Golf Course Redevelopment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justbuildit said:
Otherwise-sedentary suburban golf dads are the actual secret cabal that runs the world, from law enforcement to finance to permitting to politics. I say this only half-sarcastically, but the only way they'll give up their 7 iron is if you pry it from their single-gloved cold dead hands. It's a losing battle, my friend. I agree it's terrrrrrible land use in an urban setting but you might as well try to cancel St. Patrick's Day.
Click to expand...

Man, not quite ready for a victory lap here but it is clear that golf courses are off limits, even for a pro development crowd. Got my popcorn in hand!
 
There's something to be said for just simply preserving some open space in urban areas, even if it is for something as lame and limited as a golf course. Bottom line is that it is preserved as open space, so present and future generations may see a welcome interval of nature and openness amidst the urban sprawl.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
There seems to be some serious group think among extreme liberals about golf courses that's sprouted up in the last few years and honestly it's offensive to me as a fellow liberal. Talking points like this one and few others make the left sound crazy and anti fun and ultimately hurts the cause. Like someone else said, are you going to argue against cemeteries next? Should we go thru all of the local town, state and national parks that are rarely used? There's a ton of them
Click to expand...

Your choice to frame my comment as a partisan talking point is indicative that you're approaching this discussion in bad faith.
 
Justbuildit said:
Man, not quite ready for a victory lap here but it is clear that golf courses are off limits, even for a pro development crowd. Got my popcorn in hand!
Click to expand...

Take the victory lap. It might be preferable to drink a gallon of bleach if the alternative is to take on the memberships of TCC, Charles River, and Brae Burn in a battle for what's theirs.
 
themissinglink said:
That's funny, considering how your comment was a major deflection of the question I had been asking. Why should golf courses be off-limits in a discussion about what's left to build on?
Click to expand...
It was pretty damn clear yes they're off limits because it's crazy talk by fringe folk who have an axe to grind
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Huh? You're changing my replies now?
Click to expand...

You edited your comment almost immediately after you posted it. Quickly enough for the "Last Edited" tag to not appear at the bottom of your comment. It's immature to falsely accuse me of "changing your reply" when you obviously knew that you edited your comment after I replied to it. This is the exact kind of bad-faith posting that I singled you out for earlier.

Suffolk 83 said:
yes they're off limits because it's crazy talk by fringe folk who have an axe to grind
Click to expand...

Are the developers of Regency at Glen Ellen and Bungay Brook Estates "fringe people who have an axe to grind"? Are you implying that golf course redevelopments are primarily undertaken out of spite against golfers?
 
Last edited:
IMO two things can be true at once:

(Urban) Golf courses are a horrible land use.
&
A landowner should have every right to underutilize their property.

However, I think it is reasonable that private golf courses should pay their appropriate property tax, which doesn't appear to be the case as most are incorporated as nonprofits.
While l don’t dislike golf, l also don’t think the taxpayer should be subsiding inefficient land use either; given the value of the land inside 128 courses occupy, I’m assuming its a heavy subsidy.

Other than that, let the market / individuals sort it out. My hunch is at least most of the ones inside 128 would be redeveloped once they saw the tax bill.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Who hurt you?
Click to expand...
Funny, but still a personal jab, which is exactly what I’m talking about. No personal responsibility, just lashing out at those who disagree.
I found that the Venn Diagram of People who are Fucking Up The World and golf enthusiasts is a pretty solid overlap. I also find that they usually don’t see their part in hastening our demise. And they are steadfast in that lack of reflection and in solid denial about any new information that threatens their norms. The real snowflakes are at ‘The 19th Hole’ or some other moronic pun waaaaaay after closing time.
Also acceptable… Mulligan’s or Bogey’s or some other sub par name. Damn… Golf humor really does suck.
Notice no personal insults above. Just me insulting golf and golfers as a group.

