Gatineau cries foul over errant golf balls

[Kilroy]

Bylaw declares ‘nuisance’ projectiles out of bounds


OTTAWA — Errant golf balls that hook and slice their way into people’s yards have officially been declared a “nuisance” by the City of Gatineau. And golf courses that fail to take precautions against the damage wrought by duffers could be on the hook for minimum fines of $500 for the first offence and $1,000 for subsequent offences. The regulatory change was passed Tuesday by Gatineau council’s preparatory caucus.

More...

[big mac]

Reading some of this makes me wonder who is in control here !---the next thing you know there will be a by-law for "fouling the air"----OH YEAH-----the City of Ottawa already tried that

[stevek]

This must have come about after complaints from an insane homeowner near a course. Even Tiger will occasionally pull a shot into a neighbouring fairway - which could be a backyard.

The complainer must just want a beautiful, manicured view from his/her backyard.

[orangeTANG]

I have an idea, if you don't like golf balls in your back yard, MOVE! Seriously, why would you buy a house on the golf course and not expect a few in your back yard?

Sometimes I wonder when this country in a whole become such a push over.

[Weazl]

Another money grab by a cash strapped municipality.

[3Jack]

It's gotta be either the 11th or 18th hole that the concern is around... they already changed 10 to a par 3... i wouldn't mind a change to the 18th there though... not that CL should have to make any changes...

[Hacker]

What's next, the residents of of Barhaven and Hunt Club banding together to force the Ottawa International Airport to re-locate the runways because planes taking off and landing over their house is a nuisance - give me a freaking break!!

The Golf Club is right, it was there before any of the residential homes, I'm sure that the resident like the prestige that comes with living on a golf course so why are they complaining about it.

Stuff like this makes me really, really hope that the rumors that you hear from time to time about Club Link closing all of their courses and putting up high-rise apartments comes true some day..........so, you don't like the occasional golf ball in your backyard, how does a 30 story cement apartment building work for you

[LBH]

It's gotta be either the 11th or 18th hole that the concern is around... they already changed 10 to a par 3... i wouldn't mind a change to the 18th there though... not that CL should have to make any changes...

It's 18 - it's been in the news a few times. CL will make changes to the tee box (moving it to the left of where it is right now), clear some trees on the right and take out or lower that hill on the right side of the fairway. This way, they believe golfers will be able to aim more to the right and less towards the houses.

[GarthM]

What they should do is build a "green monster" behind the 4 houses in question on 18. See how much they * and complain when they cannot see the course then. Can't have it both ways folks....

It's 18 - it's been in the news a few times. CL will make changes to the tee box (moving it to the left of where it is right now), clear some trees on the right and take out or lower that hill on the right side of the fairway. This way, they believe golfers will be able to aim more to the right and less towards the houses.

[little brit]

They should install an really ugly wire fencing just in front of the houses.

[hoolio]

Another money grab by a cash strapped municipality.

This was my first impression as well. I'm not sure how the city imposing a fine on the golf course, where they collect the money actually helps those affected by "the issue".

I have to agree with everyone else here who's made the comments about purchasing a house which backs onto the golf course. I understand there's a safety concern, but you have to be a special kind of idiot to write a big cheque for a property built (or being built) backing onto a place where people fire small projectiles at speeds up to 180MPH in all directions, and not expect a few errand ones to occasionally come your way.

[stevek]

It's gotta be either the 11th or 18th hole that the concern is around... they already changed 10 to a par 3... i wouldn't mind a change to the 18th there though... not that CL should have to make any changes...

It could be 11. Played a charity tounament earlier this year and they had a marshall sitting there making sure no-one used driver because of repeated complaints from a home owner. What kind of idiot would buy a house in the line of fire.

[dogleg]

Athough 18 certianly gets a lot of balls along with 5, you are right, it is the 11th that is the problem. And it is not the balls going into the backyard that is the problem, it is the balls flying OVER the houses on the 11th and landing in the road and bouncing like crazy and hitting other houses, cars, people walking in the street etc.
The kid that was hit was playing in his Front yard, and that house doesn't even back onto the golf course.
And it is hardly the members that are the problem, its the once a year golfers playing in corporate tournaments who think they are Tiger Woods and can hit it 300+ yards off the tee. Not to mention driving their golf carts through the houses property to the street to recover their balls.

[spackler]

Islington GC has been around 85 years and they were forced to change their course because someone built his house right next to the course, then started complaining about golf balls. IIRC, the house was built despite objections by the golf course in the first place.

