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?

         

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.    

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.

"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

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.

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.

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 21, 2005, 05:52:22 PM

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]