News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


A_Clay_Man

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2003, 08:16:41 AM »
It would appear that our Guest here is the optimal example of the "good" in having anonymous posters. Telling the truth about acting irresponsibly was what made the whistle blowers the persons of the year. Golf's microcosim is showing, and it is up to each individual______ (insert: Country, Company, Golf Course, Person etc.) to act responsibly locally.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John Nixon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2003, 08:17:08 AM »

Quote


P.S. to Nixer -

That was sarcasm by Lou. Read the rest of his post.

If so, then I apologize. I always did have trouble reading sarcasm via the internet   :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2003, 08:43:11 AM »
I can see a lot of truth in the varying points of view of Guest, Lou, Tony, Tim, George, and Nixer.  It is hard for me to take a firm stance in one camp and exclude the points of fact and truth in the others.  The effectiveness and consistency of desired effect the CCC has accomplished is in question in my mind.  I fully understand the power struggle, based on the ego of individuals that have carved out their own little kingdoms wrapped in the mantel of enviro-authority commissions.  I rarely have met a politically appointed commissioner I liked in any field.  

How effective was the CCC in the stopping of the outrageously conceived Ocean Trails?  In my mind that is one example of a golf course that should never have been built.  The lack of recognition of the value of the unique common good that land should have offered, to the lack of engineering wisdom to tamper with the obvious monumental problems of engineering-construction of a golf course on such a property did not prevail in the system that is overseen by the CCC in the end.  Developer hubris perservered over whatever sensibilities I assume the CCC is supposed to be championing.  

By contrast, regardless of the merits of the courses design-playing quality, Spanish Bay seems to me to be a good example of a product that accomplished a fair compromise with sensitivity to environmental concerns, public enjoyment of the coastal walk, and desire to develop a great recreational/resort venue.  

Why should making ethical and moral considerations to the environment, and public use/enjoyment of prime property, require such gamesmanship and power politics if ego, greed, and hubris were not so involved on all sides of the equation?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2003, 08:59:22 AM »
Guest:

Thank you for your reasoned explanation of the problems concerning chemicals on golf courses and the damage to wild life. Those chemicals must have some redeeming feature however, because I look over our courses and see an abundance of deer, foxes and bird life. Can't be all bad.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Vegis @ Kiawah

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2003, 09:32:45 AM »
Geeze, Lou.  You crack me up...  Let's hear it for Libertarians! ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

texsport

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2003, 09:35:03 AM »
I've been reading with alarm that we've captured the interest of California environmentalists on this site. Hopefully, we won't become a target.

Whacko environmentalists calling for "balanced dialog and less name calling" clearly exhibits their psychopathological operating base. Such blind furvor is only occasionally based on actual fact. Reminds me of Matt Lauer, on the Today Show, interupting an invited guest who listed Galveston Texas
as one of the 10 most popular beaches in the U.S., to say " Isn't that the place with all those oil rigs off shore?" Typical propoganda based on nothing. I was in Galveston the other day and try as I might, I couldn't find but 2 rigs way off shore. Turns out, one of them was the destination of our fishing boat. The dreaded BIG OIL hasn't kept the Gulf Coast from being one of the sportfisherman's meccas. But Matt Lauer cares. (By the way, seeing Matt Lauer was not my fault, I was in a hotel lobby.)

Well, it also turns out that the ozone hole is closing and if California doesn't want to drill for oil in this period of our history, and doesn't want to built any new refineries, and doesn't want drilling in Alaska, and.....go away and find your gasoline some place other than Texas. That should be priority one instead of attempting to control golf course construction.

Of course, we all know that unless the environmentals control golf development, it's absolutely impossible for there to be reasonable regulations to protect the environment. Right!!!!



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2003, 09:36:21 AM »
Bob, like someone stated above, most courses have a college educated professional in charge of maintanence, or one who is well trained and learned in the applications of pesticides and ferts.  But, not all courses have ethical or highly trained in-charge personnel.  And, some cut budget corners and play loose and fast with regulations.  Happily, they are becoming the clear minority of operations.  But, they don't wear respirators while applying certain chems for nothing.  The labeling-approval process has been a contentious, greatly debated process from all sides of the user - interest groups participation.  Certain chems have been banned for good reason.  Others are constantly scrutinized and some now in use are also endanger of being banned.  Some of it is BS, and some of it is recognised as necessary.  We must encourage the application of sound science and well reasoned testing, and not go overboard nor be absolutist on either side of the issue.  We need many of these chemicals to not just take care of our golf courses (minor issue) but produce food supplies efficiently yet safely.  Where foxes and deer can survive, certain bees and beneficial insects can not.  ON going research to discover chems that are effective, but don't leach into ground water, run-off causing harm, or stay resident in the soil to the detriment of beneficials is a constant goal and standard that needs well reasoned oversight.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Lou Duran

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2003, 09:54:22 AM »
Not that I will convince or change anyone, specially our open-minded industry friend, Guest, but I'll make a last pass at the subject matter.

