Sharp Park as golf course is best for everyone
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Golf is supposed to be a sport of polite applause, good sportsmanship and thoughtful strolls down green fairways.
So why is everyone yelling?
So why is everyone yelling?
The Sharp Park golf course
in Pacifica has become a flash point for a debate over recreational
space, governmental spending and the life cycle of the red-legged frog.
Basically, the debate comes down to two diametrically opposed ideas:
Should
Sharp Park remain as it is - a nice, if plebeian, 18-hole layout for
the everyday public golfer? Or, should it be turned into a recreational
space that would allow hiking and biking and guarantee the habitat of
the aforementioned frog and the endangered San Francisco garter snake?
The
Recreation and Park Department is scheduled to release a
long-anticipated report Friday on options. I don't know what the
recommendations will be, but here's what it should say - Sharp Park
should be preserved as a golf course with some modifications to protect
the wildlife. Given the facts, and the wishes of what seems to be the
majority of the community, that's the logical outcome.
For
starters, who says open space is better for frogs and snakes? Golfers
walk around an established route and do their best to stay on course.
An open space means off-leash dogs, mountain bikers and exploratory
hikers. A golfer will probably be less invasive than an off-road
bicyclist.
Second, there is lots of talk about turning the management of the land over to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. But the GGNRA doesn't run golf courses, and turning it into something like Crissy Field would take a lot of political clout.
Crissy Field became a reality thanks to a strong push back in 1996 from then-Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer. If Sharp Park is going to become a coastal open space it will need similar support from Rep. Jackie Speier, and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
"Jackie
supports what the local people want," said Mike Larsen, communications
director for Speier, the Hillsborough Democrat. "And her sense is they
want it to remain a golf course."
So that's settled, except for one more critical factor - money.
Opened
in 1932, the course was carved out of the Pacific coastline and has
periodically flooded ever since. No matter what happens, some fix must
be found to keep large chunks of the property from disappearing
underwater. Otherwise, some groups believe the area will not be in
compliance with the California and federal government's Endangered Species Act.
"There is no proposal out there that is not going to cost us a minimum of $5 million," said San Francisco Supervisor Sean Elsbernd. "I am probably the biggest proponent of golf on the Board of Supervisors, and even I wouldn't recommend that we spend it on Sharp Park."
That's where Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi enters the picture. He commissioned the study in the first place because he sees an unequal relationship between the city of San Francisco, Sharp Park and Pacifica, which is in San Mateo County.
"We
are carrying all the liability and Pacifica is getting all the
benefit," Mirkarimi said. "We are on the hook for satisfying the state
and federal government and Pacifica has never taken any
responsibility." But a compromise may be in the works.
Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, is open to the idea of joint financing with San Francisco and San Mateo County.
"I think now would be the time to explore a partnership," Hill said.
The
key is to stop dithering and get this project rolling. State
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, an avid golfer and supporter of Sharp Park,
says her understanding is that the report will propose keeping the golf
course with a few modifications.
"I understand one is to move one of the holes, maybe the 12th, to the right to accommodate the frog and snake," she said.
Fine with me. I always hit my tee shot over there anyhow.
C.W. Nevius' column appears Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.
1 comment:
Good article.
Post a Comment