• Matty_r@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Probably because fields of grass are better than housing development? Which for the environment, is technically true

      • NannerBanner@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have a neighbor who thinks a golf course is better than a park. I just want to shake folks sometimes. How is a hellscape of a solitary grass better than a place where you could get all sorts of plants going? One with hiking paths for everyone, and all sorts of goodies like gazebos, meadows, benches…

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      oh basically just that it’s curated green space and that’s better because it’s not a parking lot or strip mall or etc.

      • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s almost worth comparing, if the resources and human effort needed to maintain a golf course, plus any other positive or negative environmental impacts, are favorable to the effects of a parking lot or whatever. But I imagine that, either way, a proper public park would be way better.

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I mean it’s like anything, you can argue either way. Depending on how the grounds are kept it could be a net positive or a negative. But a lot of golf courses are massive polluter because they use resource-intensive grasses and lots of fertilizers and water to keep it alive. There are more eco-friendly ways to manage a golf course but those are not popular because they cost more and golfers don’t like scrub grasses