“Mayor Green also advised that there was significant discussion during the closed meeting, but the details of that discussion will not be released”

LOL, yes, because it’s clearly a matter of national security! Good grief these people surely must believe they are more significant than they are.

At least 5 people came to their senses. Curious who the other 4 were . . .

Now that is the best news I have received in one hell of a long time.

I certainly want to thank those Councillors who were able to see that keeping this course for future generations was by far the best way to go.

Kudo’s to them.

Elections are less than 2 years away , now the switch will flip and everyone will try to save their jobs. Nothing more nothing less.

I as well am so glad they saved Pine Valley. I have not golfed there in 15 years but I remember taking my young sons there and introducing them to the great game of golf. I could have never taken them on the big course. Walk slow and learn how to run as I always say. Selling off city assets is NOT what we should be doing. Selling of assets is what people do to avoid bank ruptsy or when the bank ruptsy trustee is trying to pay off creditors. Are we as a city bank broke that it has come to this

Speaking of the City’s involvement in the golf business, how about the PG Golf and Curling Club?

I too am more than happy that Pine Valley is being saved. Sure would like to see more development and improvements continue along Victoria Street. We have a long way to go in representing Canada in 2015.

Yes, yes, yes this is the greatest news!

All you have to do is read the past comments by councillors to figure out who the 4 sellers were. Stolz and Greeen would head the list.
About the brightest thing council has done since the last civic election.

I am glad as well, it’s where I have been taking my son, it’s just the right size for a beginner.

Interesting that the meeting would be closed, must want to protect the identities of all those developers and investors drooling to make a buck!

“Interesting that the meeting would be closed,”

This is nothing out of the normal. There have been more brown bag meetings and closed meetings with this city council than public ones………..

Transparency speaks for itself…………..

apparently 4 councillors figure ‘covenant’ is another word for ‘toilet paper’.

One step further…..

apparently 4 councillors figure ‘OCP’ is another word for ‘toilet paper’.

Good thing we saved it for the 5 golfers a day who use it.
SELL IT!

I dont see the reason in keeping something that they have run into the ground, Its always in pathetic condition but their prices wont reflect it. I think it just rips off anyone who doesnt know what a good course should look like. Keep it if you must but at least invest in it abit.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding.I have never seen more than a handful of golfers on there at any given time. You can just about walk on any time of the day any day of the week and play. That means that it isn’t busy and that means that people aren’t spending money there. It’s a great little course for tournaments where not everyone golfs but so is Molly Hills, Alder Hills, Yellowhead Grove etc. and they are all private for profit companies. If they want to keep Pine Valley open, take out those goofy tee boxes with the mats and build proper tee boxes. I just don’t like the fact that the city is paying for it all and by extension, all the taxpayers.

The big issue here is not the golf course operation but the property itself and it’s potential future use.

When will our rookie mayor and council stop treating us like little children. Let us see the report you got from staff, let us hear the debate, let us know who voted which way.

Maybe if they were a little more transparent in their actions we would better understand your thoughts for this land or get a sense of what the business case is for keeping it as parkland or selling it off.

If it was a 5-4 vote and they are able to tell us how the vote went, why not tell us who voted to sell the parkland and who voted against?

To have what should be a public discussion by public officials about publicly owned parkland behind closed doors is unbelievable.

Hiding behind what the mayor says is a Community Charter requirement that it must be discussed in closed is imo ridiculous if not illegal. Despite what mayor greene says and what the lapdog media seem to accept, that isn’t what the Community Charter actually says. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/–%20C%20–/41_Community%20Charter%20SBC%202003%20c.%2026/00_Act/03026_04.xml#section90

Under sub section E it says only “if council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality.”

Could the mayor please explain how it could harm the interests of the public when up to this point all discussions have been public?

Another core review recommendation down the drain and at more than $350,000, the core review is continuing to score points as the biggest waste of taxpayers money in the city’s history.