[Patrick_Mucci]

Are golf courses created with environmental issues and ESA's inherently in conflict with the concept of a walking golf course ?

Do they inherently suffer in the "Ease of routing" and "Walk in the Park" categories ?

Could remediation have benefited courses with environmental problems.

Why would environmentalists be opposed to remediation, especially if it was on more than a 1 to 1 ratio ?

[SPDB]

Pat - Are we talking about Environmentally Sensitive Areas or Environmental Site Assessment? Wouldn't remediation be prohibitively expensive - especially when the agencies are looking over your shoulder? Perhaps tagging prior owners through CERCLA might mitigate the bite, but who wants to buy years of costly litigation?

[paul cowley]

Patrick....I would suggest we nuke them all and let God sort it out...

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The best approach to designing a golf course around environmental problem areas is to give them a wide berth.

Mitigation is okay on a very small scale basis, but do you really think that it's an even trade to fill in a two-acre wetland and go dig a new one at the corner of the property (or on property 50 miles away bought for a "mitigation bank")?  It takes years for a newly created wetland to establish the same diversity as an existing one.

The real problem is that golf course architects are often asked to push the envelope into environmental areas so that more housing can be squeezed onto the high ground.

[PThomas]

and usually "created" wetlands do not function as well as natural ones

[JMorgan]

Tom, can't a gca argue more cogently for the benefits of nondevelopment golf course construction these days -- for example, with the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program and the premium put on open space in the last decade?  I remember Pete Dye talking about how the wildlife flourished at Old Marsh in the reconstructed wetlands.  Isn't there quantifiable proof of such benefits, and wouldn't these benefits make the permitting process easier in cases where environmentally sensitive areas come into play?

[Patrick_Mucci]

James Morgan,

They probably can, but, when that's the primary goal of the developer, I doubt he'd support an argument against his ability to maximize profits.

Paul T,

The law doesn't differentiate between natural wetlands and manmade wetlands.

And, I don't know if your statement is accurate.
The transition of a pond/stream into a meadow is a lengthy process that eliminates a good deal of the wetlands.

SPDB,

While ESA's are involved, I was thinking more about courses that suffer a serious disconnect.  Where the green on one hole is quite a distance from the tee on the next hole, due to either the environmental circumstances or the choice of the routing.

Tom Doak,

How do you overcome the disconnects when giving the environmental areas a wide berth ?

Do you decline the job due to site constraints, try to overcome them, or proceed, understanding that the disconnects are an inherent demerit ?

Metedeconk has some extended walks from green to tee.
In some cases, the bridgework aiding in connecting the holes is extensive and it had to be expensive.

I recently saw another course with substantive distances between green and tee, making walking difficult.

And, there are a great number of clubs, especially in Florida, where the distance from green to tee makes them unwalkable for all practical purposes..

In a sense, I see a great parallel between what Tom Doak brings up as a constraint due to development and constraints due to environmental issues.

Can a golf course that weaves in and out and between environmental areas or housing ever attain recognition as a great golf course ?

If so, which ones come to mind ?  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  I'd have to look at a map of a course like Metedeconk to see if those wetlands were more avoidable or not.  It's very possible the architect did not place a high priority on walkability -- many don't, and it was especially overlooked 15-20 years ago.

Some sites are so cut up by wetlands or other environmental issues that there's no way to lay out a golf course without a lot of long transitions.  (Have you ever been to Pine Hill?)  It's up to the architect and developer to decide if they want to proceed anyway.  But what I was saying is that a lot of times, we have 300-400 acres to work with, but we are pushed to use the lower ground and make bad transitions so that there is more room for housing up high.  It would be easy to avoid those areas with that much land, but the economic realities of many projects depend on the housing and not the golf.

The one sad thing is to see so many developers coerced into giving away a significant chunk of land to conservation as part of the permitting process.  I guess it's a tax write-off, anyway.

[PThomas]

Patrick:  my statement is factually correct

[Bruce Katona]

Tom: Regarding giving away land constrained by wetlands or buffers to wetlands..........there is no tax write-off for losing use of the land.