Who hurt me? Short answer: Rich fucks. Who golf.
 
themissinglink said:
You edited your comment almost immediately after you posted it. Quickly enough for the "Last Edited" tag to not appear at the bottom of your comment. It's immature to falsely accuse me of "changing your reply" when you obviously knew that you edited your comment after I replied to it. This is the exact kind of bad-faith posting that I singled you out for earlier.



Are the developers of Regency at Glen Ellen and Bungay Brook Estates "fringe people who have an axe to grind"? Are you implying that golf course redevelopments are primarily undertaken out of spite against golfers?
Click to expand...

I really didn't argue in bad faith the first time as I answered your silly obvious question but you're angry I called you out for exactly what you are. What is with this odd subset of people who hate golf courses? Did you learn it in an urban design course? Are incapable of not letting perfect get in the way of good? Do you not realize there's lots of more reasonable ways of building housing? Do you have a fundamental misunderstanding
of golf? (It can be played for far cheaper than hockey for example) your wildly, wildly unpopular opinion which you're far outnumbered by people who like golf, does in fact make you seem unhinged. Comparing what private developers do to make money and nerds who argue golf courses should be banned is a great example of a bad faith argument. -- and maybe you never said golf courses should be banned specifically yourself, but it seems pretty clear what your opinion is
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I really didn't argue in bad faith the first time as I answered your silly obvious question but you're angry I called you out for exactly what you are. What is with this odd subset of people who hate golf courses? Did you learn it in an urban design course? Are incapable of not letting perfect get in the way of good? Do you not realize there's lots of more reasonable ways of building housing? Do you have a fundamental misunderstanding
of golf? (It can be played for far cheaper than hockey for example) your wildly, wildly unpopular opinion which you're far outnumbered by people who like golf, does in fact make you seem unhinged. Comparing what private developers do to make money and nerds who argue golf courses should be banned is a great example of a bad faith argument. -- and maybe you never said golf courses should be banned specifically yourself, but it seems pretty clear what your opinion is
Click to expand...

I asked a straightforward question (which was directed at somebody else) and you responded with unwarranted hostility. You are clearly the angry one here, not me.

Exactly what is this "wildly, wildly unpopular opinion" of mine that has angered you so much? I never said or implied that I hate or want to ban golf courses. Seems like you're just lashing out over nothing at this point.
 
themissinglink said:
I asked a straightforward question (which was directed at somebody else) and you responded with unwarranted hostility. You are clearly the angry one here, not me.

Exactly what is this "wildly, wildly unpopular opinion" of mine that has angered you so much? I never said or implied that I hate or want to ban golf courses. Seems like you're just lashing out over nothing at this point.
Click to expand...
You just want to argue and troll I knew it several posts ago but played the game. Good luck to you
 
Charlie_mta said:
welcome interval of nature and openness
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought we were talking about golf courses?

I understand the politics around this and I'm not going to be leading any charges or anything, but if we're talking about it anyways... I live right around the Woodland/Brae Burn cluster in the south part of Auburndale, and they're wildly negative-value open space for the neighborhood. You can't really even walk through them, never mind congregate with others, bring your children or pets, use it for community activities, etc. Woodland is the worse offender, if only because it has the frontage on the two main roads and is central in an area that could use a giant local outdoor open space (like most of the rest of Newton has access to). They're black holes unless you're a member, in what's otherwise a great neighborhood to push a stroller, go for a run, walk a dog down random side streets and see where you end up. The Comm Ave carriageway is a more welcoming open space than the golf courses, and it's not particularly close.
 
I'd be in favor of just acquiring all the golf courses inside Route 128 with eminent domain and converting them into parkland, similar in concept to London's Green Belt. I would not want to see them developed into housing tracts, commercial or whatever. Keep them in perpetuity as natural preserves for trails, wildlife, and park use.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I would not want to see them developed into housing tracts, commercial or whatever.
Click to expand...

I think that's kind of the point. As long as it remains a Golf Course, it won't be developed on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top