Several observations: 1) Why is the city in the business of subsidizing a sporting facility? (Though this is probably less egregious and costly than a mammoth stadium or arena.)Portland's network of city-owned golf courses was supposed to earn enough to pay for itself. Instead, it has required bailouts to survive.
"Intended to be self-supporting, the program required an infusion of $800,000 of taxpayer funds in 2017 to remain solvent," reads a report released today by the city's auditor. "While Parks has taken steps to cut costs and increase the number of golfers, it is fighting a national trend of a sport in decline and past ineffective program management."
The report detailed problems at the five city-owned golf courses (one of which is actually in the neighboring town of Beaverton). Like many government-owned pieces of infrastructure around the country, the courses suffer from deferred maintenance, poor oversight, and ballooning wage and benefit costs.
2) It appears that the local market is no longer capable of supporting five golf courses. (The story doesn't say if there are any private golf courses.) It would seem that shutting one or more would allow the others to better survive.
3) If 'greenspace' is one of the desired objectives, a golf course seems to be a very limited-use way of providing it. (I seem to recall that environmentalists hate golf courses because of all the water and fertilizer they use.)
4) Keeping the courses open takes up space that could be used for residential or industrial purposes.