In the article, JPags manages to find a single, older woman who apparently is the pro-golf lobby group leader; and someone on the opposing side who wants the courses to be mostly farms/allotments.
Sigh. The former, I have some measure of sympathy for in terms of wanting to advocate for something she enjoys; but she comes off as too fierce w/o an understanding of what others need in the community; while the latter doesn't
seem to understand why you can't put food-growing at the floodplain level.
For the record on that one, its not so much that your veggies might end up under water...........its first and foremost, what's in that water (combine sewer overflow)..........
Second, there are some common food plants which can be non-native, invasive, that is an issue for a fragile environment.
I'm completely pro community gardens........
But advocates for all types of concerns annoy me when they don't listen to other parties, or get their facts straight.
Meanwhile, City staff, who for better or worse (depending on your position) clearly were out to defend golf; and offer up 1/2 of Dentonia as a sop to quiet the opposition, have done themselves few favours by having
an overly skewed process and a report that's light on facts and arguments and doesn't have much to say about trails elsewhere either.
You end up with people on every side angry.
***
As I noted, while I would like to have seen more ambition on trails, some golf space trimmed back at at least one other course; I'm not completely unhappy with progress; assuming this passes.