[macspesh]

My question is what people DON'T cry foul over nowadays? When Ottawa and Gatineau began banning street hockey and on top of that, residents began complaining about outdoor rinks, I was pretty much in awe.
Guess we have to go to museums from now on to see examples of common sense/courtesy.
Thank God for beer.

[justsomeguy]

I guess its not too surprising to see where most people on a golf forum would stand on this issue, but as usual there are two sides to every story.

First of all, I agree with those who say if you build your house next to a golf course then you can expect "a few" errant golf balls to come your way. The problem is: how many is "a few"? Once or twice a week? A day? An hour? Every 15 minutes?

EVERYONE is entitled to the "quiet enjoyment" of their property. What you do on your property should not be interfering with what I do on my property. Stuff happens - kids throw things, things break, accidents happens - but if the same stuff keeps happening day in, day out and nothing is done then you should have some recourse. And this is often where municipalities step in with bylaws - the noise bylaw being the most obvious one.

BTW, the fact that you were doing these things on your property long before your new neighbours moved in is irrelevant. Nobody is trying to rezone the golf course here. Just because the previous owner didn't care about golf balls on his property (because his property was an empty field) means nothing. Your stuff is supposed to stay on your side of the fence.

Some golf courses are proactive and/or take steps to minimize their effect on their neighbours. The Meadows realigned holes on the South Course to lessen the impact on their neighbours. Ottawa Hunt has fences, bush and trees around the perimeter of their entire property. Other courses do nothing but quote legal mumbo-jumbo about how it is the golfers themselves that are to blame - and then cry foul when the city forces them to do something.

I don't for a second believe that this situation stems from a couple of balls a day dropping into someone's back yard. I'm sure there a couple of "hot spots" which are getting peppered with golf balls, they have complained for years to get the course to do something (plant trees, put up fences, change the layout) and have been ignored - so they went to the city for help. The course could have likely prevented this a long, long time ago...

[BullDog]

With all due respect to you if your property backs onto a golf course and to anyone else who chose to buy a property that backs onto a golf course: you made a choice to move onto a property that backs onto a golf course. Everyone that buys a property in Riverside south is making a choice to move beside the Ottawa International Airport. Everyone that currently lives in the Glebe has chosen to live in a house that is close the Lansdowne Park (I don't think there is one citizen of the City of Ottawa who is older than that park, the original Ottawa Rough Riders or the Central Canada Exhibition.)

If the people who live on any property described above failed to factor in PRE-EXISTING conditions that affected their property prior to acquiring it, they should not have a god-given right to re-write history when it comes to their neighbourhood, nor should they expect everything around them to change because they do not like something.

As I look out my back window I see the 417. I can hear cars and trucks flying by as morning rush hour is starting this fine Friday. Should I complain to the MTO about the fact that the 417 is what... a 9 iron away from the back of my house? I knew it was there before I moved here last October. Haute Plaines was there before the houses were built... the Ottawa airport was there long before people started building nearby.

I'm sorry - but it's time that politicians grow a spine and stand up to these people who want to have their cake and eat it too. You don't like golf balls coming onto your property? Don't live on a golf course.

...or you can do what a co-worker of mine does - he lives near a golf course and his kids collect the balls for him, sorts them and he sells them to us at work. Makes a few bucks doing that. Something about turning lemons into lemonade.

BullDog jumps off his soapbox and goes to bed. Three night shifts are staring him in the face.

EVERYONE is entitled to the "quiet enjoyment" of their property.

[jeffc]

while I agree you have the right to enjoy your property, they knew or at least should have known (ignorance is not an excuse) that would be subject to this.

I live near an airport and I actually had something in my contract when I bought my house that acknowledged this and I had to initial accordingly. Could they expand the airport, change the runway, etc.? yes, they could but I knowlingly bought this house where it is and effectively took that risk.

[Hacker]

With all due respect to you if your property backs onto a golf course and to anyone else who chose to buy a property that backs onto a golf course: you made a choice to move onto a property that backs onto a golf course. Everyone that buys a property in Riverside south is making a choice to move beside the Ottawa International Airport. Everyone that currently lives in the Glebe has chosen to live in a house that is close the Lansdowne Park (I don't think there is one citizen of the City of Ottawa who is older than that park, the original Ottawa Rough Riders or the Central Canada Exhibition.)

