This press release was sent to Pacifica Patch by Richard Harris, a golf advocate.
Federal district court judge Susan Illston, in a ruling issued on April 26, in a suit brought by environmental activists seeking to close the historic , owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco but located in neighboring Pacifica. The order, which also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, follows the court's decision late last year to deny the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction that would have shut down 10 of the course's 18 holes. The case had been scheduled for trial in October 2012.
Sharp Park Golf Course, which is celebrating its 80th anniversary next month, was designed by legendary architect Dr. Alister MacKenzie, who created many of the world’s most hallowed courses, including Augusta National and Cypress Point. The course is a rarity – a seaside links, created by a master and open to the public at modest greens fees.
“The court did the prudent thing in staying the litigation,” said Bo Links, co-founder of the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, which intervened in the case in an effort to save the course. “This is the second time that the Judge has ruled against the plaintiffs on key motions. With the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considering the City's Biological Assessment for the golf course, it made no sense for the plaintiffs to insist that the court continue to expend its limited resources on their suit. This winter the frogs once again laid a huge number of eggs at Sharp Park, showing that the city’s efforts to improve frog habitat, while at the same time providing affordable recreation to a diverse and vibrant group of local golfers, are working.”
The plaintiffs in Wild Equity Institute v. City & County of San Francisco had filed a motion asking the court to rule that golf course operations and maintenance "take" red legged frogs in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. SFPGA and the City challenged plaintiffs' standing to sue, opposed their motion, and asked the court to stay the litigation while the Fish and Wildlife Service considers the City’s measures to address impacts to frogs and snakes and their habitat.
In its 19-page order, the court found that plaintiffs had standing, but denied the plaintiffs’ own motion for summary judgment, and granted San Francisco’s request to stay the litigation. The court explained: “As the FWS may issue a Biological Opinion within months that can at least inform, if not entirely moot, this case, and because the breeding season for the Frog will not occur again until next winter, the Court finds this to be an appropriate case in which to exercise its inherent authority for a stay. The stay will allow for the expert agency to review the City’s plan and evaluate the golf course’s activities on the Frog and Snake.”
SFPGA's lead attorney in the case, Chris Carr of Morrison & Foerster, said: “This is good news for supporters of public golf courses in the Bay Area and beyond. It’s also good news for responsible supporters of the Endangered Species Act, rightly concerned that the Sharp Park case could lead any parade of ESA abuse horribles. Because of the city’s responsible stewardship of Sharp Park, golf fans everywhere, including the many thousands who will be attending the U.S. Open Golf Championship in June here in San Francisco, have reason to be optimistic that extremists will not succeed in misusing the ESA to shut down one of golf’s great historic courses.”
But it may not matter whether they win or lose any specific judgement. In the past CBD has submitted their "billable" hours spent on just this type of attempted legal intimidation for reimbursement from the federal government under the auspices of the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Endangered Species Act. There is no meaningful oversight or clear criteria for reimbursed under these programs. The CBD has been paid millions of dollars suckling at the federal teat. I assume they and WEI are intending to do the same with the hours they expend on Sharp. Since the reimbursement is based on the number of hours they can document on baseless cases like this, and assuming they are submitting the hours for reimbursement as they have in the past, it is in their financial interest for the cases to extend as long as possible. The longer the case drags on, the more motions and complaints they can file, the more hours they can bill the taxpayer. True, they don't get reimbursed like private practice lawyers, "only" about $135 / hour, but that is still a pretty good wage for your run-of-the-mill deep ecologist. So it goes on - suits without end.