Sharp Park Saga Continues

[David_Tepper]

Article in today's SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/08/BA9716SDVJ.DTL&type=green

[Bill_McBride]

Great quote at the end of the article:  "This (Sharp Park) is the poor man's Pebble Beach."

 

From what I've read here over the past few months, it appears the City of Pacifica should take over the course, relieving the City of San Francisco of all those nasty environmental issues, hire Forrest Richardson to do a sympathetic renovation, and then hire Lynn Shackleford to run the course at a profit.

[David_Tepper]

Bill -

I thought Pacific Grove muni was the "poor man's Pebble Beach!"

DT

[Joel_Stewart]

It's a mess.  The real problem is the politics and nobody knows what to do or how to do it.  I like this quote:

"The proposal comes just months after a city task force charged with considering the future of San Francisco's five public golf courses ended with no real recommendations or consensus."

[Bill_McBride]

Bill -

I thought Pacific Grove muni was the "poor man's Pebble Beach!"

DT

Not according to that guy quoted in the article!

[Tom Huckaby]

The moniker "poor man's Pebble Beach" has been used about Pacific Grove Muni for ages.

This is the first time I have ever heard it used for Sharp Park.

And whereas it's kinda true (but somewhat diminishing) about Pacific Grove, well....

To me Sharp Park is the completely destitute near death from starvation man's Pebble Beach, if that.

Quite seriously unless money is no object, I don't see it as worth saving.  Nothing they could do with the money they have could possibly make that much of a difference.  Devote the funds to Lincoln Park.

Now if some angel investor, in the pocket of every SF politician, wants to come in and rewrite the environmental laws, remove that berm,  and get it to what Mackenzie originally created... I am all for it. I shall not hold my breath.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Frogs, toads, and snakes, of course, take precedent over people, particularly golfers.  Among environmental "activists" is a group which believes that "mother earth" is only capable of "sustaining" around 2 billion people.  How we lose 4.5 billion is of less concern to some than when.  With this mindset, golf doesn't register even a triviality.

It would be interesting to know how many acres of wildlife habitat exists in the San Francisco area as compared to land devoted to golf.  Of course, the results don't matter if the cornerstone in one's POV is that people are evil and undeserving of a place in the cycle of life.

And what more needs to be said of government operations than a golf course without debt service in a heavily populated, underserved market not able to operate in the black?  The USPS must take solace.  Sharp Park is relatively inconsequential except for a few hundred regular customers.  Do we really want these guys running GM and the banks?  Pretty scary stuff if you ask me.           

[Bill_McBride]

To me Sharp Park is the completely destitute near death from starvation man's Pebble Beach, if that.

Quite seriously unless money is no object, I don't see it as worth saving.  Nothing they could do with the money they have could possibly make that much of a difference.  Devote the funds to Lincoln Park.

Amen, brother.

Did you see the part where some SF politico wants to close down the course and use the money for jobs in SF?  What about the jobs of the crew and staff at Sharp Park?  What a bunch of a**holes are involved in running The City.     Makes me glad we left 30 years ago, although I do get nostalgic every now and then.  Not about the government et al however............

[Tom Huckaby]

Well, to trot out a stupid and overused phrase, when it comes to SF politics, it is what it is. It rarely effects me so I do not pay attention.

Thus my comments are limited to the courses.

And I see no huge reason to cry all that much over Sharp Park, that's all.  The course sucks and in my experience pretty much always has.

Now Lincoln if butchered, that would require tears.

TH

[John Keenan]

Tom H has offered the only real alternative. Let it go sad as it is Sharps Park has never been considered a part of the SF city golf scene. I was born and raised in SF and lived there for a long time when people talk SF muni courses they talk Harding and Lincoln. Gleneagles (semi-muni) is now part of the dialog but years ago when it had a different name and was run by the city it was not part of the conversation either.  There is another 9 hole course in Golden Gate park that is never mentioned. 

The City should focus on Harding and Lincoln first then Fleming and last Golden Gate in the park. Golden Gate is a great beginner course in a superb location.

Sharps Park RIP sad to say.

[Norbert P]

  A 70 old MacKenzie on the future NLE list?  Kinda hurts to just let it go.  I checked out the photos of the course and it looks nice.  No, I've never seen or played it.

  Here's the par-3 12th



Though not a very revealing photo, it gives a tone.

