SF Public Golf Alliance Answers Sharp Park Suit

(Note: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and five other conservation organizations on March 2, 2011 filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco a lawsuit for declaratory relief and injunctive relief to close golf operations at Sharp Park Golf Course. See previous post on Riptide for CBD's statement.)
 
Following is the statement of the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, which has been a leading voice in the defense of Sharp Park Golf Course since the environmental controversy over golf course operations there surfaced in 2009:
 
We think the lawsuit is premature, not well-founded, and will ultimately be unsuccessful. The lawsuit makes the same claims that Center for Biological Diversity and its allies have been making for the past two and a half years in their unsuccessful efforts to close Sharp Park Golf Course. We think that the plaintiffs' claims are narrow and unreasonable, and do not recognize the legitimate interests of golfers, historic preservationists, local businesses, and governmental entities in San Francisco, Pacifica, and San Mateo County that want to keep Sharp Park Golf Course open. 
 
The frogs and snakes are not the only interest at Sharp Park. There are homeowners endangered by flooding. The golf course is an 80-year-old business that is a favorite meeting place for the Pacifica community, and employs three dozen people. The golf course is historically and architecturally significant, being one of the very few public courses in the world built by Alister MacKenzie, history's best-known, and many would say greatest, golf architect.  
 
Sharp Park Golf Course is supported by resolutions from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Pacifica City Council, Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, Northern California Golf Association World Golf Foundation, and Laborer's Local 261, whose members are the gardeners there. The Cultural Landscape Foundation of Washington, D.C. has designated Sharp Park a threatened national cultural landscape treasure.
 
Sharp Park Golf Course is the single most affordable public 18-hole golf course in the Bay Area. It is one of only two public 18-hole golf courses in San Mateo County with prime weekend greens fees under $80. The course has a devoted, racially and culturally diverse clientele of men, women, senior, and junior golfers. So it is not only a beautiful, historically, and artistically significant golf course—it is a critical recreational asset for Bay Area working-class people.
 
The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department and its citizens' advisory committee, and the Budget and Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have all within the past 18 months conducted public hearings and rejected the Center for Biological Diversity's efforts to close the course. In October 2010 and January 2011, the San Francisco Public Utilities and Recreation and Park Commissions rejected CBD's effort to block a recycled-water irrigation project for Sharp Park Golf Course. That $8 million recycled-water project is going forward, and groundbreaking was held just this month.
 
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance believes that reasonably priced public golf together with improved habitat for the frogs and snakes is the best plan for Sharp Park. And we think that the court will ultimately reach the same conclusion that all these other public bodies have reached—that golfers, historic architecture, and nature can continue to coexist at Sharp Park, as they have for 80 years.
 
CONTACT:
Richard Harris
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance
415-290-5718 (cell)

Comments

[Butch Larroche]

"There are affordable courses nearby at Cypress and beautiful Harding Park. Let's put SF taxpayer money into improvements for Harding, and keep the rates low - for Pacifica residents and SF residents."

Wrong again, Jana. Harding is very expensive for anyone but SF residents with a resident card. Cypress is a not a fair comparison to Sharp Park or any other course, for that matter.

[Kathy Jana]

The only reason anyone can say the golf course is "affordable" is because costs are covered by San Francisco taxpayers. Cost to golf is as litle as $10.

There are affordable courses nearby at Cypress and beautiful Harding Park. Let's put SF taxpayer money into improvements for Harding, and keep the rates low - for Pacifica residents and SF residents.

[Stan Zeavin]

Having read the comments to date, here are a few thoughts. If the people attacking the new scientific report would read it before they make their comments, we could perhaps have a legitimate discussion here. Unfortunately, it's obvious that many of you haven't looked at it. Yes, I mean you, Mr. Slavin (if you had looked at it, you'd know the name of the biologist), and especially you, Julie Lancelle. If you had, you'd realize that you're actually talking about your position, not the reports. Please, folks, read the report, then let's talk.

[John B.]

@ Julie Lancelle: First, I want to point out how blatantly we are tossing around an “us and them” tactic. I live in Pacifica, as do many supporters of restoration. I would caution against using this, as everyone on both sides wants what they think is best for Sharp Park and its denizens (human, frog, snake, or otherwise). I at least hope no one is harboring blatant disregard for life.