First of all, I am an environmentalist and love wildlife nearly as much as I do golf and golf architecture.  I've been to Alaska, several coutries in Africa, on both coasts of Central and South America, and numerous other places enjoying the land, wildlife, and the people.

I've also done considerable study in commercial real estate and golf course development, as well as maintenance.  My background in this area, while by no means does it make me an expert, does allow me to look at the issues in a balanced manner.

Beyond the volumes of available research, an acid test on whether golf courses are harmful or beneficial to the environment ON BALANCE, is what most often happens when a club is built-  the area around it flourishes.  People build expensive homes near the course and raise their most cherished "possessions" there, THEIR KIDS.

Now, Mr. Guest, perhaps you think that these folks are stupid, selfish, or need to be saved by someone as enlightened as yourself.  I guess that there is always a small possiblity that you and the relatively small number of your cohorts can be right, and the rest of us wrong, but my family and I will take our chances, thank you.

Consider also that many of the same folks who live around these golf courses are high earners/producers.  They are the ones in the top 5 percentile who account for about 50% of federal income taxes (not FICA).  You would be hard pressed to convince anyone outside of your small group that these people are ignorant, uneducated, or uncaring.  After all, the government in seeking to expand the budget keeps telling us that the one correlation with wealth is education.  Only one with a class envy ax to grind would buy into that.

I can understand how you would prefer to overlook a beautiful meadow from your porch instead somebody else's house or a commercial building.  So would I.  I wish that my 1/4 acre lot was a 3,000 acre ranch.  My neighbors feel the same way, but I doubt that anyone of us would be receptive to the idea of razing our houses (or taking the financial loss of not developing the land) so that our neighbor (s) would enjoy that serene meadow.

I was recently involved in a zoning case where the surrounding landowners vehemently opposed a proposed manufactured home developmnet on part of a 200 acre open pasture.  They liked the rural feeling of the area, and since they had theirs, they were less receptive to others sharing it.  While I didn't have to go into a long explanation of property rights, I did suggest that if it was for the common good to maintain this property as undeveloped land, perhaps the homeowners and/or the town should purchase the property at the price that my client was being offered for the proposed use.  Of course, this didn't make them like the zoning case any better, but at least got a few of them to think in more equitable terms.  In fact, more than one person suggested that the town or someone else build a golf course on the site.

Our system works because of the recognition of property rights and individuality.  As Tim has noted, if you wish to see real pollution, just visit socialist/govt./group oriented societies.  If the Dos Pueblos in CA site is so valuable from an environmental standpoint, the appropriate govenrment jurisdictions should compensate the owners fully for the opportunity cost of not being able to develop that land for its highest use.

And Guest, I am not arguing that we need more golf courses.  As you will see, the market will reach equilibrium through time, and mistakes will be punished and corrected.  I am trying to make the point that in today's environmental climate, CPC or PB would not have been possible, and that would be a HUGE loss for many, many, many more people, golfers and non-golfers.  I believe that over-regulation is the primary reason why we are not seeing courses like CPC, PB, PV, or NGLA being built today.  Could someone get a permit today to remove 2 mm c.y. of material from a bay, lake, or marsh to build a Lido?  Could the Stadium Course in Jacksonville be built in 2003?  I think not.

Golfers and non-golfers alike, present and future, are being deprived of these treasures because of of the relatively few environmental WHACKOS and their junk science.  Let these malcontents achieve their significance and self-worth elsewhere, perhaps in Central America where people dump their garbage, sewage, oil wastes, and everything imaginable right outside their door.  But, where the kids play in open sewers and garbage heaps one is unlikely to find a quaint coffee house or a school of "higher learning".  Happiness is not attained by whining and destroying, but by accomplishement and true problem solving.  Who has a richer life and accomplishes more, a nun who works and lives in relative anonimity (until her last few years) among the poor to better their life, or a "preacher" who continuously remind us that life is unfair, that "his" people are getting screwed, and who leads a life that is totally inconsistent with what he preaches?  In my book, we have far too few Mother Teresas, and a vulgar overabundance of Jesse Jacksons.
  
