Look hating on golf is fun, but the point isn't that the public cannot or should not have great amenities, including sports amenities, maybe even golf! (sorry @abbieasr)

It's that the resources & land required per person who will use them.. matters! 1/..

Things that are expensive in land or resources.. are expensive in land & resources, no matter how u structure ownership!

Under any political & economic system we can have high quality, affordable & available to all:
Food
Housing
Clothing
Electricity
Sidewalks
etc

2/..

It's far from clear that under any political & economic system, we could have high quality, affordable & available to all:
Submarines
Giant yachts
Golf courses

3/..

U may point at your municipal golf course & say, "but it exists & provides affordable & available golf now!" but it only works because few use them.

There's enough land to build public pools to let everyone swim.
There could never be enough land for everyone to golf.
4/..

Somewhere between submarines & sidewalks there's a debate to be had abt what are sensible uses of public resources. No perfect answers to this, but when we debate them, we should not shy from asking how much land is needed per person & what else the land would support. 5/..

So bringing this all back to @CityofVancouver @ParkBoard does that mean the only way forward is to immediately ban golf? No. But it does mean that saner use of public land might mean, for example, only 1 course instead of 3, maybe it's 9 hole. And no submarines, sorry. 6/fin