Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?

[Jerry Kluger]

     I just received notice from my club that they will be closing the door forever as of December 31, 2006, because the new course which they are proposing does not satisfy the environmentalists.  We currently have two courses which were built around 1955 and there have not been any changes to the courses which impact the environmentally sensitive areas. The club is owned by two very well-to-do families and they have decided to sell the club to Winchester Homes for a new housing development and the construction of one new golf course.

     One of the current courses is routed primarily around the perimeter of the property and apparently borders on some enviromentally sensitive wetlands.  The proposed new course would be routed to a large degree along the same routing as this perimeter course.  As I understand it, the government agencies in charge of the environmental issues have told our owners and Winchester, that they do not view the golf course to be a buffer between the wetlands and the proposed houses.  It does not matter that the new course will be approximately 60 to 80 yards wide and will not be any closer to those areas than the existing course, they will still require the same setbacks from the property line of the houses to the wetlands, and the golf course will not be included in making this determination.  I don't know if I am explaining this well or not but what it means is that their demands are impossible to meet and keep the golf course in the development plans, i.e. we have to find somewhere else to play.

     I appreciate what those who are concerned about the environment are trying to accomplish, but the golf course has existed for all these years without destroying the wetlands so why does it seem to me that they are doing this just to show that they have the power to do so?

         

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Jerry,  

Below is something I posted this morning on another thread, and after having calmed down a bit I still would not retract it.  


If it is the governmental officals like a DEP or DEC then in my opinion there is a distinct culture within these agencies who see golf as the enemy  and I think they are purposely interpreting laws, making rules and such to extract blood from developers who are proposing courses.  The environemntal regulations have gone beyond protecting the environment and are used as a billy club to try and beat the rest of society into submission. There is a distinctive type of person in the agency, I wish not to disclose what type of person for fear of how it might be preceived, but there is a particular type of person now being hired in these agencies that I feel bring in a value system that is very different from the capitalist value system.  Let's say the American experience is being reshaped in these agencies, and is not the same American experience you have had.    

[Dan_Callahan]

I consider myself an environmentalist.

I think you need to distinguish between someone who genuinely wants to protect and preserve the environment and a misguided, over-reaching government agency.

[Jerry Kluger]

I would agree that most of us are environmentalists in that we recognize that we must be sensitive to what chemicals run off golf courses, and the creatures that inhabit the areas where courses are built have the right to exist.  With that being said, however, I also believe that many of us see those in charge of making the decisions on what is acceptable as enamored with their own power.  In our situation the golf course has been there for 50 years and if there was going to be damage to the wetlands from the course it surely has occurred already.  If that is the case, then how can they not view the golf course as a buffer and not include it in determining if there is a sufficient setback from the houses to the environmentally sensitive areas - it makes no sense to me. What is going to happen is that there will be more houses and they will be closer to the protected area and they find that acceptable. My speculation is that they thought the entire project would be cancelled and that is not what did in fact happen, and they have boxed themselves into a corner.  In the end, the only ones who will suffer are the golfers.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan,
Couldn't agree more.  I'm definitely an environmentalist.

But I also understand the fact that most golf courses do not harm the environment - in fact, they probably enhance it (if chemicals do not runoff into sensitive areas).

Unfortunately for golf courses, about the only area the Bush administration appears to be determined to protect environmentally is our wetlands.  They tend to neglect our air or water (which have MUCH larger impacts).

But the folks from DEP (in PA) are certainly trying to do a good job enforcing the law.  If you have a problem with a DEP-like agency, the blame should probably be directed to your state's legislature.

-----------------------

Jerry - I'd contact your local environmental groups.  I'll bet they'd rather have a golf course acting as a buffer than McMansions right up against the watershed.  They could end up being an advocate.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jerry, I hope you do not hate them. I do agree that golf is a misguided target of the environmental community. However, they are often the only line of defense between land stuartship and business interests. The government is a total failure in this area. There are many courses from the 1950s which were built on land that would not be available today for the same purpose, including 3 holes at my club. Naturally 50% of our drainage issues are on those 3 holes.

[Jerry Kluger]

Am I imagining it or are they trying to turn back the hands of time, yet they cannot undo what was done 50 years ago.  It seems that their view is that everyone today is trying to destroy the environment and only they can defend it.  It is probable that in building a course 50 years ago they encroached on the wetlands, and perhaps even destroyed some natural habitats.  But that is the past and we are dealing with the future and it is one thing to try and clear the air of pollution, but it is another to try and recreate wetlands.

