Environmentalists Call New Sharp Park Study the Most Complete Ever, but Golfers Call it Spin
Study counters 2009 San Francisco Recreation & Parks 2009 proposal, recommends doing away with golf course.
Photos
Pdfs
The Wild Equity Institute, a San Francisco-based environmental policy advocacy organization, sent a letter Thursday to the San Francisco mayor and board of supervisors calling for the complete conversion of Sharp Park Golf Course to a nature reserve for endangered native frog and snake species and a park.
Attached to the letter is what Brent Plater, executive director of Wild Equity, calls “the most in-depth and only peer-reviewed study of Sharp Park to date.”
This study, he notes, runs counter to the 2009 study done by the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department which found that maintaining the golf course while restoring the Sharp Park seawall, which protects the area from erosion by the ocean, and beginning to restore frog and snake habitat was the best plan for the area.
This new study, which was prepared by ESA PWA, an environmental consulting firm, makes four assertions:
1) “The least costly restoration alternative that would most benefit endangered species at Sharp Park would remove the golf course and restore the natural ecosystem, saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in a time of budget crisis.”
2) “Restoring the natural processes of Laguna Salada will preserve the Sharp Park beach, while the Park Department’s proposal will result in the beach eroding away.”
3) “Sharp Park historically provided more extensive habitat for the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake, and only through reviving a natural functioning coastal lagoon system can a sustainable and resilient habitat for these endangered species be maintained at Sharp Park in the face of future climate change.”
4) “The proposed restoration will provide improved flood and erosion protection for surrounding properties.”
San Francisco, which owns and maintains the course, has been implementing habitat restoration at the Laguna Salada, the main habitat for frog and snake. It has posted signs on fencing warning people to stay out of the restoration area. It's also made changes to the management and maintenance of the golf course to prevent further damage to the ecosystem. Restoration of the seawall has been its stumbling block, however.
The seawall needs repairing because the golf course floods almost every winter, causing damage to both the surrounding habitat and golf course. When it floods, golf course management pumps water off of the course and causes further damage to the environment and frog and snake populations.
A plan to restore the seawall was never very well defined and will cost a lot of money. San Francisco, as well as California U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, asked for federal funding to do a study on what needs to be done to the seawall in 2009. To-date, nop federal money has come.
Plater claims that the 2009 study was scientifically unsound and failed to consider the situation holistically.
“The report in 2009 roundly criticized by regulatory bodies and land management agencies," he said. "They didn't consider much of the information available in the new report, such as sea level rise, climate change and beach conservation. These are important elements of Sharp Park, but they were ignored.”
Besides preserving a habitat for endangered species, the Wild Equity Institute believes that transforming the golf course into a park and habitat would be the most moneymaking move for both San Francisco and Pacifica, said Plater.
“Sharp Park Golf Course, which is owned and operated by San Francisco, provides no money to Pacifica at all,” said Plater. “It doesn’t provide money directly or indirectly and it’s been there for 80 years—it’s failed to become a regional attraction and Pacifica is broke. National park visitor centers in San Francisco or Point Reyes bring in millions a year, however. People eat at restaurants, stay at hotels.”
According to Plater, maintaining the status quo at Sharp Park, or even implementing the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department’s 2009 plan, will ultimately end in a loss of revenue and a natural disaster.
“With the data we do have available, the amount of money you’d have to spend to make a regional attraction out of the golf course would far exceed any revenue that course could ever bring in,” he said. “Under the current model, they can try and keep the status quo and have it putter around for a few more decades until the seawall fails and the whole place floods. The status quo will lose even if a restored landscape doesn’t occur.”
Additionally, Plater asserts that closing down the Sharp Park Golf Course would improve the actual game of golf in the Bay Area.
“From a golf perspective, we really should be thinking about the long-term sustainability of the game in the Bay Area,” he said. “The Bay Area currently oversupplies golf--six million rounds more than demand, and it’s getting worse.”