(I've already breached one of my New Year's resolutions- not to be pulled into one of these time consuming discussions with little chance of accomplishing anything.  I resolve to do better in the future.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2003, 10:48:53 AM »
Shivas, so far some of our knowledgeable superintendents haven't weighed in on these questions of yours.  But, I will at least make a start at pointing you to the many on-going studies done on the subject of pesticide and other chemical leaching into ground water by using your good old LEXIS or NEXIS search capacity to find actual court cases that used supporting "evidence" to argue the matters.  One of the premier early studies was "The Cape Cod Study" done somewhere around 1990-91.  That was a specific extensive well monitoring project associated with golf courses in a sensitive highly perculating area.  I have subscribed to Golf Course Management magazine for the last 12 years.  Frequently over the years, there have been research articles examining various environmental impact aspects of these golf course ferts, and pesticide-fungicide applications.  The information is out there, and perhaps some super can point you to a comprehensive book or reference source that is state of the art scientific knowledge on the subjects.  But, my experience is the information is piece meal and requires extensive research effort to find relavant material to learn from.  Since the information is often contradictory, you can sort of pick which of it you want to hang your hat on and call the other side spurious or specious science. :-/  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Guest

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2003, 10:49:58 AM »
Lou,

Did I say anyone was "stupid' or "ignorant"? Did I say anything about "razing" homes? This is the problem. One guy gets on here and asked for balance and he has a "psychopathological" problem. He is cohorts with a bunch of whackos. Were it not for guys like Adam, I would give up trying to convince my golf "cohorts" that we should own up to our own pollution problems. Thanks Adam for reading what I wrote for what it was.

Dave,

The chemicals are things like pre and post herbicides, vegetation killers, fertilizers which add nitrates to the water supply in some cases, etc. As with any equipment, you have your share of fuels and oils leaking from machines and spilling during fill-up. I have seen guys filling a tank sprayer put the chemical in and walk away, forget about it and come back with the thing overflowing. In the reality of golf maintenance, there are sometimes when unlicensed spray applicators are sent out onto a course. That's just reality. So you have to hope that they get it right just to have the best chance at providing results to the turf without undo harm to the environment. Farmers may have more incentive at times because the cost of the chemicals in and of itself tends to heighten awareness of waste flowing across a field. In fact, the cost of the chemicals is one thing that I try to mention to critics who believe that a golf course would dump untold amounts of whatever on a course just to get results. That would not make financial sense and that helps to keep things under control.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2003, 10:54:19 AM »
RJ,

I hadn't seen your last two posts before my last post. Well said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2003, 10:56:26 AM »
Adam Clayman:

I share your view that "guest" could serve as a positive example of anonymous post. The key is to follow through, respond to questions asked and avoid personalizing the issue.

One of my rules for this site is to avoid quoting golf industry folks that I have met or come to know, especially if the subject matter is sensitive. But, I'll make an exception in this case. About eight years ago I spent a day with Bobby Ranum from the Atlantic Golf Club. Bobby expressed to me that the golf industry could do a better job minimizing chemical use and properly handling those chemicals it did use. He went on to say he felt the influence of environmentalists was positive in his opinion. Bobby grew up in the golf industry and loves the game. He was hardly speaking from an environmental wacko point of view.

Dave Schmidt:

I'm with you one hundred percent. I'd like to see "guest" detail those practices related to chemical use he would like to see changed or improved.

Lou Duran:

The lack of environmental standards in the former Soviet bloc countries doesn't get much attention, but in the oil patch it is notorious. I have three industry contacts who spent a fair amount of time there after the iron curtain fell, including two of my closest friends. All three spent about one year trying to find oil properties where foreign investment could be made. All three came to exactly the same conclusion: almost every facility was an environmental disaster by Western standards. All three felt the only way to invest in this part of the world was to build brand new facilities where reasonable environmental standards could be applied from the very beginning.

How did this come about? It appears environmentalists had very little influence in the Soviet Communist party and that the resources - money - just wasn't available to implement and maintain sound environmental practices.

Though I didn't witness the carnage first hand, my friends shared enough stories to recognize that the Soviets were, arguably, 40-50 years behind what was common practice here in the States.

Anyway, that is just one reason I don't automatically assume "wacko" when environmental interests speak up. Quite often it is far better to take their input to heart.

