Saturday, March 26, 2011

SF Chronicle story on Sharp Park


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/24/MNVR1IH4LJ.DTL&ao=2

Posted by Steve Sinai
Posted by at

8 comments:

todd bray said...

This article should be labeled an opinion piece. The author has misrepresented virtually everything at issue and the various parties involved. Breathtakingly poorly researched and written.

March 26, 2011 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...

Can you be specific about what you thought was misrepresented or poorly written? I thought the report was reasonably balanced, presented both sides in a factual manner, and did an adequate job of reporting.

March 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM
todd bray said...

Good for you Anon.

March 26, 2011 at 6:53 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Todd, or some one else....I don't get it, isn't this the same effort to move forward with the plan from last year?

"....the city hopes to begin work on a $6 million to $10 million effort to reconfigure Sharp Park, including moving some holes, improving drainage and linking up two ponds key to the red-legged frog habitat - Horse Stable Pond and Laguna Salada."

How would the link up of these 2 ponds occur, same frog trail?

March 26, 2011 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...

So then you can't be specific about the misrepresentations and why you say it's poorly researched. All you can do is make broad, meaningless attacks.

March 26, 2011 at 9:55 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Anon 9:55pm, I'm just trying to figure-out if the City of San Francisco moved forward with the prior rehabilitation plan for Sharp Park 18 hole golf course, or if the plan was altered and how that changed.

The first part of the article states the issue (as I described by Meeh at 7:18pm), from there the viewpoint seems a bit underwater. I'm sure you can figure-it-out. Sharp Park golf course is productive "open space", pays its way, and is important to both this city and San Francisco.

Anon, the "attack" is coming from you. Did you write this article? If so, why are you apparently defending the anti-golfer, bad for our economy, "junk science" view?

March 26, 2011 at 11:07 PM
Anonymous said...

I'm not defending "the anti-golfer, bad for our economy, "junk science" view." Read the article again. I'm not saying it does a great job, but at least it attempts to report both sides of the argument.

March 27, 2011 at 10:00 AM
todd bray said...

I disagree Anon, I think it was written as page filler. The author simply generalizes pro and anti SPGC positions and the various groups involved and not in an informed way but in a jaded got a deadline way. It's not adding or subtracting to the issue just furthering the ignorance of the issues to those not aware of the issues or the different groups on either side of the issues or their motivations.

March 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)