So, Plater asks, why not close Sharp Park?
“There are going to be golf courses that close,” he said. “[Sharp Park offers] a marginal experience and it has flooding issues. There are other, better golf courses that are going to close instead [is Sharp Park stays open], and the game of golf will be made worse off.”
Richard Harris, a founding member of the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, an organization that has long stood in defense of preserving the Sharp Park Golf Course, made comment on the new study.
Harris questioned the validity of calling this study “independent” or “peer-reviewed” in the first place.
“It’s not independent," Harris said. "Bob Battalio (one of the preparers of this study), he’s been Mr. Plater’s advocate throughout this process for the past few years. He is not independent. Same thing with Peter Baye (also listed as a preparer); he’s been writing these things for the last few years. These are not independent guys.”
Both Bob Battalio and Peter Baye worked with Plater during the process leading up to the 2009 study.
Harris also pointed out what he believes to be very expensive oversights in this new study.
“The golf course is planted with Kikuyu grass (an East African grass that was commonly used on golf courses in the region in the in the early 20th century), and it was use on golf courses in the ‘30s and ‘40s. It’s highly invasive and it keeps other things out. If this is going to be repurposed from a golf course to a nature habitat, you have to get that out and that Kikuyu is going outcompete what other natives are in there. You can’t just flood it (the course), you have to get it out.”
One important aspect of this plan is to build an overpass or underpass on Highway 1 that would allow the frog and snake populations to connect, through Sanchez Creek, to neighboring populations and habitats.
“The Laguna Salada SFGS (frogs and snakes) population is on the northernmost edge of the species range (USFWS 1985),” reads the study, “and may be important for genetic interchange between other populations further south. However, surrounding development has become a barrier to SFGS movement into and out of the park, isolating park populations from outside genetic flow. Concrete highway barriers occur on both sides of HWY 1 adjacent to Sharp Park and Mori Point. While these barriers protect SFGS from vehicular traffic they also act as movement barriers.”
So, the study concludes, the ““The primary limiting factors for habitat quality (in the lagoon and surrounding terrestrial environment), sustainability, and population persistence of SFGS and CRLF are likely to be consequences of three primary influences: lack of suitable upland habitat paired with ongoing golf course maintenance and operations; stabilization of artificially low lagoon levels and the lack of an available corridor to connect these populations to the east side of HWY 1.”
But, as Harris mentioned, the cost of installing an underpass or overpass on Highway 1 is not included in the cost estimate of the plan recommended by this study, which is $5,240,000.
“Their [Wild Equity’s] grand vision is to develop a new migration corridor that eliminates the freeway and has frogs and snakes marching up and down the hill to Crystal Springs,” said Harris. “Where’s the money going to come from for that? What’s a freeway under- or overpass going to cost?”
When asked why the cost of installing a underpass or overpass on Highway 1 was not included in the project proposal, Plater said “the probability of getting that part of it completed is very unlikely.”
The plan for a modification to Highway 1 was a recommended change to the area looking forward, he said.
“It’s a phase of the plan which is beyond the scope of the actual study,” he said. “There’s a series of recommendations or suggestions we hope to see in the future, such as the over- or underpass, and it’s a little unclear how much that would cost.”
There is already an underpass on Highway 1 that golfers use in their carts, however, said Plater. There’s a possibility that it may be modified to accommodate a creek.
Also, if Caltrans's plans to widen or modify Highway 1 to lessen congestion on that road goes through, it may be the right moment to install an under- or overpass, said Plater.
The San Francisco mayor’s office said it received Wild Equity’s letter and report but have not yet responded as to whether they’ve read it yet.
Attached are a chart showing the breakdown of costs of the new proposal and the study itself.