Do they go overboard sometimes? Yes. But, any industry is far more likely to make that case (when it happens) if they take the legitimate input seriously.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2003, 11:06:41 AM »
Guest:

Thanks. FYI, walking away when product is being transferred has long been against good practice in the oil industry. I did once have one of my employees do it while making a diesel fuel delivery. About 1500 gallons of red dyed diesel ran down a hill into a couple acre pond. The accident occured in December when temperatures had fallen to about 35 degrees. Not freezing but cold enough for my employee to want to go inside and warm up while the product was unloading. Unfortunately, he also miscalulated what the receiving tank could hold.

Believe me, cleaning up that pond was no fun.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2003, 11:19:55 AM »
Tim Weiman,

I'm not so sure that Bobby Ranum gives environmenalists the blanket positive endorsement you allude to.

I think he might object to the restrictions placed on the location of the 13th green.  The problem caused by trees on the 13th hole and many other eco-restrictions and extremes.

I think the key is a balanced, REASONABLE approach.
All too often, extremes are inserted into the equation, and reasonableness goes out the window.

I'm sure that you've heard about the environmental problems at Atlantic and Friar's Head.

Guest,

It is true that some golf courses are in trouble, but that might have to do the the location they were forced to select.
The prefered location they wanted may have been ideal for accessability but impossible to develop due to environmental issues, hence they defaulted to a less desireable location which may have had additional developmental and maintainance costs associated with its operation.

How is a farm which applies almost identical chemicals in similar forms of applications any different from the golf course it's being turned into ?
You're still going to have human error, gas tank runovers and spills, faulty applications, rain and washouts etc., etc. ?
Why, all of a sudden, when that property is about to be turned into a golf course, do the environmentalists suddenly marshall their forces and declare the golf course harmful ?
Where were they when the farm was engaged in practices that by those same standards, they declare as harmful ?

And, when nothing but farmland and countryside exist for miles upon miles, I don't buy the eco-nonsense that the wildlife will have nowhere to go if this one parcell of 250-350 acres is turned into a golf course.

Has any study ever indicated that Pebble Beach, Cyrpess Point, Monterey Penisula CC, Spyglass Hill, Spanish Bay,
Gulfstream, Everglades, Maidstone, Seminole, NGLA and The Creek have had any substantantive negative impact on the environment ?  

I'm all for protecting and preserving on a prudent, reasonably applied basis, but I'm also for furthering society's needs, be it homes, factories, schools or golf courses.

Reasonable standards and Balance need to be the criteria.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2003, 11:23:38 AM »
Rachel Carson has/had a lot to answer for.

When I lived in Rhodesia the prevalent diseases were bilharzia and malaria. Malaria could kill in a very short time, bilharzia took years. To combat the annopheles mosquito, the health authorities in the country started to use DDT: the
death rate of malaria victims  plummeted.

After concerns about DDT were raised and the product was banned, the incidence of malaria in sub Saharan Africa soared. The Rhodesians requested permission to use DDT for spraying the interior of African kias, knowing that it would prevent mosquito bites on sleeping people and give a modicum of protection, the request was refused.

I am not a statistician or epidemiologist, but I would hazard a guess that the death toll from malaria in Africa since the ban was instituted runs into many millions.

It has always amazed me how well-to do countries can export their biases and good intentions to lesser developed countries, when all the latter want is to survive.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2003, 11:28:17 AM »
Tim,

You are welcome. Part of it is just admiting that normal, everyday operations do have an impact on the environment and then trying to minimize the negatives. I have many friends that I have been able to communicate with on this issue by admitting that golf courses do impact the environment. I usually point out to them how many of the things they do in their daily lives impact the environment in similar ways and then talk about how golf courses, as entertainment and leisure venues can do better. They begin to look at themselves in the mirror and to set aside their all or nothing viewpoints. As RJ and the man you mention allude to, the industry will benefit to the extent that they/we keep working to make things more "friendly".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #41 on: January 02, 2003, 11:57:16 AM »
Guest, your initials wouldn't be MH would they?  If so, I took your course and read your book. ;D 8)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

texsport

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2003, 12:00:05 PM »
It so happens that I have a pesticide applicators liscense. It is my experience that pest and weed control agents are applied responsibly and with great care by the vast majority of applicators. After all, they are educated concerning the dangers inherent in using a substance which is a poison. Misapplication could possibly endanger them personally.

EPA oversight of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides has been very effective in removing truely dangerous chemicals from the approved lists. Strict regulations have been imposed on companies and individuals involved in the use of these substances and severe penalties handed out for violations. Many golf courses have switched to natural or organic(whatever that is) fertilizers to save money.

