselves: profit shouldn't be the only motivating factor when gauging the value of municipal services. Not everything a municipality does has to make money. Certainly nothing to write home amount considering the opportunity costs of keeping the courses in place. In total, Toronto's five courses only generated $521,000 as recently as 2012. Toronto, for instance, has one course - Dentonia Park - that lost $822,000 between 20. How much? Of London's three courses, two ran small deficits, but the third - Thames Valley - ran a $59,000 surplus in 2014.įew other cities can seem to squeeze a profit from their courses. After many years of hemorrhaging cash, some of London's courses are generating a profit and contributing to the city's capital reserves. Proponents may look down Highway 401 to London to see some money-generating municipal courses. Currently, they are not, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that these courses could, in fact, earn their keep at some time in the future. They could generate substantial income for the city. How much is being lost? It's hard to say precisely, but what we do know is that we are currently losing money reserving the land for golfing.īut, of course, a municipally-owned golf course could make money. Using almost 500 acres of prime urban land for golf courses means the city cannot collect tax revenue on the productive use of this land. Land is the most valuable commodity a city has squandering it and not pricing it properly is a shame.Īlong with this, of course, comes opportunity cost. The question, of course, is what else could be done with this land? The possibilities are endless, but dedicating this space to one activity limits the potential of the area, while adding to land scarcity nearby and driving up the cost of housing. King's Forest Golf Course (Image Credit: Google Maps) King's Forest is slightly larger at 250 acres. Take Chedoke, for example, which consumes just over 220 acres and rests in the middle of established neighbourhoods like Abderdeen and Westdale and is adjacent to the McMaster Innovation Park. Hamilton's courses fall into this category. Instead, municipally-owned courses are usually in fairly well-established areas and, therefore, close to the city core. If these large courses were placed in rural areas, the problem would likely not be so bad. The most obvious thing about golf courses is that they are large.
Whether the courses generate a profit or not, there are some very good reasons why Hamilton - or any city for that matter - should question the continued existence of municipally-owned golf courses.
Nearly absent from this debate, however, was any discussion of why Hamilton should remain in the golf business. The proposed solution? Cut some green fees and occasionally offer last-minute deals to lure more customers.
#HAMMER GOLF CLUB LESSONS HOW TO#
In short, fewer people are using the courses and the city is looking for ways to bolster revenue and turned to a group called "Global Golf Advisors" to provide advice on how to do so. The debate has centered on what to do with these two facilities. The city owns two: Chedoke, on Aberdeen Road, and King's Forest, near the Red Hill Valley Parkway.Ĭhedoke Golf Course (Image Credit: Google Maps) Why is Hamilton in the golf business? This past week, Hamilton City Council has taken time to debate its municipally-owned golf courses.
Commentary City Should Consider Getting Out of Golf BusinessĪs city after city regularly confronts their lethargic, money-losing golf courses, the debate always focuses on how to improve them, rather than whether they still serve a purpose.
0 kommentar(er)