Bhatman
9:17 am on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sorry Camden but you've made a journalistic error. Just because Harris is loud, that doesn't mean he has any standing in evaluating a science report - he's a golf lobbyist, let him stick to commenting about the color of Tiger Wood's pants. His comments that Baye and Battalio aren't independent is simply off the charts- these guys are the "go to" guys by the State and the Feds when it comes to coastal ecology and erosion issues - you should have asked Harris to give names of the experts he relies on - he can't because he doesn't have any. Harris complains about the cost of an underpass, yet he's tickled pink to spend $32 million dollars 9of tax-payer money to save a golf course, $11MM to raise the course above sea-level, $13MM to raise the seawall and $8MM for water tanks to water the greens. If you want and independent comment about science - why not ask the California Academy of Sciences, or are they Plater's bitch too?
Scotty
1:08 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
And what are your credentials for pointing out a “journalistic error”? I’m sure that you and Jay Summers would prefer to copy and paste Plater talking points back and forth, but it’s nice that Patch presents both sides of the story (unlike Riptide where advertising dollars ensure that only one side gets represented).
Butch Larroche
10:44 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
Batman, the $8 mil water project should not be lumped solely with the gc. This project will benefit many in Pacifica, not just the course. How can this be a bad thing?
I find it laughable that the save the planet crowd would love to shut down a course that is close for so many on the peninsula & SF to access. Don't they always talk a carbon footprint? Closing Sharp Park will only mean that I will have to drive further to play golf, thus expanding my carbon footprint. Maybe they want us all to drive Prius'!!!!
Jay Summers
12:22 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Richard Harris is the leading attorney for the Golf Course proponents, speaking on behalf of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to prop up money-losing Sharp Park golf course. Anything he says may be taken in that context.
Butch Larroche
10:39 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
So we should take anything that Plater and his minions say as not factual as well according to you Jay?
Scotty
1:09 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
What hypocrites. True environmentalists would be ashamed at calling something like this “peer-reviewed”. It’s no better than the self-serving garbage produced by climate change deniers.
ted edwards
1:38 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
“From a golf perspective, we really should be thinking about the long-term sustainability of the game in the Bay Area,” he said. “The Bay Area currently oversupplies golf--six million rounds more than demand, and it’s getting worse.”
6 million rounds more than demand. Let's see an independent, peer reviewed study that supports this. Plater is a hack on and off the course.
Steve Sinai
2:32 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
For anyone who thinks advocacy groups like CBD or WE are capable of commissioning an independent and peer-reviewed report, I've got a Perpetual Motion Machine I'd like to sell you.
Plater goes out and hires like-minded friends and colleagues to do the report, and then has the chutzpah to call it "independent." Then he tries to give the report a veneer of credibility by claiming that it's peer-reviewed...except rather than having an impartial, third-party referee decide who does the peer-review, as it's supposed to be done - Plater decides to select more like-minded friends and colleagues to do the peer-review.
Plater makes a mockery of the terms "independent" and "peer-reviewed." This study is like the ones tobacco companies used to do, where the conclusions were invariably that tobacco did no damage to one's health.
Even Ross Mirakarimi, the SF Supervisor who was leading the charge to shut down the course and turn it into a frog and snake preserve, had to give it up when the study commissioned by SF showed that the best all-around compromise was to keep the golf course, but modify it to improve the habitat for the frogs and snakes.
Bhatman
3:35 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Steve you are so wrong on so much it's breath taking. The term "peer review" can be interpreted (as you have) as both anonymous review requiring "refereeing", and also as "independent review" which is synonymous with peer review, and is typical with US government agencies and the State of California.
Bhatman
2:33 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
ted before you call anyone a hack you ought to get the facts, the study exists!
Even the pro-golf "NGF study" concluded in 2007 (numbers have been going down since then)--
Significant Findings – Area Municipal Golf Market
• The regional municipal golf courses we surveyed averaged just fewer than 70,000
rounds per 18 holes in 2005-06. For the overall municipal golf market, activity levels
are down by about 30% since peaking (for most courses, in the late 1990s).