Pine Hill is a great example of a severly constrained site being developed for golf........the shame of it is, when the site was utilized for prior uses (an amusement park, ski slope, etc) much more land area was utilized and eroded due to neglect.........the negotiation with both the State of NJ and the Federal regulators to get the project built was very intense, given the various sets of rules to be complied with that sometimes overlap.......we are still continuing to monitor the successful stream restoration work we did for the native trout population.

[Ed_Baker]

Pat,

The TPC Boston (Norton Ma.) is a great example of ESA's dictating routing, or more specificly lack of routing. The TPC is more a collection of decent golf holes than a course. That doesn't mean it isn't fun or challenging to play, it just is much more practical to take a golf cart which fits right in to the business golf, entertainment model for which it was designed.

The original Bonita Bay course in Bonita Springs Florida had the same kind of disconnect as well as Pelicans Nest near the Ritz in Naples yet both were very good and fun tests of golf, but walk them? Nope.

I guess the trade off is that many players are enjoying golf on sites where golf would be impossible 30 years ago. We can thank Pete Dye for the many construction inovations that he has brought to the industry as well as his architectural brilliance.

[Kirk Gill]

The one sad thing is to see so many developers coerced into giving away a significant chunk of land to conservation as part of the permitting process.  I guess it's a tax write-off, anyway.

Mr. Doak - please elaborate on this. Unfortunate for who, exactly? The developers, who unfortunately have to give up land where they could be building houses or golf courses? Golf course architects like yourself, who are unfortunately unable to build on the land?

I live right next to a large golf course/real estate development that is being built. I am by no means intimately familiar with the negotiations that the permitting process required to build this development, but I do know that a large parcel of land has been set aside as open space in which a bike/walking path has already been created. This, for those of us who live nearby (and will very likely never be able to play the course itself), was rather fortunate, as we're not going to be subject to a large number of houses being built on land that is currently open and rather lovely, if I may say so.

Is the unfortunate part of this just that it makes golf course development less likely, simply due to the cost of setting aside this land?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Why would environmentalists be opposed to remediation, especially if it was on more than a 1 to 1 ratio ?

Not sure what remediation is supposed to accomplish. You destroy nature in one area and to make up for that you destroy it in another area as well?

If an area is environmentally sensitive, it needs to be protected. Golf courses and housing should be built in areas that aren't. Exceptions can sometimes be made for natural courses, i.e. no watering, pesticides etc. - but few people want to play on rough courses like that.

When building a Golf course the goal should be to improve the ecological qualities of the land.

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

I'm glad you are getting your bike path and walking path, but I don't understand why it is a neighbor's obligation to provide it because they want to develop the land they paid to buy, under the zoning regulations in place.

Many many towns make a golf course or development require a "special use permit", which basically gives the town the leverage to ask the developer to bend over backwards in order to get the green light to build.  It isn't enough for them to pay taxes like every other citizen and business in town -- they have to give away some of their land, too.

The bottom line is that it ups the ante on the costs of developing property, which stops many would-be developers from pursuing their projects, and leaves development to the big guys who can pull strings.  And ultimately, the golfers have to foot the tab for it.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
    I would be interested in hearing how you disagree with Paul T on this one, since that IS his area of expertise.

[paul cowley]

Please Lord, please give me the strength not to go here.

...and if you do, I promise to do at least three good things tomorrow;

  * I will tell the developer of the course where we are building 40 acres of NON REMEDIATION REQUIRED wetlands that he cannot place four one acre house sites on the banks of the marsh side faux levees.

  * I will contact a Federal Agency that provides funding for re planting long leaf pine on areas of planted pine plantation that had been previously growing non native species and I will make this a permanent and binding NO further harvesting agreement on the 1,000 acres of concern.

  *I will call the head of the SE Regional Nature Conservancy and inform him of my decision to contribute 1941 acres of exceptional property along the pristine Satilla river [which includes 7.5 miles of riverfront] to his organization.....to remain forever wild with no further uses beyond recreational.


Amen.

[Kirk Gill]

I'm glad you are getting your bike path and walking path, but I don't understand why it is a neighbor's obligation to provide it because they want to develop the land they paid to buy, under the zoning regulations in place.

