Skip to content

LETTER: Are we really going to sacrifice a 97-year-old golf course?

Hills at Portal redevelopment plans make no sense for Surrey taxpayers
web1_231012-pan-golf-clara-ding-win_1
The Hills at Portal golf course in South Surrey during a youth championship in October 2023. Plans to redevelop the golf course land aren't sitting well with this White Rock letter writer. (Tricia Weel/Peace Arch News files)

Editor,

Further to the letter from R.W. Davies in the Jan. 9 edition of the Peace Arch News.

I have been playing golf at Peace Portal Golf Course for the past 25 years, as well as quite active in their Ladies Club for many of those years.

It seemed the owners rarely played at their own course. So the conclusion that they were avid golfers is questionable, and if they did play golf, rarely did they play at what would be called their "working man's" golf course.

Further, the owners hardly cobbled together their last $30M, as both are highly successful businessmen, with one an co-owner of Bocci Lighting and a land speculator, the other owned multiple car dealerships.

As highly successful businessmen, one would presume that since neither had ever owned or operated a golf course or a restaurant, due diligence would have been the first order of business. That would include reviewing, along with their financial advisors and lawyers, the financial statements for several prior years of Peace Portal Golf Course before making their final offer.  Like any new homeowner, one must practise due diligence and budget for future unforeseen expenses, particularly if you undertake a renovation.

I speculate the release of prime land out of the ALR and donating 100 acres to parkland has been in the works for well over four years.  The prime land on the flats of this 150 acres will indeed have Surrey’s most expensive residential real estate.  On the other hand, the annual upkeep for the parkland will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as the drainage in the valleys is so poor the area is underwater many days during each winter.

I was a part of a group of ladies who met with one of the owners (at their request) prior to the public meeting on Nov. 28. We came away astonished that this highly successful businessman felt the need to explain the situation and rationale for this action.

When asked why not sell, there was no response.  To my knowledge, no effort has been made to re sell the course even though at the time of the original purchase, there were several bids put forward.

Are we really going to sacrifice a 97-year-old golf course so that multi millions can be made at taxpayers' expense without a fight. Not likely!

Audrey Johansson, White Rock