That said, using the “they” and “us” split is a political tactic, more deeply a psychological tactic, to marginalize the other. It does nothing for either side, frankly, except to more firmly carve the divisions and further freeze communication. When I become “them,” I take on a set of values that you put on me. It’s the death of dialog. This is the reigning political tactic of the day and it’s leading us nowhere locally and nationally.

Second, I want to reiterate that I doubt that anyone has a blatant disregard for life. Given this, it’s especially doubtful that WEI and CBD, nonprofit organizations and volunteers with little to gain, would be operating on such a masterful agenda. Peer-reviewed reports are not shells of political agendas; they are only labeled as such in the event that dialog is too much to take. And yes, this dialog is too much to take. The golf course, a community icon for 80 years, is at stake; in turn, it feels like the community is at stake. But turning a blind eye to the science presented is only a means of disempowering open dialog, as there are “invaders” in the conversation. The very real budget crisis brings San Francisco into this conversation in a way that cannot be avoided, and they will be looking at the science in its truth.

Finally, the 80-year-old habitat is not a sound ecology. Every aspect of the course is maintained by human beings who are good at making it beautiful and rustic. Were the power to go out or the pump to break during a massive storm event, the entire area, including the surrounding homes, might be flooded. The habitat has not evolved; it has been manipulated into an increasingly precarious work of human design. Honestly examining the scientific findings might find a way to mitigate and prevent future damage.

[Linty Marr]

Wow, Ms. Lancelle's comments seem so so divorced from the facts that it's mind-blowing. She says this all started "...with a simple minimal-impact request to remove some lake cattails that were blocking the frogs' access to the open water..." Really? Frogs cant get past cattails? Somehow she missed the demands from US Fish & Wildlife back in 2005 that the golf course must STOP KILLING endangered species. Is she aware that as far back as 1992 the City of San Francisco and the state Coastal Conservancy had already done a study to address the problems at Sharp Park? Her concern is that "...a massive overhaul plan for this site that will devastate a treasured habitat...." Habitat? It's a golf course consisting of nonnative grass and a single species of tree. Frankly, it's disturbing to hear someone hijack the language in an attempt to paint a monoculture as "habitat" and a thriving ecosystem as a "captive animal park."

You know, EVERYONE claims to be an environmentalist, it's just so fashionable, so when she says "they" have no respect for "our" beliefs, and "reverence for nature," I cringe. I guess some people use this kind of divisive language because it's easier then having to admit you're wrong about something you care about deeply and maybe your belief system is merely a veneer made up "feel good" ecology catchphrases that fit on a button rather than hard science. For some in the golfing camp, it's mere cynicism, to achieve an end regardless of the consequences. For others, it just being a paid hack. Let us hope she was having a bad day and doesn't fall between the other two possibilities.

[Paul Slavin]

Linty, I take it your reference to “fluctuating salinity gradients” could be translated into English as “brackish water,” not “freshwater,” as you claimed on January 19. Doesn’t seem like much, but that was the only point I was trying to make. But they won’t overlook little things like that in a court of law, you know. And I doubt if they’ll be as impressed with your devastating wit and intelligence as I am. So be careful. Anyway, what do you think of the idea of having a couple of pitch-and-putt holes share space with the archery range?

[John B.]

@ Slavin,
I love Bogus Science syndrome name calling aka denial. Seriously, cattails are 8 feet tall! Come on, man, pick your battles. They really grow there, and only in freshwater. Eight-foot-tall plants that everyone knows are hardly difficult science. If they were, I'd have done a lot better in school. Nerds win again.

This is really simple: The lagoon was probably freshwater before the seawall. Just 'cause it was called Laguna Salada doesn't mean it was salty. I'll call bogus naming before I'll call bogus science. At least science backs it up with something.

[Julie Lancelle]

I am very concerned that in their enthusiasm for their mission, Wild Equity and the Center for Biological Diversity have created a massive overhaul plan for this site that will devastate a treasured habitat that has evolved over 80 years. Their proposal for the site includes extensive reconstruction requiring considerable earthmoving, removal of 80-year-old trees that serve a variety of birds, building wooden visitor viewing sites, and creating a captive animal park. The extreme harm to the habitat and suffering for the creatures that call it home is unspeakable. And to think it all began with a simple minimal-impact request to remove some lake cattails that were blocking the frogs' access to the open water and that had been forcing them onto the golf course.

