Six
months ago San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, concerned with a
threatened lawsuit over endangered species at Sharp Park Golf Course
and with the City's financial responsibility for the course, sponsored
legislation that directed the Recreation and Parks Department to
develop a plan to restore the habitat of the California red-legged frog
and the San Francisco garter snake at Sharp Park and determine the fate
of the venerable old course. Rec and Parks assembled a blue-ribbon
research team, including recognized experts in engineering, biology,
geology, hydrology, finance, landscape architecture and golf course
design. They also consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the City of
Pacifica, San Mateo County and the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area. They took the time necessary to closely study every aspect of the
problem. The team produced an exhaustive, extensive report running to
some 70 pages with the relevant maps and graphs. They reached clear,
unbiased conclusions and proposed practical, sensible and affordable
recommendations. On Nov.6, Phil Ginsburg, head of Rec and Parks,
presented the report to the Board of Supervisors, who must still vote
on it, and released it to the public.
Although we expected the
report to recommend keeping the golf course — there had been favorable
newspaper columns and widespread support — it was a relief to see it in
black and white. "Based
on the totality of the research and conclusions provided in this study
and the input we received from our local, state and federal
stakeholders, we recommend that the City pursue a course which restores
Laguna Salada — the most critical habitat for our protected species
—while preserving golf at Sharp Park, a very popular and long standing
recreational use. Based on the estimates provided in the report, this
is also the most cost effective recommendation."
The report
goes on to detail the renovation of the course, moving one hole and
altering others, restoration work on the lagoon, improving drainage and
the like. With these modifications, and routine monitoring of
maintenance operations, the report concludes that the protected species
"can thrive at Sharp Park." It looked like the classic win-win
situation. San Francisco is to be congratulated on a job well done.
But
the report was not welcomed in the environmental community, or that
particular branch of the community affiliated with the Center For
Biological Diversity, or the Restore Sharp Park group, or their latest
incarnation, Wild Equity. They believe the golf course was a mistake
from the very beginning, a crime against nature, San Francisco's "great
act of hubris." They maintain now that the only viable solution is to
have the entire area designated a wetlands biological preserve, with no
golf course. I wondered why they would not accept a compromise that
would, first and foremost, protect the endangered species, and,
secondly, permit the golf course to continue operating. Was not their
greatest concern, their legal and moral obligation, protecting the
frogs and snakes? Why denounce a plan that was designed to do just that?
One
objection they've had all along, and continue to raise, is the question
of the course's financial condition. This topic has probably accounted
for more claims and counter-claims, more smoke and noise, than any
other aspect of the discussion. It's now a moot point. All parties to
the Rec & Park plan, city, county and federal, recognize the need
to share costs and liabilities. Mayor Lancelle has stepped forward and
is ably representing the interests of Pacifica. Congresswoman Jackie
Speier is committed to the plan at the federal level. Relieving the
City of San Francisco of sole responsibility for Sharp Park should ease
the concerns expressed by Mr. Mirkarimi. Personally, I always thought
that, on its own, Sharp Park could make money. But like I said, it's a
moot point.
Brent Plater, spokesman for the environmental groups,
raises other objections that could be collectively expressed by his
exhortation "We can do better!," to which I respond "Better for who?"
Mr. Plater has consistently portrayed golfers as an elite, aloof
pampered minority. Obviously, he has not spent much time in the Sharp
Park clubhouse. Does Butch Larroche look pampered? We've also been told
that golf requires too much space, too much resource, for the number of
people that benefit from it. Well, there were over 54,000 rounds of
golf played at Sharp Park last year. Do you think there were 54,000
people at Mori Point? This area has hundreds of miles of hiking and
biking trails over some of the most breathtaking landscape in the
world. We have one affordable 18-hole golf course. Next time Mr Plater
says "We can do better," tell him "No thanks, we're doing just fine."
Mr.
Plater has also expressed concern for the viability of Sharp Park in
the face of Global Worming and raising sea levels. A few hundred years
from now, we've been warned, the coastal barriers and wetlands could be
overwhelmed by ocean waves and the frogs and snakes would be forced to
seek higher ground. Ground occupied by the golf course. So he wants to
close the course now.
I say, let's wait 50, 100 years, see what
the weather's like. But really, if my great-great-great grandchildren
are kayaking down Montgomery Street in San Francisco, they'll have
bigger problems than the frogs at Sharp Park.
Restore Sharp Park
is, in my opinion, pure and simple, a land-grab that would
disenfranchise thousands of blue-collar golfers, subject sensitive
habitat to damage by wandering hikers, littering picnickers and
over-night campers, encourage a proliferation of rats, skunks, raccoons
and, more seriously, disease-carrying ticks and mosquitoes, endanger
nearby communities with doubtful, unproven flood control measures and,
last but not least, drag down property values.
To sacrifice a
well-loved and much-played golf course, a living part of our community
for the past 77 years, for some dubious, unnecessary, pie-in-the-sky
vision of boardwalks and eco-tourists is more than folly. It is, to use
Mr. Plater's word, hubris.
And the fact is, we don't need such
grandiose schemes to save the threatened wildlife at Sharp Park while
continuing to enjoy our golf course.
Thanks to San Francisco
Rec & Park, the talented team they assembled, state and federal
wildlife agencies, and elected officials at every level, we've got a
plan.
Paul Slavin is a golfer and a resident of Fairway Park
