Save Strathcona Golf Course

Is it too much to ask for a course to be profitable? No doubt the city courses are grossly mismanaged by charging ultra high green fees that force golfers to play elsewhere. But if they aren't going to develop a plan to profit from it then may as well sell. Maybe this will cause a shortage of tee times in the city in the short term, but it's clear what is happening now is not working. 

Love golf, but the prices being charged at these city courses is nothing to love. Sell. 

As many do not know, both Chapples and Strathcona was donated to the city for the purpose of community recreation.  As stated by golfingnews.ca--

"[Strathcona] The golf course was founded in 1925 with the property being donated by Lord Strathcona and the Strathcona family," "This land used to be a tree farm and then they cut nine holes into it. A few years later the other nine were constructed."

"Chapples was opened in 1949 and named after Clem Chapples, who was instrumental in its formation through the donation of land."

This was a donation by families of Thunder Bay's past to benefit the recreational use and community involvement.  Not everything should be based on substantial profit.  As a community we must also be committed to active and social clubs, bringing in healthy life style and building communal relationships.  

I do not believe the families of Lord Strathcona and Clem Chapples desired their land to be sold to multi-million dollar corporations to sub-divide lots and establish a "housing development".  I am no property lawyer--but maybe there are some covenants in place restricting the use of land for such desire.  

I love that public course. I have been golfing there since 1988' besides it being a very challenging course to play on. I love being a club member for 23' years because of the many men club tournaments and the comradery with the guys is always a blast. The "(Men & Ladies clubs)" are great and very friendly..!!

#10: Member -  

 amen!

#9: Jp - Supply and demand 

 Perhaps instead of blindly selling an asset - an asset that was profitable for City coffers for many years - perhaps a hard look at management structures and practices needs to be done. There have been no changes to the practices in many years, I would suggest trying to find alternative ways to make this business model profitable or at very least break-even. This is not an impossibility, and losing an asset like this without even attempting to fix it would be an absolutely travesty. 

#21: -  

 We have many facilities that are subsidized by the city ie the complex, the community auditorium,parks etc.  As a community, we as residents need places to enjoy for ourselves and our children.  If we decide to close every facility that's not profitable this would be a sad place to live.

#19: -