[Scott Stearns]

as was once said by Joe Jackson, "We wanna save the world, starting with your land"

Yes, you should hate environmentalists.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jerry, I hate to break the news to you but wetlands are critical to the natural balance. Recreation of them is real and does work.

[Dan Herrmann]

Check out http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2003/nov_dec/much-wetlands.html  for the USGA view on wetland management and golf.

Another good resource: http://www.audubonintl.org/e-Source/waterwatersheds/WetlandonGolfCourses-TheBasics.pdf

Also keep in mind that it's federal law (33 U.S.C. 1344) that protects wetlands.  

[RJ_Daley]

IN my view we are seeing a sort of endstage atmosphere where agencies that were originally intended to look after the public interests at large are now totally co-opted by special interest groups that can generate the most heat.  The administrators of these agencies are generally appointed officials.  They stick their finger in the wind and determine whose tune they will dance for, how to position their agency to produce the most power and prestige for themselves, not how to interpret rules and regs for the general public good.

Look at the new supreme ct decision on eminent domain.  It is a power play by influential wealth-class interests to undermine individual property rights by co-opting government rules and regs.  It is a sham to say that the public good is served by the takings.  A developer's investment goals are met, a tax base increase may or may not (depending on other tax incentive give-aways) devolve to the community.  

The evironmental regulators are much the same.  They serve the squeeky wheels or the lobby-special interest group that generates the most pay-off, either in terms of power mongering, or actual graft via overt of subtle kickbacks or favors.  

What is lacking is a sense of integrity in government, and the various bureaucrats that inhabit too many agencies with too many levers to pull to frustrate anyone whom they arbitrarily and capriciously want to shut down.  IMHO, but I could be wrong.

[ed_getka]

No. I consider myself an environmentalist, but people like those that Kelly points out are the reason I am no longer associated with the Sierra Club. I think there needs to be a realistic approach to the environment, and not the power plays and extremism that is more prevalent today. I am not saying that Sierra Club is a bunch of extremists, but the messages I was getting from them is that they were overreaching past the point of sensibility for my tastes. There are certainly extremists out there you should feel free to hate, but I wouldn't use a blanket statement like yours.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Unfortunately for golf courses, about the only area the Bush administration appears to be determined to protect environmentally is our wetlands.  They tend to neglect our air or water (which have MUCH larger impacts).

But the folks from DEP (in PA) are certainly trying to do a good job enforcing the law.  If you have a problem with a DEP-like agency, the blame should probably be directed to your state's legislature.

Dan,

State legislatures are not involved in the review process at all.  I think state legislatures don't know the unreasonable impacts DEP like agencies have on developers.  I would think they would be much more receptive to changing these agencies if they knew the abuses.  This is probably not a discussion I should be having but I disagree with your statements above. I have had very different experiences than you I guess.  

Oh, and I like the way once again we can blame Bush for something else.  It is amazing the far reaching impact this man has had around the globe, from causing Arabs to hate us to using hurricanes to wipe out minorities.  The devil incarnate

[TEPaul]

"The club is owned by two very well-to-do families and they have decided to sell the club to Winchester Homes for a new housing development and the construction of one new golf course."

Are you saying the environmentalists have created a situation where one of your golf courses goes down the tubes to be replaced by a housing development?

If so those environmentalists need a refresher course in the meaning of Plan A, Plan B, Plan C. Do those environmentalists walk backwards too?

[Jerry Kluger]

Dan: I think that golf course development has been a very positive influence on environmental issues.  The need for environmentally friendly pesticides, etc., has been supported by the golf industry and golf courses are being built with a sincere desire to coexist with wetlands, etc. What it appears to me is that most agencies which deal with these issues do not do so on a regular basis with golf course developers.  I know that in some areas courses are constantly under construction such as Florida, etc., but I would say that in  Maryland, new golf course construction is rare. Those in charge do not have much experience with the issues that are particular to golf courses, and how golf course developers, architects, and superintendents, are prepared to deal with such issues.  I wasn't there when the presentations were made and I don't know how well the presentation was given, but I do know the result.    

KBM: I agree with you, Bush bashing is getting to be a simple solution for every problem.    

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

I have reread your initial post a couple of times and you do appear to be somewhat confused.

What you appear to say is that the developers want to put houses closer to the wetlands than would normally be allowed, and they expect the "golf course buffer" to allow them to reduce those setbacks somehow.  If that's the case, then I am not surprised they are being turned down.

However, I don't understand why that will cause the club to close.  The golf holes which are routed along the wetlands should be grandfathered into compliance with the wetlands laws.  The only reason the course will have to be closed is if the developers do not want to give up enough developable land away from the wetlands to complete an 18-hole routing.  

