Seawall reply

Nov. 29, 2010 

Jeff Miller’s “My Turn” reply in the Tribune last week to my article of the previous week on the Sharp Park seawall did not so much rebut the points I made as much as it simply steered around them. My main concerns, and that of many of my neighbors, are (1) the potential vulnerability of the existing seawall, (2) the need for a detailed and impartial structural study of the seawall, and (3) the Center for Biological Diversity’s attempts to block that study. I believe I offered more than sufficient evidence to support each of those points. Instead of addressing these matters, however, Mr. Miller re-hashes his tired and tattered plan to turn our venerable, historic, 77-year-old Sharp Park Golf Course into a frog and snake sanctuary. 

(*Blogmaster's note: Here is a link to Jeff Miller's "My Turn" column regarding Sharp Park. )

This plan is based on two premises that don’t stand up to the light of day. The first is that the golf course loses money, and the second is that it kills frogs and snakes. In fact, every time Mr. Miller, or his cohort Brent Plater, refers to Sharp Park, it is “…that money-losing, species-killing golf course”. Simply put, those accusations are not true. But as they are the basis of the “Restore Sharp Park” campaign, Mr. Miller & Co. cannot accept that.

On the question of finances (and the correlated accusation of the course being “underused”) Sharp Park generates an average annual revenue of $1,228,160. Now, where that money goes, where it is tabulated, is up to the City of San Francisco. Money is routinely moved from the Sharp Park account to other accounts at the discretion of the city. There is nothing illegal or even unusual about this. But it is, understandably, tough to accurately say where any monies come from and where they wind up. A ‘Sports Illustrated’ writer a while ago called San Francisco’s Park and Rec bookkeeping “laughingly deceptive”. Mr. Miller has obtained some figures from some department that shows the course in a negative light. He disregards any figures that show otherwise. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Sharp Park operates in the black. With over 50,000 rounds a year played, it’s a moneymaker.

The question of “species-killing”, however tentative it may have originally been, has been put to rest by San Francisco’s adoption of a program developed by its environmental consultants, Tetra-Tech, Inc., with the support of Karen Swaim, the GGNRA’s biologist at the neighboring Mori Point project and a recognized authority on the San Francisco Garter Snake and the Red Legged Frog. She testified that both critters would “thrive”” in Sharp Park under the conditions now being implemented.

This program took some time to wind its way through the various departments of San Francisco city government, and at every level Mr. Miller and Mr. Plater had ample opportunity to participate. Their arguments were disproved and rejected by the San Francisco Rec and Park Commission, the S.F. Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee (PROSAC) and the S.F. Board of Supervisors Budget Committee. All these bodies conducted open, lengthy hearings, considered their evidence, listened to their testimony, and, time after time, rejected it. The Pacifica City Council and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have also adopted unanimous resolutions in favor of preserving Sharp Park.

So why are Mr. Miller, Mr. Plater, and their various organizations still trying to close our golf course? I have to wonder. No one could deny that a substantial amount of Pacifica is already sequestered for hiking and biking trails, beaches, parks, hills, snowy plover habitat, etc. And I don’t object to that at all. As a matter of fact, I often walk my dog up Mori Point, a well-planned and beautifully executed renovation that should be the envy of the coast. I note, however, we have yet to see the bonanza of ecotourism dollars we keep hearing about. No matter how much land we set aside, Mr. Miller & friends want more. And they won’t quit. With all the really serious environmental problems facing us today, these guys are committed to closing a popular public golf course.

But I think that they have kind of painted themselves into a corner with this Sharp Park business. I mean, they are now forced into situations where they have to say that the frogs and snakes would do fine in salt water, that more people would use a frog park than a golf course, and that our homes in Fairway Park would be safer WITHOUT the seawall (and worth more, too). They are certainly entitled to their opinion. And with environmental litigation being the growth industry it is today, there’s no shortage of “experts” to back them up. But I’d still like to have the Army Corps of Engineers come in and take a look around. Just on the off chance that my house is NOT safer without the seawall.

Submitted by Paul Slavin