In today's economic climate, the charge that golf course supers will simply dump unlimited chemicals on the land to get a result proves the ignorance of the arguement. The cost of these chemicals is a very significant part of the maintenance budget and very few golf courses have an unlimited budget. Additionally, when using poisons, twice as much is not better if you want to have any grass left on your course.

It is obvious that accidents occur and there are violators of good applicator proceedures but to throw out a blanket indictment of the whole industry is misleading and agreement with the idea only gives fuel to the irrational zealots proclaiming yet another gloom and doom senerio.

Just let the well trained experts handle the application of chemicals and quit looking over their shoulders when you know nothing about that of which you speak.

Texsport
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lou Duran

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2003, 12:06:37 PM »
Guest,

My position is that most of us are looking for balance, but that point was more than breached 15 - 20 years ago.  You may not be calling me and anyone else who wishes to associate with my comments "stupid" or "ignorant" directly, but by implication the fringe WHACKOS are doing exactly that.  In fact, President Bush was attacked by many of the same folks because, according to them, he precisely lacked intellect, gravitas, and the wherewithal to comprehend "the issues".  Please!!!!  Of course, we know that the war against Iraq has to do only with oil and our desire to become the Evil Empire (and the killing of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq was an environmental accident, probably when Saddam was trying to destroy all those evil chemicals which were a threat to some flea only found in that part of the world).  (Sorry, I guess that my own mental health is now open for debate).

You don't really believe that we would willfully put our families at risk to make an extra buck or to play another round at a course like CPC?   If you don't think that we can be that brazen, then you must think that we just don't know any better (the simpleton Republicans that the Left gleefully ridicules).  I do question the mental health of those few individuals who look at the ample evidence to the contrary, but choose to hold unto unsupportable positions.  It is unpardonable that they wish to force them upon the rest of us, and worse, that we have allowed them to do so.

Balancing the rights of property owners and the community should be vigorously debated, and environmentalists can and do play an indispensable role.  What I am suggersting is that in many places, and particularly in CA, that dialogue has not been taking place.  A very small minority has managed to silence debate and impose their largely negative, myopic view of the world on their fellow man.

I was presented with a preliminary Dos Pueblos prospectus some eight years ago.  If you think that it is appropriate for a few folks to hold-up that project after so many careful, favorable studies, and you are protraying yourself as a centrist seeking balance, then there is no more to be said.  No one is proposing that we pick any spot on the CA coast and begin unrestricted construction at the developer's whim.  What I am saying is that after a reasonable time of careful study, if a project is viable from environmental and economic standpoints, than it be allowed to move forward with proper oversight but unperturbed by litigation from as assortment of activists groups.  BTW, the conversion of habitat deemed desirable for toads, insects, bees, rats, bats, etc. is not a legitimate objection in my book.  Most critters do quite well in or near developed areas.  Erosion, land movement, significant chemical and hazardous material discharges do require close scrutiny.

Mr, Guest, the impulse to be a contrarian, to be a fly in the ointment is natural and, in most cases, constructive.  I go back once again to Professor Sowell when he discusses how we come to establish beliefs and institutions.  It is not done haphazardly as many of my contemporaries of the 1960s and 70s seem to believe.  It is accomplished through sweat and tears over large periods of time, 4,000+, often by a distillation of what works and doesn't.  Original thought in life or golf architecture is rare.  We inch forward; major social revolutions which largely turn their backs on what preceded them seldom achieve anything remote to their desired results.  The condition of the environment in countries where property rights are respected is demonstrably superior to where they are not.  This is not by chance.  If a government body is so willing and able to prevent a resident of Carmel from adding a bathroom to his house, what other parts of my freedom are at risk?  If my friend wants to cut a tree down which blocks the view of the river on his property, what right does the homeowners' association have to prevent him?  We do live in an interesting and brave new world.  (With my apologies to TEP for length and only remotely tangential issues; may I suffer from the keyboard yips so that I can stay away from this infernal medium. ;))

    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2003, 12:38:42 PM »
RJ,

MH is not me, sorry. Keep up your studies though!

Texsport,

I can't tell if you are addressing me specifically, so I won't bother responding in the event that you are addressing a perceived Whacko somewhere.

Lou,

I can't tell if I am the "you" in your second paragraph, so I will not respond there either. But I will say that it sounds like we both want balance.

