Save our Golf Course

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Feb 2006, 10:58

Seems Portobello Golf Club have started their campaign. A banner has been erected at Milton Road.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:22

So where's your banner going?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Feb 2006, 19:51

Don't tempt me!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Feb 2006, 12:11

Epykat wrote:So where's your banner going?

Interesting point. I believe the banner had nout to do with the Golf Club, so whose was it and where has it gone?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 04 Feb 2006, 13:07

Maybe it's away for a rewording - "Support Your New East Lothian Golf Course!"

sample808 · Post by **sample808** » 17 May 2006, 14:58

i too hold a heavy disdain for golf as an activity. it is anti-social and claims green space that could be used by all (you cannot picnic on a golf course, although i still try...)

so why has a proposal for a new golf course been tagged onto the end of the pfans proposal? it seems very unpopular and, lets face it, we live in scotland where golf is pretty well provided for.

i also don't buy the view that the loss of this one public course will deprive us of the next tiger woods. i don't think poor kids play golf they just like to carry the clubs about...

i think the pfans proposal should u-turn on this issue or that a new petition should be started: to rid green spaces from the dangerous tyranny of the little white ball.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 18 May 2006, 02:49

sample808 wrote:it is anti-social and claims green space that could be used by all

Sorry but I disagree. Golf is an excellent social pastime which allows initial strangers to communicate with each other when teamed up for a game of golf. Many strong relationships have been formed on a golf course.

you cannot picnic on a golf course.

Why would you want to picnic on a golf course?

so why has a proposal for a new golf course been tagged onto the end of the pfans proposal? it seems very unpopular and, lets face it, we live in scotland where golf is pretty well provided for.

Do you not think the children of portobello are entitled to this local facility?

i also don't buy the view that the loss of this one public course will deprive us of the next tiger woods. i don't think poor kids play golf they just like to carry the clubs about...

Most children hate carrying the clubs about and just want to play. We are not expecting child prodigies from Portobello Golf Course, we just want the children and adults to enjoy the fresh air, take some exercise and enjoy the game of golf. Do you know of any professional golfer who took up the game as an adult?

i think the pfans proposal should u-turn on this issue or that a new petition should be started: to rid green spaces from the dangerous tyranny of the little white ball.

There are many minority sports and it would be a sad world if everyone enjoyed the same pastimes. Any sport should be encouraged. The Figgate park is white ball-less, and quite picnic friendly...

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 18 May 2006, 08:57

Golf at Portobello Park, in terms of tee times booked has declined by 12% over the last 3 years.

I cant speak for PFANS but it is clearly apparent from the councils proposal that we can have our schools if no new golf course is built. The proposal on the table does not include any money for a new course and no proceeds from house sales. So in other words if the community said they were happy not to have a golf course then they could start planning tomorrow and the schools would be there in 3 or 4 years time.

I do not believe PFANS would support this, indeed, as you say, they are campaigning for a new course. As for me? Well that's quite a different matter.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 18 May 2006, 17:41

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Golf at Portobello Park, in terms of tee times booked has declined by 12% over the last 3 years.

This could be due to the general increase in the number of golf courses being developed. Waiting lists are getting shorter in many golf clubs. In fact some clubs have no waiting list at all. I don't think the decline in terms of tee times booked is due to a decrease in the number of people playing golf.

I cant speak for PFANS but it is clearly apparent from the councils proposal that we can have our schools if no new golf course is built. The proposal on the table does not include any money for a new course and no proceeds from house sales. So in other words if the community said they were happy not to have a golf course then they could start planning tomorrow and the schools would be there in 3 or 4 years time.

I do not believe PFANS would support this, indeed, as you say, they are campaigning for a new course. As for me? Well that's quite a different matter.

If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for. I suppose it all comes down to people's priorities in life.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 14:47

Mate of Marya wrote: If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for. I suppose it all comes down to people's priorities in life.

There can't be many communities or indeed enviromentally conscious people who would prioritise a 120 member golf club at the heart of the community and site a facility for 1450 children on the outskirts.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 15:49

If it's down to a straight comparison, if you're developing on a site which isn't in use then it is a straight choice between A and B - and if A is golf and B is education then it would be reasonable to say that people whould choose education and there wouldn't be any real controversy.

Here, however, it would seem that A got there first, and that it's quite reasonable to object to B being built on top of A.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 15:59

Funnily enough B got there first. A came along a couple of decades later.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 May 2006, 16:04

Porty wrote:Funnily enough B got there first. A came along a couple of decades later.

I'm addressing the current situation.

As it stands, A is there just now. Therefore when you talk about B, it holds true to say "A got there first" where one's time frame begins with the start of this thread.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 16:21

Ok fair enough.