"You gotta fight! ... for the right!  .... to party!"    (Beastie Boys)

[David_Tepper]

On a prior Sharp Park thread, I raised the possibility of closing the holes around the lagoon (to settle the environmental issues) and then shrinking Sharp Park to a 9-hole course with a nice driving range. I wonder if any of the "powers that be" has raised this as a possible solution. At the very least, a driving range could be a money-maker.  

Slag B. - The course, as designed by the good Doctor, was severely damaged in an ocean storm within a couple of years after it opened in the 1903's. The course has been cut and pasted several times for a variety of reasons over the years. It is a "Mackenzie design" only in the history books. 

[Norbert P]

Pictures of Sharp Park

http://picasaweb.google.com/spgc4653/SharpParkTour

It doesn't look very Mackenziesque but I'm sure 70 years of a highly scrutinized budget has simplified it for maintenance ease and expense.

I say we RESTORE it !!!   

[Tom Huckaby]

Slag:

I guess I was a little TOO negative.  The course doesn't suck.  The hole you pictured is pretty cool, as are a few others on the back nine,  I have had fun rounds there.

JUST... conditions have ALWAYS sucked big time - it's right at sea level and drainage is awful.  The city also being what it is has never put much money or care into it, so take a wild guess as to typical conditions.

Also saying it's a 70 year old MacKenzie is like saying I am a 45 year old Champion Golfer - not exactly correct.  As I have said many times I have more MacKenzie in my back yard than the current Sharp Park does.  It's all detailed in the Missing Links book... what MacKenzie laid out has been gone for a long long time... and really can't be brought back without changes in laws and input of gazillions of dollars.

SO... in the current economic mess... my feeling remains if financial choices have to be made (and it sure seems like they do) make the choice upgrade Lincoln Park and let Sharp go bye bye.  Obviously in a more perfect world the choice does not have to be made.  I am never for the closing of public golf courses, particularly cheap ones to play like this.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Yes, it has been a neglected mess for 30+ years.  And the fact that the 8th hole was put into play many years ago (it was a bye hole/practice hole before) shows that the City always wanted to take the inexpensive route to maintenance and capital improvements.  It is a Jekyll/Hyde course... a mishmash on the front nine with a small selection of highlights on the back.  But it serves a good purpose as an affordable public golf option, and should stay that way.  The wildlife has done fine there.

[Patrick Kiser]

Yet another one...

It seems like we're getting one a week of these doom and gloom articles about SP.

That aside, I don't think conditions wise the course is any better or worse than Lincoln.

But on a good day... you can get out there,finish a good round on a so so course without any MacKenzie bones left, and enjoy one hell of a sunset.

Not too bad for just a couple of bucks I'd say.

If it goes, it will be missed.

[Tom Huckaby]

Yet another one...

It seems like we're getting one a week of these doom and gloom articles about SP.

That aside, I don't think conditions wise the course is any better or worse than Lincoln.

But on a good day... you can get out there,finish a good round on a so so course without any MacKenzie bones left, and enjoy one hell of a sunset.

Not too bad for just a couple of bucks I'd say.

If it goes, it will be missed.

Fully agreed with all of that.
But if one has to go and one stays, which do you choose?

It's Lincoln for me, by a very large margin.

[Norbert P]

From the article . . .
Brent Plater, a San Francisco environmentalist who has been leading the push to close the golf course, contends that the course is costing the city tens of thousands of dollars a year, money that should be used to save jobs and services in the park department. He argued it would be more expensive to improve the course and create a habitat management plan than to simply shutter the links and restore the area to its natural state.

"This is a good opportunity to re-create our vision for the landscape and do something good for the environment," Plater said.

End of article

  Though I'm a naturalist, I fear the "displacement theory" would soon take hold of this land if it were shut down. It would probably become fallow land, then developers would soon invade the area with, well, developement.  
Also, if it were made into a park, there is still maintenance upkeep but without the greens fees revenues.  
He speaks of losing jobs but what of the maintenance crew that is there now?
 He "contends" (WTF!)  costing 10s of 1000's of $$$ per year?  Pal, you don't contend with vague figures.  And that number does not account for the lifestyle options and people who might move away without it.  
And finally "This is a good opportunity to re-create our vision..."   OUR vision !?!  Who is he representing?  


I don't know who lives closest to this golf course but I'd be getting involved before it's too late.

[David_Tepper]

Slag -

The Sharp Park situation is relatively old news. There have been several posts here about it over the past couple of years, with a number of linked newspaper articles.