If the people who live on any property described above failed to factor in PRE-EXISTING conditions that affected their property prior to acquiring it, they should not have a god-given right to re-write history when it comes to their neighbourhood, nor should they expect everything around them to change because they do not like something.

As I look out my back window I see the 417. I can hear cars and trucks flying by as morning rush hour is starting this fine Friday. Should I complain to the MTO about the fact that the 417 is what... a 9 iron away from the back of my house? I knew it was there before I moved here last October. Haute Plaines was there before the houses were built... the Ottawa airport was there long before people started building nearby.

I'm sorry - but it's time that politicians grow a spine and stand up to these people who want to have their cake and eat it too. You don't like golf balls coming onto your property? Don't live on a golf course.

...or you can do what a co-worker of mine does - he lives near a golf course and his kids collect the balls for him, sorts them and he sells them to us at work. Makes a few bucks doing that. Something about turning lemons into lemonade.

BullDog jumps off his soapbox and goes to bed. Three night shifts are staring him in the face.

Great post!!

[justsomeguy]

As I look out my back window I see the 417. I can hear cars and trucks flying by as morning rush hour is starting this fine Friday. Should I complain to the MTO about the fact that the 417 is what... a 9 iron away from the back of my house? I knew it was there before I moved here last October. Haute Plaines was there before the houses were built... the Ottawa airport was there long before people started building nearby.

I live near the airport, and so far no planes have landed on my property. I'm assuming that cars from the 417 have not been driving through your property either.

I don't think this has anything to do with the characteristics of living in one particular community over another. Its a lot more basic than that. Its about the activities on your property not negatively impacting others. Its about taking steps so the stuff on your side of the fence stays on your side of the fence. In short, its about being a good neighbour.

Most golf courses are good neighbours, and take steps to ensure that most golf balls stay on their property. Evidently ClubLink is not, since they have apparently done nothing until the municipality forced them to.

[3Jack]

Evidently ClubLink is not, since they have apparently done nothing until the municipality forced them to.

That, with all due respect, is a bunch of baloney. The first thing Clublink did when the bought the place was to change the 10th hole from a par four, to a par three. The 10th tee was dangerous, as it was easy to hit it down the road. Also, the back back tee on 11 is now closed, improving the angle off the tee at this par 5. There is signage on the tee at 18, politely yet sternly warning how far it is to the backyards on the left side of the fairway. To say Clublink has done nothing is inaccurate and grossly unfair. Seems to me that you haven't played there either before, or since the Clublink renos, because you'd not make such a statement if you had.

[Hacker]

Most golf courses are good neighbours, and take steps to ensure that most golf balls stay on their property. Evidently ClubLink is not, since they have apparently done nothing until the municipality forced them to.

I think that is a pretty short sighted view........I played that course back with it was the Dome and Clublink has taken some pretty drastic measures to be a "good neighbour".

If Clublink was to erect a 40 foot high solid fence across the back property line of all of those houses (which would be their right as long as the fence was on the Golf Club's property), the residents would be screaming bloody murder about how Clublink ruined their "view" and negatively impacted their resale value.

I hope that whatever measures that Clublink invoke to comply with the "law" are as inconvenient as possible for the residents - becareful of what you wish for folks.

[leftylucas]

What is odd is that when the houses were built that backed onto the course I am pretty sure that they also received a free membership to the then "Dome". How things have come full circle

[jeffc]

I live near the airport, and so far no planes have landed on my property. I'm assuming that cars from the 417 have not been driving through your property either.

I don't think this has anything to do with the characteristics of living in one particular community over another. Its a lot more basic than that. Its about the activities on your property not negatively impacting others. Its about taking steps so the stuff on your side of the fence stays on your side of the fence. In short, its about being a good neighbour.

Most golf courses are good neighbours, and take steps to ensure that most golf balls stay on their property. Evidently ClubLink is not, since they have apparently done nothing until the municipality forced them to.

Right, however, planes do not regularly (almost never) miss runways and cars don't regularly (again almost never), drive off the road 100 yds into someones backyard. Golf balls regularly fly in all directions (especially when Indio and Hacker are playing) so this IS a common occurance. The location of some of the houses on that course is crazy, especially on #18. The location of those houses is the fault of the city that issued the building permits and the people who ended up buying them. Emerald Links has done it right with regards to housing, big lots, set back a long way from the course.

[MakingtheCut]

I have to side with the residents on this one. We can look at it with a different scenario.