However, now the community has a choice to make: Move the 1450 children out to the edge of the community, with all of the cost, financial and environmental, with all of the safety risks and all of the inconvenience or move the Golfers, who come from far and wide, 1.8km and there's only 120 of them. That's what prioritsing is.

When the council purchased tha land at Portobello Park a Golf Course and Park were the only prioity, now its not. "We were here first" is about the only truthful argument PGC have come up with so far and even then its a technicality, either way, its not going to work, neither it should.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 19 May 2006, 16:54

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:Funnily enough B got there first. A came along a couple of decades later.

So when does T time fit in?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 May 2006, 17:19

There is a certain irony in the fact that while some local residents are trying to preserve the golf course for families, dog walkers etc., nationally golfers are trying to 'manage' public access to golf courses ; see this link to a BBC article Turf wars over Scottish golf courses

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 19 May 2006, 17:29

Anyone know whats the public access policy to the golf course in Portobello Park is?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 May 2006, 19:33

Gilo wrote:Anyone know whats the public access policy to the golf course in Portobello Park is?

As a child I recall getting harrased for setting foot on the course without a club in my hand. I preseume because its a public course any member of the public can traverse?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 May 2006, 20:37

sample808 wrote:i too hold a heavy disdain for golf as an activity. it is anti-social and claims green space that could be used by all (you cannot picnic on a golf course, although i still try...).

I presume you feel the same way about football/rugby pitches then? You can't picnic on them either after all.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 May 2006, 20:39

Porty wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote: If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for. I suppose it all comes down to people's priorities in life.
There can't be many communities or indeed enviromentally conscious people who would prioritise a 120 member golf club at the heart of the community and site a facility for 1450 children on the outskirts.

Porty dear, has your record got stuck?

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 19 May 2006, 22:30

I'm with the good Samuel Clemens in the belief that golf is a good walk ruined.

Give the space back to the people. Let the golfers go reclaim the course on Uist!

sample808 · Post by **sample808** » 18 Jun 2006, 16:50

sorry mate of marya, have been away or i would have replied earlier.

but where to start... i find golf to be a nepotistic and socially exclusive sport and it is this that forms my objection to the game.

a golf course takes up an extremely large area of green space for its purposes, supposedly this space is free for all to use. i would like to picnic on a golf course because it is my right to do so and your comment on this only serves to point out how exclusive golf can be.

i do not object to football/rugby pitches because these tend to use a defined area within a green space that everyone CAN use.

i think your point about "depriving local children" is a bit strange considering the fact that you would deprive them of an education ("If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for") an odd priority if you ask me but perhaps you think all children should recieve their education on a golf course.

i think there are plenty of places for children and adults to take the fresh air in porty, surely you don't have to be playing a game of golf to enjoy it? and, lets be honest, golf is hardly the best exercise a body can get, is it now?

finally, i do not know any professional golfers but i do know plenty of rubbish ones and i don't think any of them would describe golf as a "minority sport". we live in scotland - the home of golf. it is very well funded and provided for unlike a proper minority sport like skateboarding...[/u][/i]

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 18 Jun 2006, 19:32

sample808 wrote:i find golf to be a nepotistic and socially exclusive sport and it is this that forms my objection to the game.

Surely you cannot describe a nine hole public course as nepotistic and socially exclusive. Anyone can go along pay and play. It would cost less to play a round of golf than to watch a football match.

i would like to picnic on a golf course because it is my right to do so and your comment on this only serves to point out how exclusive golf can be.

If you were hit on the head by a golf ball, you could be killed. Not an ideal area for a picnic. Would you picnic on a football/rugby pitch?

i think your point about "depriving local children" is a bit strange considering the fact that you would deprive them of an education ("If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for") an odd priority if you ask me but perhaps you think all children should recieve their education on a golf course.

.. and do you actually know what I would vote for? Assumptions are being made. I would never deprive any child of an education. It is a luxury to have a nine hole golf course on our doorstep but not at the cost of a new Portobello High School. I actually support Pfans. I want a new school to be built on this area of land and the golf course relocated to another part of our community.

i think there are plenty of places for children and adults to take the fresh air in porty, surely you don't have to be playing a game of golf to enjoy it? and, lets be honest, golf is hardly the best exercise a body can get, is it now?

Not the best, but better than nothing and surely every child is intitled to the opportunity to try different sports and activities.

"finally, i do not know any professional golfers but i do know plenty of rubbish ones and i don't think any of them would describe golf as a "minority sport". we live in scotland - the home of golf. it is very well funded and provided for unlike a proper minority sport like skateboarding...

"

No doubt, there are plenty of "rubbish" golfers as there are "rubbish" footballers and hockey players but isn't sport about enjoyment and exercise?