• Harding Park’s 60,464 rounds fall below the market average, which is not surprising
given the much higher price points. When the Fleming course’s 41,502 rounds are
added in, the overall facility falls just below the market average per 18 holes.
• Interestingly, both other City 18-hole courses, Lincoln and Sharp, are at about 50%
of the average market activity levels, as is the 9-hole Gleneagles.
--Plenty of capacity, demand falling, costs going up, unsustainable.
Butch Larroche
10:33 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
Could've fooled me. Sharp Park was slammed with golfers all weekend from 6:30am til well after 5:00 pm. Let's see, one foursome every 10 minutes @ approx 28.00-50.00 per person, plus carts @ 13.00 each person=a lot of $$$$$$$$. How much did Platers monument to openness (Mori Point) produce this past weekend? ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!
The math is simple Batman, add it up.
Mori Point..........ZERO
SPGC ......................$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Scotty
2:57 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Let's see... At Sharp Park this weekend hundreds of people from around the bay area PAID HARD-EARNED MONEY DURING A MASSIVE RECESSION to enjoy the golf course. At Mori's Point next door, it was like a ghost town, even though you can access it for free.
The public is telling anyone willing to listen what they think the best use for this park is.
bobby popcorn
4:16 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Imagine a life so void of meaning that golf would offer a glimmer of hope
Rocky
4:33 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Oh great, now we have someone attacking golfers for their choice of recreation. This turns the whole issue into hikers-are-holier-than-thou anti-golf fascism.
Scotty
4:57 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Classy.
Butch Larroche
10:34 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
Obviously Ronald V has no idea on what he comments on.
Steve Sinai
4:52 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Hey Hallman, I was driving around the south end of Pacifica earlier, and noticed that there were hundreds of yards between hikers on the trail near the highway. By my estimate, the trail is operating at under 1% capacity. (And the hikers don't even pay for the privilege.)
Shall we shut the trail down?
The most used trail in Pacifica is the one on top of the berm next to the golf course. Ironic how the most popular trail in town is the one the twirly-dancing,"we-are-at-one-with-the-earth"-types want to tear down.
Jay Summers
7:11 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
The bottom line is -- the public is paying for a money-losing course. $ millions of dollars as it turns out.
The City has plenty of other golf courses -- all a better challenge to the golfer - and located in the community that owns them and that they serve. Not too long ago, San Francisco commissioned a study of Sharp Park golf course users, and it turns out, folks like for the main reason that it doesn't cost much. And that's true. $10 on a friday night - can't beat it!
Steve Sinai
7:47 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
"The bottom line is -- the public is paying for a money-losing course. $ millions of dollars as it turns out. "
Except that SF crunched the numbers and found it would cost even more to close the golf course and convert it into a frog and snake preserve.
Bhatman
8:06 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
The new study shows that the golf course and berm will eventually cause the homes around Sharp Park to flood. Steve Sinai thinks his right to have a cheap golf course is more important then public safety, so he'll say anything. Pathetic.
Bhatman
11:44 am on Monday, February 14, 2011
The non-nothing's battle cry: "Frog habitat is also mosquito habitat!" Making up science facts over a beer at the clubhouse is another reason they should close the golf-course.
FACTS: West Nile is a mosquito-borne virus first detected in the United States in 1999. Some people think that wetlands are part of the problem but just the reverse is true as healthy wetlands are home to fish, insects and birds that eat mosquitoes and keep their populations low. Wetland prevent or reducing flooding in areas that aren’t normally wet also reducing mosqito population.
The species of mosquitoes mainly responsible for transmitting West Nile Virus -- Culex pipiens -- accounts for about 70 percent of WNV samples, can’t fly more than ¼ mile from where they hatched and don’t even prefer wetlands, they breed in stagnant water in discarded tires, birdbaths, and roof gutters, where there are no predators. A healthy wetland provides habitat for natural enemies of mosquitoes. Amphibians, bats, frogs, fish and insects feed on mosquito larvae and/or adults and keep their populations in check. Dragonflies, damselflies, water striders, and predacious diving beetles also are natural enemies of mosquitoes. But these insects need proper habitat, NOT A GOLF COURSE.