That's exactly what I was getting at. In my case, I will obviously benefit from something that I did not personally negotiate to obtain. However, I believe that in this case it is in fact the zoning regulations of which you speak that caused open space to be included in the development plan (i.e. zoning regulations in this area include provisions for mandatory inclusions of open space, etc.). Also, as there always is when building any kind of development here in Colorado, water issues were part of the negotiations. The new development apparently needs water that they are obtaining from the water district that is the provider for the area I live in, and to obtain the water they require, concessions may have been necessary regarding the open space element, particularly as a "buffer" between their development and ours.

Of course, as I said before, I was not part of the negotiations, and can only speak to what I have heard, which is by no means completely accurate.

But just to reiterate, what you are saying is that the responsibility for conserving land (for whatever purpose, wetlands or open space, etc.) should not fall on those who develop the land, but instead on the local government, or should simply not be conserved at all, or.....? If one is willing to accept the notion that some land should be conserved, then the next step seems to be to ask who is responsible for conservation, and if the answer is "the government," then governments would have to have a comprehensive plan that they would follow to obtain the land and set it aside or do the minimal development on it (like the bike/walking path mentioned above) to make it work for the community. Am I wrong in saying that instead they simply write conservation requirements into zoning laws and put the onus for conservation on those who develop land?

[paul cowley]

Well Patrick....thanks to this thread, the environment as I can help it had a very good day.

All of the three areas I outlined yesterday where advanced today significantly......especially the conservation donation of 1941 acres to the Georgia Land Trust.

I realise that at times I can be a little irreverent...but that same irreverence helps disguise a passion.....and nothing can stimulate one of those passions more than enviro /permitting topics......It actually makes me want to put a slug in a revolver and idly click away while imitating Woody Woodpeckers signature call after each non firing.

I used to say that some day I would write a book on State to State enviro/regs but that I would have to kill myself afterwards because I would be too depressed....now I think I would have to kill myself before I started.

....but I have learned to adapt to survive and [if you promise to keep this secret] I will tell how.........OK?

I have become an environmental vigilante, a Zorro esque like persona that does good but not out in the open or within a 'system'....and its become a real release that helps me deal with the day to day realities of my job.

I haven't come up with a signature yet [like a big slashed C], but that's probably just as well because I really don't do it for anyone else but me ....and I doubt I would care anyway

This thread just energised what I have been putting off ....thanks again.

[John Kirk]

Paul,

I appreciate your passion.  Let me tell you what has happened at Pumpkin Ridge, a 36 hole complex on 360 acres in northwest Oregon.

The Washington County (Oregon) Land Use and Planning Department dictated that a certain number of acres of Pumpkin Ridge land be designated and preserved as wetlands.  The course was built, and there are several designated environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) where players aren't allowed to go.

But there's a problem.  By allowing the designers some latitude in which areas to designate as ESA, some unnatural water migration issues have arisen.  It appears too much water now collects in the lowland forests between holes 1, 12, 14, 15, and 18 on the private course, and as a result, the beautiful oak, ash, and cherry trees are either dying or already dead.

Furthermore, we have non-native invaders such as canary reed grass and himalayan blackberry which are crowding out beautiful native plants such as wild rose and huckleberry.

So the effort to "move" or "designate" wetlands within Pumpkin Ridge has failed.  It's not a trivial matter moving water and earth around in a naturally rare or valuable environment.

Patrick,

As we discussed recently, Pumpkin Ridge is an excellent walking course, very easy to walk and conducive to fast play.  Part of that is due to the convenient selection of designated wetlands areas which the golf courses are built around, not through.

[paul cowley]

John...if you could send me more info on the specifics of Pumpkin Ridges situation I might be able to get it included when my new book is published......posthumously of course!  

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

You are right that what is happening is a de facto taking of conservation lands through the zoning process -- but it's done surreptitiously.  Tell me that the majority of voters in many communities would vote for such a thing outright ... that is, the government taking some of their land in return for any zoning concession.

To me, it's one thing to ask developers to do some conservation on the land they own, but another to require them to GIVE some land to the town or county for conservation purposes, which is the part I object to.  Indeed, by structuring it as a takeaway, I think they are taking the developer off the hook for being an environmental steward on the land he has left, by making it easy to rationalize that he's already made his contribution.

