Editor,
I have seen some of the letters to the editor, and it feels pretty obvious to me that people who don't want Peace Portal to change are golfers, and those who would prefer most of it to be a park are not golfers. The ALR conversation seems like a red herring since it has never been farmed and certainly can't be farmed while people are golfing. And while I appreciate the golf history on the land, nothing is forever … except a park. Parkland is the one thing that never changes because the land would move from private ownership to public ownership.
As I understand it, the golf course sits on 14 titles of land, and if this proposal of development and parkland fails, then it would likely become 14 estate lots, with no public input or zoning change. So either way, there would be no golf.
The fact of the matter is that although people have played golf there for a long time, it is a commercial relationship. It is no different than being disappointed that your favourite restaurant is closing. This point highlights the problem with private land compared to public land. More public land is much better for the health of the community now and for future generations.
Martha Hopkins