Butch Larroche
12:01 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
If you and Plater get your way, which you will not, there will be more "stagnant" water areas than are at SP now. A 1/4 mile is not that far from West Fairway Park homes where children play. It's funny that you are saying the insects need a proper habitat too. Why are so against golf Batman? Do you hate us all?
WNV does not worry as much as the homeless who undoubtedly will take over this property. Without golfers making their daily rounds on the course to see this and report them, this will get out of hand in a short time.
Bhatman
1:21 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
PTP, have another beer and be happy!
According to the SMCMAD: "Mosquitoes are found in both fresh and saltwater marshes in San Mateo County. However, not all marshes produce mosquitoes. Mosquito larvae are not strong swimmers and they cannot survive in flowing water, deep open water, or in the presence of significant populations of insect predators or fish. The District works with property owners on new wetland restoration projects to encourage design elements that will reduce mosquito development...." Now here's the tricky part -- you need to think about this: If you want to stop the unnecessary spraying, get rid of the golf course and restore the wetlands! By the way, Laguna Salada is a freshwater marsh (regardless of what the "no-nothings" post).
Steve Sinai
8:22 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Hey Hallman, you gotta lay off the airplane glue. Laguna Salada is a freshwater marsh because of the berm. The whole reason the berm was built was because the area was constantly being inundated with salt water from storms and surges. No berm, no freshwater marsh. No freshwater marsh, no froggies or snakies.
The environmental study commissioned by SF found that to be the case, the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club found that to be the case, and anyone who's lived in Pacifica long enough to see storm surges along the coast knows that to be the case.
Care to explain why a freshwater lagoon was originally given the Spanish name of "Salty Lake/Lagoon"? Was the original owner of the land named Señor Salty?
Also, if Laguna Salada is a major source of skeeters, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply stock the lagoon with some skeeter-eatin' fish, rather than spend tens of millions of $$ to turn it into a wetland that won't generate any revenue?
Butch Larroche
1:26 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
No nothings? Sounds like you are the no nothing Batman. No fun, no people, no recreation for anyone but hikers.
Bhatman
1:37 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Butch sez: "..the $8 mil water project should not be lumped solely with the gc. This project will benefit many in Pacifica, not just the course." B.S., it's almost entirely to water the golf course, spreading potential health hazards and contaminated water if the water treatment isn't 100%.
Butch sez: "Closing Sharp Park will only mean that I will have to drive further to play golf.." Freudian slip, oops.
Butch sez: "It's funny that you are saying the insects need a proper habitat too. " This guy never heard of the food chain. Hey butch, no buzz.... no beer!
Butch sez: "...the homeless who undoubtedly will take over this property. Without golfers making their daily rounds on the course to see this and report them, this will get out of hand in a short time." Poor mister compassionate can't let the homeless get in the way of his golf game.
Butch Larroche
2:08 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
What health hazards ?
Closing Sharp Park does not mean that those golfers who play there will stop playing golf as you want to see I guess.
What is your strange fascination with beer? Do you think all golfers are drunks? Hikers don't enjoy a nice beer at times with their tofu sandwiches?
I guess you are in favor of the homeless coming to Pacifica and bringing the crime and drugs that will for sure come with them.
Come by Sharp Park for a beer Batman and I'll show you how important is to us golfers and Pacifica. Anytime, the first beer is on me.
Steve Sinai
8:31 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
So Hallman would rather replace revenue-generating golfers with resource-draining hobos? Give that man a humanitarian award.
