Would you take the job ?

[Niall C]

Imagine you're on the shortlist to design a course on a wonderful bit of golfing country. The land has everything a gca would want, sand base, interesting topography and several miles of coastline. The land however has several environmental constraints including rare fauna and wildlife. Indeed its the last known habitat of the incredibly rare Lesmahagow pidgeon.

Through a bit of lobbying/political expediency/backhanders (pick as appropriate) the client has managed to get his consent/permits/planning permission to build the course.

Do you, knowing the unique quality of the site, decide that if the client managed to get permission to build it must be all right to do so, or do you think some sites shouldn't be developed no matter what. Basically, would you take the job is asked ?

Niall 

[Garland Bayley]

C&C built the Preserve to protect an endangered species. Just hire them and be done with it.

[Andy Stamm]

Is there any reason to think that if I pass, the course won't be built by someone else? (Presumably someone less sensitive to the issue.)

It seems the best course of action would be to take it and do what I can to protect it the most.

[Philippe Binette]

very ethical question ?

1) Is there a way to build and maintain the course without affecting the pidgeon ?
2) What other efforts are made to protect to pidgeon ?
3) If they don't built the course, are there other projects that would go forward, that are more harmful to the pidgeon ?
4) Could you find a similar site close to put the course on ? Like rebuilding a lesser course with similar characteristics.

I do believe there are some sites that should be protected from any development. Every site is an opportunity for growth (in a pure economical vision) but not every site is an opportunity for sustainable growth.

If there are no options.. I'll probably walk off the job

[Jud_T]

Fire up the dozers and have Roast Squab with a fine Chianti.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall,
I don't think your hypothetical is even possible. No way one could get around all the local, state and federal officials that would be involved, and even if (by some miracle of huge amounts of cash or multiple sets of incriminating photos) you did, you'd spend years in court being sued by environmental groups.

It's easier to find a less intrusive site, or totally rebuild an old course.


p.s. I wouldn't take the job, I couldn't wait that long for a paycheck.  

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

It would depend on what I thought of the details -- whether the environmental concerns were real, and whether they could be adequately addressed.

I've seen all sides of this question over the years.  I've walked away from a couple of potential projects because I didn't think the concerns could be addressed; those projects have not been built to date, and I don't know if they are still under consideration.  But I've also worked on projects where the environmental concerns were completely overstated, IMHO ... including some where we wound up building a course after addressing the issues, and some where the developer just gave up out of frustration at the process.

Being from New York City, I have some difficulty believing that there could be such a thing as an endangered pidgeon, but I am generally sympathetic to the species!

[Melvyn Morrow]

No, you are starting with a negative, a very serious negative that may have far deeper consequences and potential future restraints. Why would you advise your client to proceed, even if he had deep pockets?

It would be the equivalent of taken on a Grade 1 List building after it had been restored, with all the difficulties that could entail.  You would need more money than sense.

You have a duty of care towards the client, and future club members, but a far more important duty to youself.

[Bill_McBride]

Given how incredibly difficult it can be to get environmental permits in this era, and given that the permitting authorities knew the constraints, I think you would have to assume the issuance of permits authorizes you to proceed.   Gingerly no doubt, but proceeding has been approved.

[Sam Morrow]

If the site is good screw the birds and build a golf course.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

As always explains why golf is no longer the game it once was

[Sam Morrow]

Sam

As always explains why golf is no longer the game it once was

Allen Iverson called, "We're talking about pigeons."

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

The key words are 'Indeed its the last known habitat of the incredibly rare Lesmahagow pidgeon'.

'Screw the birds' I have got to love the world through your eyes - 

[Bob_Huntley]

C&C built the Preserve to protect an endangered species. Just hire them and be done with it.

Garland,

Which Preserve?

Bob

[John_Cullum]

Do you seriously think you can run off pigeons by building a golf course?

[Bruce Katona]

"Fire up the D-8's.....we'll have poultry for lunch !!

[RDecker]

Our Course is a rather suitable home for loads of winged creatures.  Redtail hawks, bluebirds, kingfishers, a big Pileated Woodpecker and lots of others.  I'm sure the pidgeon would be just fine.

[Chris DeNigris]

Niall,

DMK did a fine job at Mach Dunes given even more difficult SSSI constraints. I would think for an GCA that this would be a wonderful challenge, provided he/she had some lattitude with the local environmental and scientific groups to get certain things done. It certainly turned out well for Kidd and I don't think he regrets doing it.

[Ronald Montesano]

Why were we typing "pidgeon"? Was the bird that old?

Bob, The Preserve is the new par three layout at Bandon, adjacent to the original course and the third course.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Through a bit of lobbying/political expediency/backhanders (pick as appropriate) the client has managed to get his consent/permits/planning permission to build the course.

I hate the question. The way you phrased the above says a lot about how you think it should be answered. Are we to assume the only time environmental approval is given is because of some backhanded, backroom payola deal? Or when environmental objections win out, is it because big business has been thwarted? How about it was decided based on empirical evidence the course and bird could co-exist and the habitat could be protected and enhanced. Not all business is about who is the slickest or yields the most power. Sometimes people do make decisions based on actual, non-political data.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sam

As always explains why golf is no longer the game it once was

MHM,

If the great links courses of the UK and the great courses of the "Golden Age" were subjected to today's environmental standards, not one of them would have been built.

Get over it.

If the pidgeons aren't paying rent, have them move elsewhere

[Ed Brzezowski]

That is why the good lord made shotguns.  PULL!!!!

[Sam Morrow]

I feel honored, several of us have made cracks about killing the pigeons but I've been the only one called out about it. It's okay though, there is bird shit on my Altima, karma is a bitch.

[archie_struthers]

 

Niall posed the question with the permits in hand.   If you believe in golf courses as a viable use for land, indeed protects it for all time from adverse possession you build.  You design with integrity to protect all the species , and allow them to move and / or create environment for them to thrive.   It's been done successfully by others, whether it be a trout steam or environmental buffer.

As to the politics, I'm pretty much a believer it is so polluted that if you were to ask for cleanliness these days , we,d be living in the trees. Almost nothing gets done fairly these days.

[Duncan Cheslett]

If the site is good screw the birds and build a golf course.

Sam

As always explains why golf is no longer the game it once was

Are you two guys related?