Created Mar 5 2011 - 10:29am
Sharp Park squabble gives ecology a bad name
A lot of coastal residents near San Francisco are asking themselves an age old question: What came first, the frog egg sacs or the battered sea wall?
The answer will provide a glimpse into the case surrounding Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica that, in the way of old municipal big- footing, is owned and operated by San Francisco, which this week was sued by a host of environmental groups over what they claim is shoddy conservation practices to protect endangered frogs and snakes.
Not included in the lawsuit, filed in federal court over the alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act, is the real reason behind the legal challenge, which is that the environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, want the park turned back into natural coastal habitat.
And that is a tad ironic, because if the seawall that separates the ocean from the popular course were removed, the salt-water assault would likely wash away the lagoon that provides life for the frogs, which attract the snakes. You know, kind of like nature.
I have no particular interest in golf, though I must say that any sport that involves walking, drinking, driving and metal clubs should be given its due respect. And the course at Sharp Park is incredibly popular, as duffers play 54,000 rounds each year, attracted by what its players say is the most-affordable municipal golf course in the Bay Area.
Yet the lawsuit isn’t really about frogs or golf — it’s about land use and entitlement, which is why the environmental groups have refused to go along with any of the plans forwarded by The City’s Recreation and Park Department, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and regulatory bodies in San Mateo and Pacifica, which are all trying to make sure that the golfers and the frogs can peacefully coexist for years to come.
“We have said repeatedly and unequivocally that we understand our legal obligations to the environment and that there’s a way to move forward, protect these species and still keep the golf course,’’ said Rec and Park chief Phil Ginsburg. “There is a biological solution that can preserve golf."
But it’s not really one the Center for Biological Diversity wants to hear, so after 18 months of public hearings at the various local entities and several management plans, its members, after failing to block a proposal for a new $8 million recycled water treatment plant there, decided to act on their continuous threat to sue The City.
It’s enough to give ecology a bad name.
Read more...
Submitted by Paul Slavin
Sharp Park squabble gives ecology a bad name
A lot of coastal residents near San Francisco are asking themselves an age old question: What came first, the frog egg sacs or the battered sea wall?
The answer will provide a glimpse into the case surrounding Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica that, in the way of old municipal big- footing, is owned and operated by San Francisco, which this week was sued by a host of environmental groups over what they claim is shoddy conservation practices to protect endangered frogs and snakes.
Not included in the lawsuit, filed in federal court over the alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act, is the real reason behind the legal challenge, which is that the environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, want the park turned back into natural coastal habitat.
And that is a tad ironic, because if the seawall that separates the ocean from the popular course were removed, the salt-water assault would likely wash away the lagoon that provides life for the frogs, which attract the snakes. You know, kind of like nature.
I have no particular interest in golf, though I must say that any sport that involves walking, drinking, driving and metal clubs should be given its due respect. And the course at Sharp Park is incredibly popular, as duffers play 54,000 rounds each year, attracted by what its players say is the most-affordable municipal golf course in the Bay Area.
Yet the lawsuit isn’t really about frogs or golf — it’s about land use and entitlement, which is why the environmental groups have refused to go along with any of the plans forwarded by The City’s Recreation and Park Department, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and regulatory bodies in San Mateo and Pacifica, which are all trying to make sure that the golfers and the frogs can peacefully coexist for years to come.
“We have said repeatedly and unequivocally that we understand our legal obligations to the environment and that there’s a way to move forward, protect these species and still keep the golf course,’’ said Rec and Park chief Phil Ginsburg. “There is a biological solution that can preserve golf."
But it’s not really one the Center for Biological Diversity wants to hear, so after 18 months of public hearings at the various local entities and several management plans, its members, after failing to block a proposal for a new $8 million recycled water treatment plant there, decided to act on their continuous threat to sue The City.
It’s enough to give ecology a bad name.
Read more...
Submitted by Paul Slavin
4 comments:
Awesome article, very funny and spot on the money. WEI and CBD spokesmodels come off as brats on TV giving environmentalism a very bad name setting back public opinion by decades, IMO.
Thanks for this post, Paul. Very funny and yet sad. Ironically, many of these enviro Nazis have a much bigger carbon footprint than most of us average schmoes. Just check out the large wooden homes in enclaves like Woodside. They wouldn't hesitate, however, to waste a tank of gas driving down to protest against other folks trying to build or develop in an area they deem or believe needs protecting. Such hypocrisy! If they want to restore the Cal coast to its original natural state, why only Sharp Park?
Bottom line, its all about big egos and of course big bucks.
And that's Mr Slavin -- trying to give science a bad name. You can rave all you like -- doesn't change the facts
It's hard to imagine Mr. Slavin going to raves.
"Scientific" reports by advocacy groups like WE and CBD are as credible as scientific reports from tobacco companies that conclude smoking is not really all that dangerous. In those types of studies, the outcome is preordained from the start.
The Tetratech report commissioned by SF comes off as much more scientific and unbiased.
Post a Comment