Wednesday, December 1, 2010

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 Franciscos 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

22 comments:

Jeff Miller said...

Paul - you say I "steered around" your points. Wrong, I just did not stoop to your level of slander, or bother to respond to much of your fabricated misinformation and ecological illiteracy. Every one of your assertions about the goals, motovations and actions of the Center for Biological Diversity are false, and are not worthy of a debate. People who want to find out for themselves the vision that conservation groups, recreation groups, and many Pacifica residents have for restoring Sharp Park can find accurate information on our web site.

Paul Slavin said...

Jeff,
Your "vision" represents an out-of-touch, extreme and marginalized element of the greater environmental movement. With all the serious problems facing our area today, you guys spend years trying to close our little golf course. You bet it's not worthy of a debate.

Anonymous said...

"People who want to find out for themselves the vision that conservation groups, recreation groups, and many Pacifica residents have for restoring Sharp Park can find accurate information on our web site."

is there a timeline on when you will post "accurate" information? I haven't found it yet on your website, Mr. Miller.

Paddy O Sullivan!!! said...

Jeff Miller and his sidekick errr (lackie) Plater are just trying to make names for themselves in the guise of environmentalism!!! Time for you guys to stand down and realize that you lost this fight.

Give it up, move on and leave our town alone. Neither of you have a stake here in Pacifica, or SF for that matter.

Pacifica has seen through your vail of lies, slander and misinformation.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Jeff Miller for exposing the bullshit that Slavin and the other "Real Estate beards" are tossing around. For years the tea-party/golfnuts/developmentwhores have wanted it both ways "NO" tax money spent on public projects but "YES" to tax money spent on their pet projects. Whether Republican or Democrats we say: NO TO WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS !

Kathy Meeh said...

What are you talking about "Nothing for Pacifica" Anon 10:36am? Tax dollars? Sharp Park Restaurant/concessions represent #26 of the top tax revenue producing businesses in this city. Of course, other tax revenue sources should be way ahead, but those who support a balanced city economy have not been in charge.

I'll be thinking of you and your leadership "friends" when I vote against the tax for "basic city services" (which is at minimum what a city is suppose to provide) coming to the ballot in the Spring, 2011.

Aside from that, having a balanced city and supporting recreation should be more than supporting "empty space" with trails to out-of-town. The golf course is busy-- everyone knows that, the annual count of rounds played is over 50,000. There's a banquet room, and a good restaurant.

Maybe your "environmental complaint" is actually a class issue. How about learning to play golf and move-up one notch?

Prent Blater said...

Anon 10:36, what color is the sky in your world? My guess would be black as you are in the dark on this debate and know not what you speak of.

Are tax dollars ok to spent on a frog park? That's what will happen if Miller and Plater get their way. Not mention quite a bit of $$$ in their pockets via mitagation banking.

What golfer(s) have said they are against tax dollars being spent on anything other than a golf course? That's a new to me.

Just goes to show you can't match wits with an unarmed man!!!!

Kathy Meeh said...

Remember Jeff Miller was at city council last month (11/8) talking against us dogs and our humans (and the trash we make) on Linda Mar (urban) Beach. Then he threatened the City with hypothetical legal violations culminating in a "take" against the visiting Plovers. Solution: we move out, Plovers stay.

Even some snakes and frogs (prior to snake dinner) think that's a "bird brain" idea. And, Pluto thinks Miller should stay in his oak land neighborhood on leash.

Anonymous said...

Miller is a threat to our peaceful society in Pacifica. He is an enemy. I wonder what organizations he belongs to and what they preach.

Sharon said...

Jeff Miller is a paid activist. He is on CBD staff and you can find more info about him here: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/

Both Jeff and Brent Plater make money from taxpayers advocating on behalf of their special causes. It's a game played by our government who passes laws but not the mechanisim to enforce them. The CBD is the mechanisim, they are like independent contractor's to the government. When a law get passed but not enforced because the government does not have to funds to put in place the whole staffing etc. required to enforce the law. Instead the CBD files law suite to force compliance and the goernment pays the CBD hourly fees. So everytime Plater or Miller or any of the CBD staff does anything on behalf of saving the frogs or the snowy plovers, our government gets a bill, meaning we the taxpayers are paying these guys to drive us nuts! Of course they are riding a gravy train all the way to the bank.

Steve Sinai said...

Good point, Sharon. The people who want to turn the golf course into a snake and frog preserve always use the argument that the golf course costs the taxpayers money (which it doesn't,) but they seem to have no problem seeing taxpayer money being lost to organizations like CBD in lawsuits.

Kathy Meeh said...

Sharon, or others, how does that work? Is it the case that CBD files a lawsuit against government (agencies, municipalities) and when they win they get paid, or is there some other mechanism?

Paul said...

Right on, Sharon! "Bounty hunters" might be an apt analogy.

Steve Sinai said...

I'd say "extortionists" or "leeches" are better analogies, Paul.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. "extortionists". And we are the paying fools that continue to bend over and say, 'sorry sir may I have another' This is how gov forces all of us into compliance, that, and, tax and regulate us into submission. If the gov wants to get rid of an industry , they do the same. Good Luck California. California is full of these types of anti-business, pro-tax and regulate people.
COWARDS! All of us. Let's keep voting in the same people that support this type of terror and reign.

Sharon said...

Hi Kathy, the government passes a law but no funding to enforce it but apparently there is plenty of funding to fight and or comply with law suits. So then the CBD which is simply an attorney referral service specializing in attorney's with environmental interests, monitors the law and if no compliance, eventually files suit against whichever entity responsible for action to force compliance and meanwhile bills the government for the service. In the case of the golf course, the frogs and snakes were declared endangered by the Dept of Fish and Wildlife back in 1967 (I think - not positive but know it was a very long time ago) then lots of studies done but still no real action taken to protect them until infamous CBD atty Plater got involved and found a way to pad his bank account and make himself well known in the environmental community. So the taxpayers pay both coming and going. I tried to post something about this on Riptide a while back but Maybury didn't put it up.

Kathy Meeh said...

Thanks Sharon, its probably time for Fish and Wildlife to update its endangered/threatened list. As you've described Plater is just another scammer-- they seem to exist at all levels of society.

Paul Slavin said...

If Brent Plater and/or Jeff Miller and the Center for Biological Diversity are billing the government for harassing Sharp Park you would think they’d have to substantiate their claims with something, a dead frog and a bloody 5-iron, a blurry long-distance photo of Butch Larroche tying garder snakes in knots, or, best of all, a legal victory in a court of law. Now, the CBD has been threatening to sue San Francisco for years; they just recently issued another 60 day notice of intent to sue. But if you notice, they never actually sue. For all their bluster and threats, they have never put their case before a judge and jury. Why? Because they’d be thrown out on their ass! Remember, every time they pled their case in San Francisco, they were rejected. Their “facts” were rejected, their reasoning was rejected, their science was rejected, their conclusions were rejected. It won’t be any different in a court of law, and they know it. Their only chance is to find that 5-iron.

Unknown said...

http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/environmentalists-and-sf-commissioner-to-discuss-possible-lawsuit-over-sharp-park-golf-course?ncid=M255

Paul Slavin said...

I've been told by Pacifica Patch that they're planning another article which will give the other side of the story, for those of us who can handle the truth.

Anonymous said...

no wonder they call this blog a hate site.

Plater Hater said...

Shut up. I hate you.