Saturday, January 5, 2013

Is the Battle of Sharp Park Finally Over?

By: Tony Dear

On December 6th, 2012, United States District Judge Susan Illston found moot claims brought by a group of environmental organizations, led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and listed in a March 2011 lawsuit, that the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) was in violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The environmentalists contended that, by pumping water off the fairways at Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica, Calif., during times of flooding, the RPD was exposing California red-legged frog egg masses to the air, causing fatal desiccation of the egg masses, and thereby reducing the frog population. They also claimed that other golf course operation activities - lawn mowing and golf cart usage - harmed the frog and the endangered San Francisco garter snake by running them over.

In short, the environmentalists were accusing San Francisco Rec & Parks and the golfers who played at Sharp Park - designed by the great Alister Mackenzie and opened in 1932 - of being responsible for the death of a rare species. They concluded that the course must close, and supported the notion that the space left behind should be managed not by the City of San Francisco but by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area - a part of the National Parks Service whose anti-golf perspective is well known.

The fight between the conservationists - a dedicated and persistent band marshaled by the CBD but also including the Wild Equity Institute, a San Francisco-based nonprofit founded in 2009 by former CBD employee Brent Plater and devoted to securing environmental justice, and the Sierra Club, whose focus - admittedly - leaned more towards preservation of the frog and snake rather than the removal of golf, and those wishing to retain the course, had raged for over four years. (Use of the word "raged" may seem a little excessive for a debate involving golf and frogs but, make no mistake, the two sides fought their respective corners with the intensity and zeal usually reserved for Presidential races.) 

Plater, vehemently golf-averse, at least where Sharp Park was concerned, based his arguments not only on the perceived damage being done to the endangered creatures. He was also adamant that Sharp Park Golf Course was a major financial drain on the city, and that it had lost so much of its character through the years it wasn't worthy of being maintained anyway.

"Nobody in San Francisco cares about Sharp Park," he told SFWeekly in June 2010. "If that golf course were to fall into the ocean tomorrow, nobody would blink an eye." Then, in a Wild Equity press release dated November 16th 2010, he added: "No community center or neighborhood park should have services reduced while the (Parks) Department is subsidizing suburban golf in San Mateo County. We deserve better. It's time to close Sharp Park Golf Course and bring the funds saved back to San Francisco's communities, where the money rightfully belongs.

Read more...

Posted by Steve Sinai

4 comments:

Kathy Meeh said...

Even though the science and the social benefit were correct, it was not a political given that Sharp Park Golf Course would survive. Excellent comprehensive article to date.

Any other legal action action outstanding?

Paul Slavin said...

Yes, Kathy, a really excellent, comprehensive article, by a terrific writer. Thanks for posting it. The next legal maneuvers on the horizon, believe it or not, will most likely be Plater’s attempt to claim compensation for his time spent in losing his case. A great deal of compensation. But once again he will have to deal with Richard Harris. I’d like to remind all the readers of this blog who value the Sharp Park Golf Course (or who just don’t like being pushed around by enviro-bullies) to support the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance at sfpublicgolf.com.

Anonymous said...

As usual, Slavin, Meeh and the usual golf clique can't get it right. Apparently they think they actually won when they got sucker punched into going to court.

Paul Slavin said...

Is Anonymous 11:27 aware that Plater has filed an appeal to the dismissal of his Federal lawsuit? I’m no lawyer, but I wonder if it’s usual to appeal a case that you claim to have won. Also, the Sierra Club, one of the original et al plaintiffs, is not listed on the appeal. What happened to them?