05-31-2020, 03:53 PM
(05-31-2020, 02:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(05-31-2020, 02:32 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: They don’t have to be. City-owned golf courses are for the benefit of the citizens of the City; if a greater benefit can be had by opening them for walking than by opening them for golfing, then they should be for walking.
I'm not saying I disagree, but it's not fair to say it's as simple as just opening them for walking while they were closed for golf.
My point is that the fact that they are now open for golfing is irrelevant. If the walking is a higher public benefit (total value for the citizens of the City), then that is what they should be used for.