Poll: Should SMC Share Sharp Park with SF?

The Board of Supervisors approved the beginning of talks with San Francisco about the future of the course on Tuesday.

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to begin negotiations for partial control of  on Tuesday. 

In response to the proposal that would enter the county into discussions about shared management of the course with the city and county of San Francisco - which currently owns and operates the links - Board President Adrienne Tissier said she believed the focus of talks should be "how we can save the golf course, but make sure the endangered species can be taken care of."

Should San Mateo County take over a share of the course? Respond to our anonymous poll below. 

The species she refers to are the threatened red-legged frog and the endangered San Francisco garter snake, sources of conflict and a over whether golf should be allowed to continue as is at Sharp Park. 

Assistant County Manager David Holland said shared management of the course may require redesigning portions that interfere with some of the turf the frogs and snakes depend on. 

Holland estimated such an effort could cost between $7 million to $10 million in coming years if the board approves moving forward with the restoration. 

Tissier added that the approval granted Tuesday was not a binding agreement to control the course, but rather to begin preliminary discussions. She also noted that showing interest in the future of the course fell in line with the board's economic development targets, which included capitalizing on recreational activities.

Environmental advocates pleaded with supervisors to consider dedicating the golf course land as a wildlife preserve, but the board overruled that effort.

For more of Pacifica Patch's coverage about the Sharp Park Golf Course, head to our topic page

For more news about Pacifica and surrounding areas, including the San Mateo County Coastside, follow us on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook.

Camden Swita January 28, 2012 at 03:02 AM
"Yes" votes making a slow comeback.
Paul Slavin January 28, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Of course San Mateo County should have a hand in managing Sharp Park, which, by the way, is IN San Mateo County.It is also a prime civic asset, a historical treasure, and a steady, money-making recreation destination for thousands of Bay Area residents.
Cindy Abbott January 28, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Worth considering since the golf course is in San Mateo County (and owing to Pacifica not existing at the time the property was donated to the City of San Francisco for the purpose of public recreation by Honora Sharp).
Diet T January 29, 2012 at 02:00 AM
I feel this poll wasn't worded correctly because the YES votes are split and consequently diluted....maybe to skew the results? I voted YES, no changes but wouldn't mind minor changes to a few holes if it would have a REAL measurable effect on the two species in question. I am a Sierra Club member with the Loma Prieta Chapter that represents San Mateo County. That chapter is for keeping Sharp Park as a golf course because the frogs and snakes have coexisted and actually flourished for 80 years the way it is. The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club is the one that wants to shut down the course. So, if so many SF entities are for getting rid of the course, maybe let San Mateo County take care of it. The City of San Mateo did a wonderful job with the redesign of Poplar Creek at Coyote Point. With an enlightened vision, San Mateo County could improve the course (better drainage) while at the same time improving the habitat for the threatened and endangered species. I was also delighted by the way the San Mateo Board of Supervisors was able to effectively silence, by a unanimous vote, the contentious and litigious Center for Biological Diversity group. I believe that meeting was covered by a separate article here on The Patch.
Diet T January 29, 2012 at 05:02 AM
.......is anyone as suspicious as I am about the voters who are deleting their cookies and voting multiple times.
Camden Swita January 29, 2012 at 05:13 AM
I wasn't skewing the results, and the distinction between the two 'yes' camps is significant. I also don't think they become diluted this way, as all you need to do is add up the percentages.
Charles Dodgson January 29, 2012 at 05:14 AM
Why waste time deleting cookies? Can you say "chrome incognito"?
Diet T January 30, 2012 at 02:23 AM
Kind of makes these poll results questionable.....Charles you are pretty sly!
Craig Heden February 03, 2012 at 02:50 AM
The article should note that recent court evidence revealed no decline in either populations over the last 20 years. Also, general opinion is the existing population(s) have clearly benefited from the creation of the golfcourse and it's controlled environment as compared to a hostile, tree-less tidal marsh as it once was. I think once people understand the facts, their opinions would change on the merit of keeping affordable (and profitable) golf available for everyone while providing favorable habitat for continuing the upswing in endangered species survival.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something