• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    There isn’t any context on where this is, but:

    • there aren’t enough golf courses to really impact housing supply
    • parks and recreational facilities also serve a societal good assuming they’re accessible and serve the community as a whole
    • golf courses aren’t usually located along transit
    • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      1 and 3 are not good reasons not to try something like this. 2 feels like bad faith because this isn’t either of those things, it’s a golf course. Less than a quarter of golf courses in the US are freely open to the public, and a quarter of them are members only. That’s thousands of golf courses that are taking up space/land and water and returning next to nothing of value to the community or the environment, or worse than nothing in many cases.

      Source for numbers: https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/study-percentage-of-public-vs-private-courses-in-the-us/

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      There are enough to reduce housing supply issues.

      Private golf courses provide little to no benefit to anyone especially after we factor in the environmental costs.

      Golf courses not being on pubic transit is the only part I agree with.