Jay Summers
7:13 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
The Pacifica Recycled Water Project -- originally estimated at about $8 million -- is a de facto first step to the build out project proposed for Sharp Park by San Francisco Recreation and Parks. It's only the first step in what would be a multi million dollar project to protect a money losing golf course from the ragages of a rising sea. If berms are built as proposed by SF Rec & Park, rapid erosion of the beach at Sharp Park will occur: losing scenic, recreational, and biomass values -- a terrible result for all. A much better choice would be to restore Sharp Park -- and golf at nearby Harding or Cypress.
Here's a good link to support of the facts for restoring Sharp Park -- into a park everyone can enjoy:
www.restoresharppark.org
Butch Larroche
8:33 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Jay, Cypress is a 9 hole course that does not even come close to offering what Sharp Park has to offer. As for golf at Harding, while a very nice course, it is very expensive. Yes it's true that SP offers great value, but SP is the golfing home of 2 different golf clubs with a combined membership of over 350 players. Please stop regurgitating the Plater party line as those arguments have all been proven wrong and are so stale. It's really time for all of us to move on and enjoy what we have. Golf at SP, hiking at Sweeney Ridge, Montara Mountain & Mori Point. I invite anyone of you, Jay, Batman, anyone from the anti golf crowd to spend a day at Sharp Park with me. Come down on a Saturday or Sunday and see how not only the course, but the entire facility is enjoyed by young & old, men & women.
Bhatman
8:57 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
"SP is the golfing home of 2 different golf clubs with a combined membership of over 350 players." Wow, 350 members. At $32 million dollars, that's 730 rounds per member at Harding at $125.00 per round. Lets see, 730 rounds at 5 rounds a week will last you 14 years! I wonder if we would spend that much money on a library that had 350 members?
Butch Larroche
9:06 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Batman, I could go on & on with you but it's just no longer worth it.
Steve Sinai
9:11 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Your comment makes absolutely no sense, Hallman. Please try to not post gibberish. Thank you.
Bhatman
9:29 pm on Monday, February 14, 2011
Sorry if I used big numbers Steve. (not "Hallman"(?), really)
Steve Sinai
5:51 am on Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Hallman, I've read hundreds of your comments on Pacifica-L, and your erratic, hop-all-over-the-place style of debate is very distinctive. Even the way you insult people is recognizably Hallmanesque.
On top of that, Bhatman and Bhallman are too close to chalk up to coincidence. (B stands for Bruce, for those who weren't aware.)
Of course, if you're not Hallman, you could clear this up by telling us who you are. Your comments would have more credibility if there was a real name behind them.
Jay Summers
12:30 am on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
"unlike Riptide where advertising dollars ensure that only one side gets represented". With millions to support them, AOL and the Pacifica.patch certainly are economic engines. Pacifica Riptide- not so much.
Bhatman
7:59 am on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
"B stands for Bruce" You're a regular Poirot, but without the little gray cells.
Scotty
6:00 pm on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Clever. Maybe someone can break out "I'm rubber and you're glue" and raise the level of discourse to a third-grade level.
Jay Summers
10:21 pm on Saturday, February 19, 2011
"Cypress is a 9 hole course that does not even come close to offering what Sharp Park has to offer. As for golf at Harding, while a very nice course, it is very expensive." Yes-- that's right. All Cypress offers is very inexpensive golf -- no drinks etc. It is a beautiful course. Harding rates for residents are comparable on weekdays -- they are low. The cost for residents at Harding midweek is about the same as Sharp Park -- and the game is a fun challenge.
Steve Sinai
12:41 am on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Suggesting 9-hole Cypress as an alternative to Sharp Park? Why not suggest that putt-putt place in Redwood City, too?
Butch Larroche
4:26 am on Sunday, February 20, 2011
Jay, do you play golf? My guess would be no by your misinformed statements. Cypress is not anything close to the same golf experience. Midweek golf at Harding is not an option for most as we work during the week.
Please do not tell me when and where I should golf.