Before Wild Equity and the Center for Biological Diversity knew this site existed, Pacifica quietly treasured it for decades as part of our understanding of the importance and value of environmental protection throughout our community. What they propose is not only disruptive, it is propelled by a vision for this land that demonstrates blindness to the beauty of what is here. They seem to have no respect for us, our beliefs, and our reverence for nature. Instead they apparently dismiss our concerns in the same way the invaders viewed as quaint the native people of this land. Nothing that ever took place in the past can come close to the construction and devastation and exploitation that the species will experience at their hands. I fear for the species.

[Linty Marr]

Well, Citizen Slavin, since you've posted a "call out," let me respond by saying you seem confused (again). Apparently, you can't believe your own eyes that there are cattails in that photo and won't believe it until it is confirmed by a botanist. Do you also need to know the name of an astronomer if you see stars? I'm sorry if science isn't your forte, you'll just have to live with the disappointment.

For those with an interest: Lagoon wetland complexes in the Central Coast support a recurring set of plant species, assemblages, and vegetation structures distributed in relation to fluctuating salinity gradients, topographic gradients, and drainage patterns, and sediment/soil properties among them are:
Cattail-tule marsh Typha latifolia, Schoenoplectus acutus, S. californicus: landward oligohaline to freshwater emergent marsh, natural tall monospecific or mixed clonal stands with high shoot density; semi-open stands only in early stages of colonization or recovery; perennial saturation or submergence up to ca. 1
m depth during summer.

[Paul Slavin]

Hey, Linty, have you remembered the name of the botanist who identified the “freshwater” tules in your “Lo and behold” photo, or should we just consider that whole episode part of the BS (bogus science) syndrome?

[Linty Marr]

Jeff, you make perfect sense, but alas you won't win any points with those who suffer from the "IBG/YBG" syndrome (I'll Be Gone/You'll Be Gone) that puts shallow self-gratification above any other consideration.

[Jeff Boume]

Apologies for my sarcasm. I'll shelve that because I hear that you are making really valid, difficult points about community activities and workers' pensions. But community programs and pensions are under threat all over the country, which means that each must be scrutinized for its worth. Sharp Park's is low, as evidenced by its constant Sisyphean struggles against the land and economy. Fight the lawsuits, pump out the wetland, pump in recycled water, get money from San Francisco, get money from the federal government -- it's not a balanced equation.

I think what you are saying is that it's better to stick with the status quo because the option might not actually grow the economy. The status quo is failing; maintaining such a course is heading to eventual failure, based on all indications. This means that the jobs and community use features are also under threat from the current model. To discuss the eventuality of a failed course allows everyone to make the best decisions possible so that all stakeholders are heard.

[Michael Collins]

Every time it rains, it's flooded and it's perpetually soggy.

False statement.

It's definitely not a MacKenzie course anymore.

False statement.

His original design did not include a seawall. Was the high-volume pump system part of MacKenzie's brilliant design?

Sarcasm. Move to strike.

The public course is a lavish economic drag in a cash-strapped state.

Closing the course will not revive the state economy but will do a lot to torpedo what little tourism money this city does get.

You want to defend a golf course while pensions are disappearing and schools are being shut down?

You wanna discuss the schools that use Sharp Park for their athletic activities, or maybe discuss the pensions of workers who call Sharp Park home?
When you can form a legitimate argument instead of spouting personal opinion, let me know.

[Jeff Boume]

Aside from frogs and snakes, the course is a disaster! Every time it rains, it's flooded and it's perpetually soggy. It's definitely not a MacKenzie course anymore; his original design did not include a seawall. Was the high-volume pump system part of MacKenzie's brilliant design?

Sure, frogs and snakes are one of a host of problems -- it's just the only one that's illegal --I'd say the biggest being that the public course is a lavish economic drag in a cash-strapped state. You want to defend a golf course while pensions are disappearing and schools are being shut down? That's not illegal, but maybe it should be.