Since 1987 SportScotland's Information Service collect data on sports participation. The sample is obtained every second month through a survey of Scottish households. The most recent data shows a participation rate of only 64%. (that is, 64% of the adult population have taken part in at least one sport or physical recreation activity in the last four weeks).
The activities in order of popularity are: walking 32% swimming 22% football 11% cycling 10% golf 10% keep fit/aerobics 9% dancing 9% snooker/billiars/pool 8% ten pin bowling 6% multigym/weight training 7%.
So I wouldn't call 10% participation, a majority sport, would you?

Post by **wangi** » 18 Jun 2006, 20:26

Mate of Marya wrote:
sample808 wrote:i find golf to be a nepotistic and socially exclusive sport and it is this that forms my objection to the game.
Surely you cannot describe a nine hole public course as nepotistic and socially exclusive. Anyone can go along pay and play. It would cost less to play a round of golf than to watch a football match.

If you compare like-for-like then it's free the watch the (amateur) football match, and it'd cost a fair wack to play professional golf.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 18 Jun 2006, 21:27

wangi wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote:
sample808 wrote:i find golf to be a nepotistic and socially exclusive sport and it is this that forms my objection to the game.
Surely you cannot describe a nine hole public course as nepotistic and socially exclusive. Anyone can go along pay and play. It would cost less to play a round of golf than to watch a football match.
If you compare like-for-like then it's free the watch the (amateur) football match, and it'd cost a fair wack to play professional golf.

I just used the football match as a comparison. The cost of playing golf at Portobello is a relatively cheap pastime.
I agree, it is free to watch an amateur football game and it would also be free to watch amateurs play golf on Portobello Golf Course, if you wanted to.
It would cost more money to watch a professional football game than an amateur game and it would also cost more money to play on a private golf course, than on a public golf course.
You only get what you pay for!
I believe some golf clubs are said to be nepotistic, but not Portobello nine hole.

sample808 · Post by **sample808** » 20 Jun 2006, 16:51

i do not describe portobello as nepotistic or socially exclusive, only the sport of golf .

how can the golf course be described as a public space when you "could be killed" just by being in that space, this is the point i am trying to make.

i do not understand your comment about assumptions being made. you said (direct quote here) "If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for". Perhaps you should clarify your point, it seemed pretty obvious to me...

i support most of the pfans proposal but do not understand why the golf course bit is tagged on the end. as you say, a golf course is a luxury, one that we can probably do without.

by your reckoning football is also a minority sport (with only 11% of the people surveyed partaking in the sport).

thank you for making most of my arguements for me....

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 20 Jun 2006, 20:31

sample808 wrote:i do not describe portobello as nepotistic or socially exclusive, only the sport of golf .

how can the golf course be described as a public space when you "could be killed" just by being in that space, this is the point i am trying to make

i do not understand your comment about assumptions being made. you said (direct quote here) "If I was to choose between a golf course or a new Portobello High School, I certainly know what I would vote for". Perhaps you should clarify your point, it seemed pretty obvious to me...

i support most of the pfans proposal but do not understand why the golf course bit is tagged on the end. as you say, a golf course is a luxury, one that we can probably do without.

by your reckoning football is also a minority sport (with only 11% of the people surveyed partaking in the sport).

thank you for making most of my arguements for me....

The sport of golf is played on Portobello nine hole golf course.

Who described the golf course as a public place? It is a public golf course, not a picnic area.

OK, I'll spell it out; I would actually choose a new Portobello High School. You assumed I would vote for the golf course.

Well you could do without this golf course, as you obviously have no interest in the game. I personally, could live without a football pitch, rugby pitch etc., etc., but I recognise the needs of other people in the community who value such facilities. It would be a strange place indeed if we all liked the same things.

Not my reckoning, but the evidence from SportScotland suggests that football is, like golf a minority sport, bearing in mind you had to have played the sport within the last month prior to the survey.

Did I?

sample808 · Post by **sample808** » 21 Jun 2006, 13:59

i agree that there should be a provision for a range of sporting activities, golf included, but the subject of this thread was about saving the existing golf course and i made a point about the PFANS proposal which calls for a new and improved public golf course.

i do not agree with this part of the proposal, not because i dislike golf as a sport (although i obviously do), but because i believe that a new golf course will use green space that we cannot afford to lose as a community. all for the sake of a "minority sport" which is already well provided for.

http://theoracle.co.uk/lo/sports_centre ... Recreation

if your motives are to provide facilities for minority sports then there are plenty of others that would benefit greatly from the use of this space. all of the ones that i can think of would also leave plenty of space for other members of the community to use freely, without the fear of being killed by a little white ball...

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Save our Golf Course

Save our Golf Course

golf

Re: golf

Re: golf

Re: golf

save our golf course

Re: save our golf course

golf