This dispatch just in from our SF colleague in the "Golf War", Richard Harris, of the SF Public Golf Alliance:
1. Sharp Survives San Francisco's Budget Battle.
The SF Board of Supervisors on Tuesday July 20 adopted a final 2010-2011 budget that leaves intact funding for Sharp Park Golf Course. The vote was 10-1 to adopt the budget, with only Supervisor Daly objecting. The Sharp Park issue was not publicly mentioned by any Board member in the Full Board's deliberations.
Golf opponents, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, raised their close-the-golf-course-to-raise-money-for-parks-and-social-welfare-programs argument in public hearings in April, May, and June at the Board's Budget Committee; they were supported by a coalition of social services providers and some environmental organizations and a journalistic hit piece, "Bleeding Green," which appeared on the cover of the June 2 edition of the SF Weekly.
But, the Public Golf Alliance members, and its allies the Pacifica Community Coalition To Save Sharp Park Golf Course (PCC) and the Sharp Park Golf Club, fought back, with nearly 150 letters and e-mails to the Supervisors, and also a dozen stalwart golf supporters who, on June 21, stood patiently waiting through a 5-hour Budget Committee meeting to give public testimony in support of the golf course. At the end of the day, the Supervisors agreed that it made no sense to close Sharp Park Golf Course.
Since April, 2009, when Supervisor Mirkarimi opened the "Close-Sharp-Park Golf Course" Campaign with a Board Resolution to study possible closure of the golf course, the "Save Sharp Park Golf Course" campaign has won the support of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Northern California Golf Association, World Golf Foundation, the Pacifica City Council, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Sons-in-Retirement(SIR), Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Laborers' Local 261, and 4,500 new members of the Public Golf Alliance. The SF Board of Supervisors now joins the SF Recreation and Park Commission and the SF Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee(PROSAC), as San Francisco governmental bodies that have heard and rejected the "close-the-golf-course" arguments of the Center for Biological Diversity and its allies.
2. SF Supervisors Reject Proposed Charter Amendment to Change Selection Process for Rec & Park Commission.
By a 6-5 vote, the Supervisors on Tuesday night also rejected a proposed Charter Amendment that would have split appointment-authority over the SF Recreation and Park Commission members between the Mayor's office and the Board of Supervisors.
Commission members are currently, and historically, all appointed by the Mayor.
This means that this proposed charter amendment will not be placed by the Board on the November, 2010 election ballot. Both the SF Public Golf Alliance and the Neighborhood Parks Council wrote letters opposing the proposed charter amendment. Voting against the amendment were Supervisors David Chiu, Carmen Chu, Sean Elsbernd, Sophie Maxwell, Bevan Dufty, and Michaela Alioto-Pier; in favor were Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, David Campos, Eric Mar, and John Avalos.
~Richard Harris
ALL THREE GOLF COURSE ADVOCATE GROUPS WISH TO EXPRESS THEIR THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS AND E-MAILS, ATTENDED PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND DONATED
TIME, MONEY, EXPERTISE, IN THE CONTINUING EFFORT TO SAVE SHARP PARK GOLF COURSE.
Richard Harris Barbara Arietta
Co-Chair Chair
SF Public Golf Alliance Pacifica Community Coalition To Save Sharp Park Golf Course (PCC)
415-392-5431, ext 203 415-246-0775
Dave Diller
President
Sharp Park Golf Club
Ddill49@aol.com
Submitted by Barbara Arietta
6 comments:
Congratulations! Great campaign, does this mean this war is over, or this part of the war is over?
Kathy,
I'll just repeat the commentary I added to this great news on my blog:
The Golf War is not over. Despite being shown to be wrong on the science, wrong on public support, and wrong on the operational budget for the golf course - we can expect the WEBLEEDU cult (Wild Equity Biodiversity Litigation for Ecological Extortion and Deep Untruths) to look for another venue to press their case.
No one can say for certain where the next front will open up, but it is likely we'll see more opposition when funding is secured for the capital expenditures to provide enhanced habitat for the endangered frog and snake per the Park and Rec Department recommendations. Litigation is in the WEBLEEDU DNA, so this will likely not be over until the legal battle is joined. They'll lose any litigation just as long the The City shows some backbone, calls their bluff and stands up to them in court.
Perhaps it won't end until the people and organizations that contribute to WEI and CBD ask whether their ecological contributions are better spent on something other than the destruction of a beloved landmark golf course that has existed in harmony with the endangered frog and snake for over 70 years.
Wasn't it the formation of the golf course (and subsequent berm to protect it and nearby homes) responsible the created a suitable habitat for these creatures?
Or, to put it another way, if the area were somehow transported back to its native state (pre-golf course, pre-berm), wouldn't the area would be inhospitable to the frog/snakes as they don't live in the dunes or salt marsh?
Do I have that right?
Sorry for the attrocious cut-and-paste mistake.
My post should read:
Wasn't it the formation of the golf course (and subsequent berm to protect it and nearby homes) that created a suitable habitat for these creatures?
Or, to put it another way, if the area were somehow transported back to its native state (pre-golf course, pre-berm), wouldn't the area would be inhospitable to the frog/snakes as they don't live in the dunes or salt marsh?
Do I have that right?
Anon,
Those who would destroy the course claim otherwise, but they offer absolutely no evidence that the snake and frog were in this habitat prior to the creation of the course. The presentation of biologist and local expert Karen Swaim strongly supports that contention that both are there because of the course. She presents a 1928 aerial photograph of the site that shows Laguna Salada had an open channel to the sea - which makes it salt water and poisonous to the frog. If there are no frogs, there are no snakes that feed on them. Moreover, the land that is now the golf course, was all agricultural (probably artichokes) and inhospitable to both the frog and snake. The very first time that the snake and frog are documented on the site is in 1946 - 16 years after the creation of the golf course. The most reasonable conclusion is that these animals thrived here for 70 years(despite being endangered elsewhere) because of the course, not in spite of it.
Even more bizarre - if you look carefully at the Restore Sharp Park proposal (let the berm erode away as the seas rise and turn the golf course into a frog sanctuary) - their plan is to permit the salt water destruction of the current existing habitat for the frog and snake, in the hope that they will walk across the Sharp Park land, under/over Highway One, and up the hill into a habitat where they have never been established before. Really. Thats there plan. I don't understand why anyone takes them seriously.
mw,
Thanks for the reply. It's good to know that we're thinking along similar lines.
I always wondered why advocates wanted the course restored to its native state, when that native state didn't include snakes and frogs due to natural salt water incursion.
Post a Comment