There have been several citizens groups (both golfers and not) involved. I have attended at least one public hearing on the matter. As you might imagine, finding a consensus on issues like this in San Francisco is not easy, given the diversity of interests here.

It is important to remember that the city of San Francisco is obliged under FEDERAL endangered species law to act in this situation. My guess is the "powers that be" would be more than happy to do nothing, but they do not have that option.

DT

[Norbert P]

 Dave, I realize that I'm an outsider and I won't pretend to understand the whole picture but I sensed a bit of "well, the golf isn't that good, and I don't ever play it so it doesn't effect me."* and it just sort of raised my hackles.  I suppose I knee-jerked a bit but still, there's got to be these courses out there for the juniors, the unrich, the locals,  and the less-than-G C Architecture-enfatuated to play.

  *quote not actual

[Tom Huckaby]

Dave, I realize that I'm an outsider and I won't pretend to understand the whole picture but I sensed a bit of "well, the golf isn't that good, and I don't ever play it so it doesn't effect me."* and it just sort of raised my hackles.  I suppose I knee-jerked a bit but still, there's got to be these courses out there for the juniors, the unrich, the locals,  and the less-than-G C Architecture-enfatuated to play.

  *quote not actual

Slag:  there is plenty of that without a doubt.  Just note that MY TAKE herein is not based on that; but rather on it seems inevitable that a  choice must be made about where to spend the limited funds.  Note San Francisco politics do not tend to effect me as I live over 50 miles to the south.  But availability of public courses effects me for sure; thus I sure as heck don't want any to close (as I have said).  Again, it just does seem inevitable that a choice is to be made up there in SF; and if so, god please do spend some money on Lincoln Park, which realistically could be fantastic with not all that much tender loving care.

And you know what raises my hackles?  Courses claiming to be Old Dead Guy designs and marketing themselves as such when really little or none of the ODG's work remains.  Go to Sharp Park's website.. hackles are raised.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

I think the points Tom makes are pretty valid.

I'll 2nd that if any course has to go on the chopping block, this would be the one.  A restoration would be damn near impossible due to removing the sea wall which isn't going to happen. The fact that its maintained like a slog, has little architectual interest left, and lost pretty much all its MacKenzie attributes is secondary.

And if all this means Lincoln Park gets those resources to get it back in shape and keep it that way, then I would say its a no brainer to unplug Sharp Park from the life support machine.

[David Stamm]

Dave, I realize that I'm an outsider and I won't pretend to understand the whole picture but I sensed a bit of "well, the golf isn't that good, and I don't ever play it so it doesn't effect me."* and it just sort of raised my hackles.  I suppose I knee-jerked a bit but still, there's got to be these courses out there for the juniors, the unrich, the locals,  and the less-than-G C Architecture-enfatuated to play.

  *quote not actual

 
And you know what raises my hackles?  Courses claiming to be Old Dead Guy designs and marketing themselves as such when really little or none of the ODG's work remains.  Go to Sharp Park's website.. hackles are raised.

TH

Add Haggin Oaks and Tijuana CC to the list that try and promote themselves as being somethnig that they are not. Haggin does have much left, if at all, and TJ never had it to begin with. But it's interesting to see the power of a name and what it can do for a courses business.

[Tim Leahy]

The only problem with closing Sharp down, is finding another public course that juniors, beginners etc. could play for $20 during the week and less than $50 on the weekends. A city the size of SF should have more than two muni's. Someone should designate Sharp Park golf course a historical site and kick out the tree huggers.

[Tim Liddy]

I cannot believe the golf community in SF is not organized against the stupidity of closing Sharp Park. It is unbelievable to me that the SF Park department cannot understand what a great asset this golf course could be for their park system, both as a destination golf course and as a financial resource.
I am tired of hearing about all the negatives by people that have no vision:  the golf course is not what it was in the past, the sea wall blocks the view, etc. It can all be fixed! Drainage can be improved, the sea wall can be revised to improve the view and support the golf course (it needs to be changed anyway because it allows sea water into the marsh, which is bad for the snakes and frogs). It would not be difficult to raise the money to restore this golf course.

It is a MacKenzie golf course!!

It should be a great example of how golf can protect the environment and provide great public golf. The golf course could provide a needed buffer between the public and the snakes and frogs.

I worry that its future is slipping away because of the ignorance of the SF Park Department. I am also very disappointed in the SF golf community for sitting on their hands and allowing this to happen.