As for your friend and his homeowner's association, countries, states, counties, cities, villages, towns and homeowner's associations make rules to live by. I hope he knew about the tree rule when he moved there, otherwise that's unfortunate for him. I also hope that they did not make the rule after he moved in. If so, I hope he knew that he might be subject to rule changes based on a fair system of implimentation, hopefully via some sort of vote. Is it possible that they have a good reason for that rule in terms of protecting the overall look and feel of the community? I don't live in a neighborhood with a homeowner's association. My city is always doing things that I don't agree with and it is frustrating. But I moved here of my own free will. And there are good things here too. The homeowner's assoication, just like my city does in fact have a right to set rules and codes to govern a lot of things. That is why they exist. The best ones balance public and private rights as best they can.

It just goes to show that our lives are not totally our own.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2003, 12:50:21 PM »
Pat Mucci:

If I recall correctly, the conversation I had with Bobby Ranum focused specifically on chemical use. We did not discuss the full range of environmental issues that may have been part of the Atlantic project. After all, my main purpose was to examine the site from a golf architecture point of view. Bobby was very gracious and shared his thoughts on a variety of subjects, but the enviromental discussion was limited.

Lou Duran:

My biggest frustration with public discussion of environmental issues is that so often they don't get beyond the sound bite level. Listen to Democratic party critics of President Bush and they just repeat a mantra "Bush is killing the environment". It almost never goes beyond sound bites.

In part, that is because the details can get very technical, probably to the point of being boring to most people on either side of the issue. I heard Senator Hillary Clinton do this just recently during an interview with Chris Mathews. She blasted Bush on the environment without ever providing the slightest detail what she was even talking about. Mathews wasn't any better. He never asked her to go beyond the sound bite.

It's ironic. For all the talk about how oil interests influence the Bush family, almost nobody recalls that the Clean Air Act was passed under Bush Sr. That legislation imposed an enormous tax burden on the oil industry - the massive investment required to produce cleaner fuels. That's one very good example of how the politics of environmental issues often involves misleading stereotypes: "Democrats good, Republicans bad".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #46 on: January 02, 2003, 12:51:54 PM »
Lou, well said.  Keep it up.
Now what was your New Year's Resolution again?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

texsport

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #47 on: January 02, 2003, 12:57:22 PM »
Mr. Guest
    
     No answer is taken as a surrender.

     On the subject of homes associations, we're trying to outlaw them down here in Texas because they're a haven for power hungry small people trying to use a little power to impose the will of a vocal  minority on the majority.

Texsport
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Guest

Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #48 on: January 02, 2003, 01:02:17 PM »
texsport,

Who is it that you are addressing? If it is me, then you have attributed things to me that are not true of me. I gladly surrender all rights to engage in such a discussion if that is your goal. Plus, you give me the opportunity to use the following statement, apropos to a discussion about environmental damage: To the victor go the spoils.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Steve Wilson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Calif Coastal Commission may be out of busines
« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2003, 07:07:05 PM »
Like Lou DUran I try to stay out of these pissing contests, because even if you win you're standing up to your ankles in urine.

That said:  I'll relate a story about Soviets.  I've never been to either the Soviet Union or as it is now known Russia, but in 1992 the natural gas and extraction and fractionation facility where I work was visited by a delegation of some forty to fifty Russians who were here to be introduced to how we do it in the west.  In the course of their tour of the facility they passed over a stream which we have dammed in two locations for use as the reservoir for our fire protection system.  As they were crossing this walking bridge one of their number spotted fish in the stream below.  They stayed on the bridge for at least five minutes and perhaps longer.  One of our supervisors who was a fisherman identified the different species for them.  He had asked jokingly, "You never saw fish before?"  And the answer was "Not around a plant."  
At that time I hadn't learned of the evironmental calamities in the Soviet Bloc, but when the news began to leak out I wasn't in the least surprised when I thought back to this incident.

And Bob Huntley, your stories about Africa could be applied to any tropical region.  A few months back I posted the following question on a thread similar to this and no one answered it.

Which book is responsible for the most deaths:

a)  Mein Kampf

b)  Das Kapital

c)  The Koran

d)  The Communist Maniifesto

e) The Wealth of Nations

f)  Silent Spring

g)  The Bible

Actually, I added three choices this time just to make it more illustrative.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Some days you play golf, some days you find things.

I'm not really registered, but I couldn't find a symbol for certifiable.

"Every good drive by a high handicapper will be punished..."  Garland Bailey at the BUDA in sharing with me what the better player should always remember.