[Pat K]

Jerry,
       I have to agree with Tom D. What you write is confusing.  In addition to what Tom said all permits are based on regulations and relationships. The rules are interpreted according to how the permit holder is perceived. It's all about relationships. If you're seen as an environmental rapist you'll get nowhere. If you use a local person who has a well reguarded reputation than there is more flexibility. It is never as simple as they won't let me do this or that. If there is a road block it quite often because the groundwork wasn't done on their "feelings" on the proposed work. And most hard core environmentalists have more feelings than the average numb developer. Like it or not that's the way it is.

[TEPaul]

"Oh, and I like the way once again we can blame Bush for something else.  It is amazing the far reaching impact this man has had around the globe, from causing Arabs to hate us to using hurricanes to wipe out minorities.  The devil incarnate"

Kelly:

You've got that right. It sure is amazing the far reaching impact Bush has had around the globe. I wouldn't say he's the Devil Incarnate merely the biggest idiot of any US President I've ever seen in my entire life. I've seen some pretty bad presidents but who has ever been responsible for 28 hurricanes in one year like Bush has??

This jerk is so bad and has done so much damage to this country both here and around the world he's left a mess that only one person I know of could possibly fix.

To get this country out of the mess Bush has made the only possible solution now is to bring in "THE DONALD!!"

[Ted Kramer]

"Oh, and I like the way once again we can blame Bush for something else.  It is amazing the far reaching impact this man has had around the globe, from causing Arabs to hate us to using hurricanes to wipe out minorities.  The devil incarnate"

Kelly:

You've got that right. It sure is amazing the far reaching impact Bush has had around the globe. I wouldn't say he's the Devil Incarnate merely the biggest idiot of any US President I've ever seen in my entire life. I've seen some pretty bad presidents but who has ever been responsible for 28 hurricanes in one year like Bush has??

This jerk is so bad and has done so much damage to this country both here and around the world he's left a mess that only one person I know of could possibly fix.

To get this country out of the mess Bush has made the only possible solution now is to bring in "THE DONALD!!"

Thanks for setting me straight, I was silly enought to think that the messes were being made for Mr. Cheney and his band of corporate cronies to clean up and thus, $$clean up$$ . . .

-Ted

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry Kluger,

You'll find out that "Common Sense" isn't so common.

Tiger,

I wonder how much damage the hurricanes are doing to the environment ?

I wonder how much damage the levees have done to the environment.

In New Jersey, affordable housing is becoming more difficult to acquire because environmentalists are driving up the cost of land for a variety of reasons, one of which is that there is far less of it to develop, and permiting and remediation costs are high.

Yes, we should be considerate of the environment, but, we have to be considerate of the needs of PEOPLE, first and foremost.

[Dan_Callahan]

I wonder how much damage the hurricanes are doing to the environment ?

Interestingly (and way off topic), I was just reading about how the sludge and debree kicked up by Katrina are helping to restore eroded coastline. Nature has a way of finding a balance.

[Jerry Kluger]

Perhaps I could do a better job of explaining what is happening.  You have some holes which now exist and border the wetlands.  A new course is to be designed which will have some holes which will use the same land but will be configured somewhat differently. Say for example two par 4s will be reconfigured as a par 5 and a par 3 with new greens and tees, etc.  The developers would then build houses above these holes on what is now the other course.  Let's say the regulations are that the property line of the houses must be at least 100 feet from the wetlands.  As I understand it, in making that computation of the setback of the rear property line to the wetlands, the width of the golf hole which is between the rear property line and the wetlands is not to be included in determining if the setback requirement has been met.  So you would have wetlands, setback, golf course, rear property line. Now I would imagine that you would need additional width to the side of the hole which abuts the rear property line. This seem outrageous to me but that's the way it was explained to me by the members of the board who were given a presentation by the ownership.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

It seems to me that the new owners don't want to get involved in lengthy legal proceedings by not appealing the Board's decision and start building now while the real estate market is still fairly hot.

[Jerry Kluger]

Steve: You may very well be right and by no means am I a fan of the current owners.  The new owners were up front and we knew that owning a golf course was not their interest or their business.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wonder how much damage the hurricanes are doing to the environment ?

Interestingly (and way off topic), I was just reading about how the sludge and debree kicked up by Katrina are helping to restore eroded coastline. Nature has a way of finding a balance.

Where did you read that ?

It's interesting and counter to what's happened in Florida and New Jersey where beach erosion has had a dramatic impact on eroding the coastline.[/color]