If a community doesn't want (or can't afford) to allow water rights for a new golf course, they should just say no.  If they can afford it, they shouldn't use it as a bargaining chip to obtain land.

[Phil McDade]

Mr. Doak:

Hmmm...last time I checked (and I say this as -- guessing here -- probably one of the few regular GCA posters who is actually an elected official) this country was a republic, and not one in which routine issues of public importance are voted on by the residents of the affected locale.

Absent a public referendum process (usually limited in most states), voters don't get to vote on whether land should be set aside for conservation purposes for whatever development is taking place. Voters get to decide on whether the public officials who create and enforce such easements stay in office. Unlike many of my publicly elected brethern, I always assume voters are well-informed and knowledgeable, and if they don't like the decisions (e.g., granting conservation easements) made by public officials, they replace them at the ballot box.

Your example -- that the majority of voters wouldn't vote for public taking of land -- is a pretty major red herring, I'd suggest. That's not how these issues are handled, and -- as one whose many course development projects at some point probably had to go through some kind of governmental review/permitting process -- I'm guessing you know that.

If a developer buys 60 acres of land in your community, and wants to put a subdivision on it with single-family homes, doesn't the local government have some public interest in ensuring that the families (and children) who will eventually live in that subdivision have, for instance, a park to play in? And shouldn't that park be public, like other public amenities in the community, like libraries and tennis courts and Kirk's bike trail? How is that different than conservation easements required of developers, regardless of what they are developing?

One can argue all day and night about the exact specifications of those easements, and whether or not they are onerous to the developer, but you'd be hard-pressed to win an argument that such requirements are enforced "surreptitiously." Aren't these public officials, in the end, who are making these decisions? Aren't these decisions about easements made at meetings -- usually public ones, with public notification -- presided over by public officials? Aren't those public officials ultimately beholden to the electorate about these decisions? They are where I live.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

There are all sorts of local zoning codes about what percentage of any development parcel have to be preserved as "open space".  And, as I said above, I've got no problem with that.  In fact, because golf courses count as open space, and because western development properties tend to be large tracts, those open space requirements are one of the main reasons so many golf courses are being developed in the west today.

I'm just saying I don't think it's right to go the step beyond that, and lean on the developer to actually give away some of his land for conservation purposes.  Don't you pay taxes so the community will provide that stuff?  Doesn't the developer pay taxes, too?

My suggestion of a popular vote was not intended to be a red herring.  I know it's not going to come up for a vote.  I was just saying that there are a lot of things which governments do, which the average citizen doesn't know about or understand, and might find to be objectionable if it were ever explained to them.

[Kirk Gill]

Tell me that the majority of voters in many communities would vote for such a thing outright ... that is, the government taking some of their land in return for any zoning concession.

Tell me that the people that are developing properties actually live in and vote in the areas where they are developing land. Needless to say, they often don't. The people who actually do live in those areas would certainly vote against anyone taking THEIR land, but that's not what we're talking about. The voters already own their little piece of land. Their house constitutes the "development" that has already been done. If someone wanted to make open space out of my yard they'd have precious little land to work with.

However, ask those same people if they favor taking a bite out of a new developer's land so it will be set aside for public-access parks or trails, or "merely" set aside for environmental concerns, and I would expect that they'd be for it. If the eventual result was that they got more open space nearby to enjoy, all the good. If the eventual result is that the land isn't developed, many would celebrate that, at least out in my neck of the woods...........

Am I wrong in saying that many folks who aren't developers themselves see developers as wealthy-yet-money-hungry, and wouldn't necessarily cry at the notion that a developer's bottom-line would be hurt by the creation of open space or environmental set-backs? After all, it's not THEIR money......

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

Yes, everyone will vote for taking money from the other guy.  That's why I have to pay a 15% rental car tax and a 10.5% hotel tax every time I take a trip.

What if the result is that nobody develops golf courses anymore?  What if you bought 250 acres to build a golf course for the townfolk to enjoy, and they insisted you give 50 acres away?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()