You own a house next to a vacant lot and have dumped water/cut grass/whatever on it for years. Lot gets sold. Pretty sure your new neighbour will have a problem if you continue to try dumping on his property. It's the same logic. You can't use the excuse of "I was here long before you were", or "you should have known when you bought that property", "you took that risk...", etc".

I think it is incumbent on the course to design their holes so that if you do miss the fairway, your ball will still land on their property. If they did not purchase enough land (or designed their course poorly to begin with), then they should do the next reasonable thing (i.e. put up a net, trees, bushes, etc).

I know that if I hit an errand shot that almost strikes a child playing in his/her backyard, in an area where it is reasonble to assume it could happen from time to time, the first thoughts in my head would be:

"Thank god I didn't hit that kid", which would be followed by "they really should have a net there" and not "oh well, his/her parents knew the risks".

Just my opinion.

[macspesh]

[QUOTE=Hacker;327879]
If Clublink was to erect a 40 foot high solid fence across the back property line of all of those houses (which would be their right as long as the fence was on the Golf Club's property), the residents would be screaming bloody murder about how Clublink ruined their "view" and negatively impacted their resale value.

I think that's so true. I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

[B Nation]

I have to side with the residents on this one. We can look at it with a different scenario.

You own a house next to a vacant lot and have dumped water/cut grass/whatever on it for years. Lot gets sold. Pretty sure your new neighbour will have a problem if you continue to try dumping on his property. It's the same logic. You can't use the excuse of "I was here long before you were", or "you should have known when you bought that property", "you took that risk...", etc".

I think it is incumbent on the course to design their holes so that if you do miss the fairway, your ball will still land on their property. If they did not purchase enough land (or designed their course poorly to begin with), then they should do the next reasonable thing (i.e. put up a net, trees, bushes, etc).

I know that if I hit an errand shot that almost strikes a child playing in his/her backyard, in an area where it is reasonble to assume it could happen from time to time, the first thoughts in my head would be:

"Thank god I didn't hit that kid", which would be followed by "they really should have a net there" and not "oh well, his/her parents knew the risks".

Just my opinion.

Wow, great post... you actually swayed my opinion on this a little bit.

I think at the end of the day this isn't a black or white issue, and both cases can be argued fairly successfully.

Correct me if I am wrong but arent the houses to the left of #10, the same houses that are to the left of 18 at Hautes Plaines? If so that was is an awful place to have a house. The golf course already turned 10 into a PAR 3 to limit the amount of balls being hit into those houses. I know I have hit them from both sides.

Does anyone know why the golf course didn't own that land from the beginning? Especially considering that they would have owned everything around it? Did they sell it thinking that it was wasted space and did they know houses were going up there?

[linganlad]

Bottom line is Clublink just needs to fix those holes.

Here's a funny but true story about people living next to golf courses.

In Dartmouth, NS, there's a great old Donald Ross design called Brightwood that is packed in against all kinds of houses that were built in the decades after the course was put there. For many years, the neighbours complained about errant golf balls and legal action against the course was always a threat. The course did what it could do to minimize the problems (nets, etc.), but the issue just wasn't going away. So a couple of years back the membership had an idea - sell the land the course was on and build a new course nearby, which wouldn't be subject to land constraints and lawsuits from the neighbours. It would be tough to leave behind all that club history and a D. Ross design, but with a vote of the membership they decided to proceed.

Guess what happened? The neighbours went ballistic and blocked the sale of the course, because they didn't want years of house/condo construction going on around them and didn't want their neighbourhoods to see all kinds of new road traffic that development would bring! Apparently, the only thing worse than living next to a golf course was the prospect of not living next to one!

[jeffc]

"Thank god I didn't hit that kid", which would be followed by "they really should have a net there" and not "oh well, his/her parents knew the risks".

Mine would be "What a stupid place to build a house".

I don't think anyone here wants to hit any houses, kids, or anything else for that matter that isn't part of the course.

[jeffc]

I think it is incumbent on the course to design their holes so that if you do miss the fairway, your ball will still land on their property. If they did not purchase enough land (or designed their course poorly to begin with), then they should do the next reasonable thing (i.e. put up a net, trees, bushes, etc).

again a silly comparison. dumping lawn cuttings is as simple as asking someone to stop. Rerouting holes is a multi million dollar fix.

What if they did design their holes properly. Prior to the houses, there was likely forest there.

Perhaps the builder should not be so greedy and make the lots so small so as to sell more houses that you can't avoid hitting them or even build there in the first place.