 |
| Plater a Wild Equity kind of guy |
 |
| Picture from Plater, its not about you, frogs |
In actuality, it really
won't be that much of a burden, and it's hardly a morass. The majority
of the terms of the "Incidental Take Statement" are measures that the
San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dept. has long supported, such as
clearing the connecting waterway from Laguna Salada to Horse Stable
Pond. This was first recommended in a report by Swaim Biological some
years ago as an effective way to move the growing frog population (and
the snakes that eat them) to more spacious and hospitable land at Mori
Point, south of the course. Mr. Plater's plan, however, had the frogs
moving east from Laguna Salada, across the intervening fairways, and
linking up with some distant cousins that lived
up on Sweeney Ridge.
When it was pointed out that the frogs (and the pursuing snakes) would
have to cross Highway 1, Mr. Plater nonchalantly observed that someone
would have to build a bridge for them.
Anyway, my point is that much
of the restoration and habitat improvement required by the FWS is quite
acceptable to Sharp Park. In fact, from the beginning of this
controversy, San Francisco (which owns and operates the course) has
shown a willingness to compromise, has sought a balance between the
die-hard supporters of the course and the extremists that would close it
down. Far from being onerous, as Mr. Plater implies, much of the new
regulations fall in with plans already contemplated for future
operations. The devil's in the details, of course, but most unbiased
observers, whether judicial, legislative or civilian, have been
impressed with San Francisco's desire to do the right thing.
 |
| Sharp Park home of the red-legged frog |
But
not Brent Plater. At numerous public hearings and online blogs he and
his supporters have scornfully rejected every proposal put forth by Rec
& Parks, denigrated every plan they've come up with to improve the
environmental standards of the course. One has to wonder why. If the
well-being of the threatened species is his overriding concern, why not
work with the similarly concerned owners of the property to advance that
outcome?
Because,
as he has often noted, Mr. Plater's main objective in this long
campaign is a change in ownership.
He would sever Sharp Park from any
local governmental control, be it San Francisco, San Mateo County, or
Pacifica, and cede it to the GGNRA. The last remaining coast-side public
golf course in the world designed by the legendary Alister MacKenzie
would become a federal frog and snake sanctuary. He has long justified
this course of action by maintaining that the frogs and snakes and golf
cannot coexist, that course operations will inevitably, tragically, wipe
out the protected species. He has claimed all along that the "science"
was on his side, that the environmental vision espoused by his Wild
Equity Institute was the only rational way to save the world, beginning
with Sharp Park. Those who disagreed with his agenda were, at best,
ignorant flat-earthers, at worst, self-serving hucksters.
 |
| My legs aren't exactly red |
But, as
it turns out,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service also disagrees with Mr.
Plater, and it's pretty tough to question their credentials. The most
important outcome of "Wild Equity Institute, et al, vs. City and County
of San Francisco, et al", in my opinion, was the FWS's determination
that golf at Sharp Park "is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the California red-legged frog or the San Francisco garter
snake." This is a direct, unambiguous repudiation of Mr. Plater's basic
rationale for destroying the historic old course, an earthquake hitting
his house-of-cards National Park fantasy, and a substantial challenge to
his claims of scientific superiority.
Needless to say, this
seminal pronouncement by the Fish and Wildlife Service was not mentioned
in the Wild Equity victory statement.
The one thing I can
agree with Mr. Plater about is that the final resolution of the Sharp
Park dispute will be a political decision, and it will go through the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Mr. Plater has assiduously courted
the more "progressive" members of the Board for some time, beginning
with the unfortunate Ross Mirkarimi who introduced legislation in 2009
favored by Mr. Plater. Supervisor John Avalos sponsored similar
unsuccessful legislation. Mr. Plater promises campaign support,
guarantees a youthful phalanx of ecology students to flood a hearing
room or a street demonstration, and assures all who will listen of the
righteousness and popularity of his message. He paints a pretty picture.
But
from what I see,
many SF politicians and City officials (among many,
many others) are growing weary of the hyperbole, and leery of the
"facts" presented by Mr. Plater. He has an unfortunate tendency to,
well, put his own spin on things, twist the facts a bit to fit his
message of the moment. The examples are legion. Remember the
"peer-reviewed, independent scientific study" he produced some years
ago? Turns out it was bought and paid for by Wild Equity and the Center
for Biological Diversity.
 |
| Frogs and snakes? We're doing fine |
At the 80th Anniversary of Sharp Park
last summer, Mr. Plater planned to disrupt the festivities by having his
supporters bang bongo drums in the parking lot. I spent some time that
day with Captain Joe Spanheimer and Chief Jim Tasa of the Pacifica PD,
who were keeping an eye on things, and at no time were there more than
20 protesters at the scene. The tournament that day had about 250
golfers and an additional 100 guests for the party in the clubhouse,
very few of whom were even aware that a demonstration (of sorts) was
going on. However, the Wild Equity website on May 29, 2012, proclaimed,
"Tailgaters for Endangered Species Outshine Golf Bailout Supporters",
and replaying the incident on July 13 the website boasted, "Protesters
occupying Sharp Park(ing lot) prevailed in numbers." Prevailed over
what?
More recently, Mr. Plater encouraged SF Supervisor Christina
Olague to sponsor a resolution that would have resulted in more
bureaucratic entanglements for the golf course. Ms. Olague initially
agreed, scheduled the resolution for a committee hearing, then had
second thoughts and withdrew the bill. She gave no explanation, but I
suspect that some information she received did not quite pan out.
I could go on for
quite a while in this mode but let me conclude with a final example you
might not have noticed.
In the opening paragraph above I noted that Mr.
Plater was claiming a victory because the permit issued by FWS to San
Francisco "contains over 50 pages of terms and conditions that burden
the golf course..." Actually, the 50 pages of the permit statement
contain about 10 pages of terms and conditions; the rest is background
material, history, etc. Doesn't sound quite as horrific, does it?
Our
own City Council is well aware of the political nature of this
campaign, and what's at stake. Mayor Len Stone has publicly stated his
willingness to engage with officials in San Francisco and San Mateo
County to insure the survival of the course. And, if the need
arose, I think the entire Council would unanimously adopt a resolution
supporting Sharp Park.
Mr. Plater has promised more legal challenges and
legislative work for 2013, so now's not the time to let down our guard.
Even after our resounding victory in Federal Court.
These
opinions and the content of this column are those of Mr. Slavin and do
not necessarily reflect the position of the Pacifica Tribune or its
opinions."
Related article and update - San Francisco Chronicle, "City Insider", 1/7/13. "Environmentalists appeal Sharp Park endangered species ruling." Uh-oh, here they come again, Paul!
Posted by Kathy Meeh