Jay Summers
8:14 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011
Please do not ask the public to subsidize your golf game.
A cost that is not just millions of taxpayer dollars to keep out a rising sea, keep pumping out water, and pay for various liabilities -- but will also include loss of the Sharp Park beach if seawalls are put in to protect the golf course sea level rise.
Play Half Moon Bay or Crystal Springs Reservoir.
Butch Larroche
7:39 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"Please do not ask the public to subsidize your golf game."
Jay, why is it ok for the public to subsidize Plater's & your vision for Sharp Park? You do not think that will cost money? Jay, unless you're a SF resident your cry against tax dollars is a sham. Do you live in SF? Pacifican's pay nothing towards the operation of Sharp Park but we all benefit from having Sharp Park Golf Course there. Pacifica and Sharp Park GC is a destination for many Bay Area golfers. Can the same be said about a restored Mori's Point? I say no just from the lack of hikers I see there compared to the amount of golfers I see at Sharp Park.
"Play Half Moon Bay or Crystal Springs Reservoir."
I don't tell you where to hike so please do not tell me where I should play golf. I choose to play Sharp Park for many reasons but mostly because it is home. I'm sure the thousand's of golfers that call Sharp Park GC home feel the same way. We take it personally that someone is trying to take away our golfing home!!!
Jay Summers
8:54 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The number one reason for playing at Sharp Park golf course is that it is very cheap to play there according to a recent SF survey. Way below market rates in fact -- $10 on a friday night - can't beat it! Sharp Park earns failing grades in almost all other metrics in the same survey.
And that's the bottom line here: tax money from the general public should not be used to fund this money losing golf course. There are plenty of places to play nearby -- but not at below market rates.
Scotty
10:20 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Hey Jay, it's free to hike at Mori's Point.... Why don't people do that?
Are you saying that we should pave Mori's Point and build houses there, since people choose not to go there even though it's free (unlike Sharp Park where people are willing to pay to access the golf course)?
Butch Larroche
7:42 am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
Once again Jay, you seem to holding on to the NGF study from over 4 years ago. That study was conducted at a time when Sharp Park was not in the best shape. Our new superintendant has got the course back to very nice shape. I'm sure if that study was to take place today the results would be quite different. Stop quoting this old survey.
You say tax money should not used to fund the course. Why should it used to fund Plater Park? Why is it ok for that? If tax money should not used for parks, maybe we should shut down GG Park. How much does that cost the SF taxpayer?
You and your buddy Batman have still not answered my question, are you SF residents? If not, your taxpayer arguments are not valid. My guess is you both live here Pacifica and have drank the Plateraid and can no longer think clearly.
Scotty is right, if it's free to hike at Mori's, why is no one ever there? Why do people pay money to golf when they can hike for free? You can see for yourself on any day, there are many more people golfing at Sharp Park than hiking at Mori's. That is fact!!!
Bhatman
11:02 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"Your" golf home? Nope - you and all Pacifica golfers are guests of San Francisco who out of their generosity have given you preferential rates to play there, so show respect for SF residents who will decide what to do with THEIR property.
Butch Larroche
11:27 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Are you a SF resident Bhatman or WHATEVER your name is?
Pacifica golfers are not the only ones playing at Sharp's so get real big boy!!!!!!!!
Bhatman
10:30 am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
Were you named "Butch" or are you just compensating?
Butch Larroche
10:33 am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
Yes I was. At least I don't hide behind a fake name like a coward!!! What are you afraid of?
Steve Sinai
10:37 am on Thursday, February 24, 2011
Bruce Hallman, aka Bhatman - you need to put more effort into your insults. They're boring.
Bhatman
11:29 pm on Thursday, February 24, 2011
Oh dear, it seems the berm has sprung a leak, metaphorically speaking.
Scotty
7:08 am on Friday, February 25, 2011
Your metaphors make about as much sense as your personal website, Hallman. You might see if there's an IBL student who can help you upgrade it, BTW.
Camden Swita
11:06 am on Friday, February 25, 2011
Fake names aside, I'm about to publish something about a new report from the Sharp Park Working Group. Stay tuned and let's keep this discussion on topic.
Thanks,
Camden
Bhatman
11:08 am on Friday, February 25, 2011
Camden, please be sure to get comments from authoritative (science based) sources, as science is now driving this issue from hereon in. I've quickly scanned the statement by the "working group" and it fairly clear that the new peer-reviewed science report (although the findings have been well known for some) has now led the SF Rec and Park to come to the only conclusions possible: Abandon armoring the sea wall and agreeing that natural management of the area is the only way to provide the most sustainable solution to the problems there.
Butch Larroche
12:29 pm on Friday, February 25, 2011
And keep the course open. As I have said all along, golfers, frogs and snakes can all co exist at Sharp Park.
Rocky
11:21 am on Friday, February 25, 2011
"These habitat enhancements and golf could be compatible."
- SHARP PARK WORKING GROUP STATEMENT AND LIST OF FINDINGS
Jay Summers
10:32 pm on Monday, February 28, 2011
Numbers need to be put into perspective:
"SP is the golfing home of 2 different golf clubs with a combined membership of over 350 players." 350 is equal to two-thirds of one percent of the roughly 200,000 taxpayers who pay for Sharp Park. It's not a good return on their money, since perhaps 500 SF residents regularly use the course.
"That study was conducted at a time when Sharp Park was not in the best shape." Sharp Park is not in good shape - as a golf course or as restored habitat.
Repairing the course will cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money. A better use of SF taxpayer money is to improve parks and golf courses located in San Francisco, where SF communities actually can enjoy their property. And let the GGNRA restore the habitat at a fraction of the cost -- and maximum benefit for all the people.
The real cost perspective is unimaginably high -- for a public that is facing closed programs for youth, healthcare, seniors. It just does not make sense to pay for a golf course so relatively few people use -- but everyone is paying millions of dollars to keep.
Butch Larroche
7:46 am on Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Jay, where do you get your figures?I can tell you that many more than 500 SF residents play SP regularly, I can get the exact number for you. SF residents get a great return on their investment at SP.
Unless you have played golf at SP in the last year, you comment about SP not being in good golf shape is ill-informed at best. As a golf course, SP is in it's best shape in years thanks to our new super. He has done a fabulous job there. How would you know what kind of shape the course is in? Please try to comment on things you know of and just don't recite the Plater playbook.
You also keep comparing Half Moon Bay and Harding to SP as other places to play. While both very nice courses, the are very expensive to play at $150.00 plus per round. How many golfing seniors can afford that? And please stop putting Cypress in the same category as SP. You cannot compare a Par 3 9 hole course to a regulation 18 hole course.
You and your buddy Batman act as if there will no cost associated with converting SP into Platerland!!! That will cost money and invite a host of problems for Pacifica and it's residents.
Again, will you answer my question? Do you live in SF Jay?
Steve Sinai
11:13 pm on Monday, February 28, 2011
Where are you getting your cost info, Jay. I hope it's not from one of Plater's (cough-cough) "peer-reviewed" reports.
According to the Tetratech report commissioned by SF, improving habitat while keeping the golf course at 18 holes would cost $5.9 million to $11.3 million. Closing the golf course completely to turn it into frog and snake habitat would cost $9 million to $22.2 million. The latter is hardly "a fraction of the cost."
http://sf-recpark.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/wcm_recpark/SharpParkGC/Tetratechfinalrpt110609.pdf
The financial numbers are on page 3.
PTP
9:36 am on Sunday, April 3, 2011
I gave a copy of the “New Sharp Park Study” to Andy “Crab King” Pappas for pier-review. His scientific conclusion, “As far as CBD and WEI are concerned, I’d throw a net over the entire bunch of ‘em!”