[Brad Klein]

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/dec/06/key-vote-today-proposed-closure-sharp-park/

[David_Tepper]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/06/BAN71M8K5K.DTL

[Jackson C]

David,  I have not been following this story closely and from the two articles posted it is not clear to me what is the main issue.  (I assume the environmental aspect is a bit of a front for other motives.)  Is this a case of the city just not having enough money to keep the course open?

About the course itself, do you believe it can be restored?  I played it in the distant past and it was usually in poor condition.  How much of MacKenzie is still there?

[David_Tepper]

Jackson C. -

There have been several threads/discussions about this issue here over the past year or two. You should probably start by reading this:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sharp-park/

You might also want to do a search for Sharp Park to pull up the past threads. You could also go to the SF Chronicle's website (www.sfgate.com) and do a search for "Sharp Park" there to retrieve the articles that have been published there.

You should also go to the website for the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance:  www.sfpublicgolf.com



By the way, what does the red C logo with the bear stand for? Cornell?

DT

[Jud_T]

This is why those of us east of the Mississippi just look at the Left Coast and scratch our heads in disbelief.  Maybe easy-access Medical Marijuana isn't such a great idea after all...

[David_Tepper]

"This is why those of us east of the Mississippi just look at the Left Coast and scratch our heads in disbelief.  Maybe easy-access Medical Marijuana isn't such a great idea after all... "

Jud T. -

On the other hand, one wonders why Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Facebook, Nike, Disney, etc., etc are not located on the East Coast?

DT

[Jackson C]

Yes, David, the logo is for Cornell athletics -- in honor of University and all the Cornellians who love golf, and the many that post on GCA.

The article was great; thanks for sharing it.  I'll have to make it a point to play it again when I get back out to SF.
Interesting to find out that the holes on the other side of the highway are not MacKenzie.

RTJ II involvement is interesting.  Would like to think MacKenzie experts Tom Doak or Mike DeVries would be considered for restoration/renovation work.

[David_Tepper]

Jackson -

The course conditions at Sharp Park are still pretty rough, especially during the rainy winter months.

I believe Jay Blasi from the RTJ II office in Palo Alto has had some input regarding renovation/restoration possibilities for the course. Jay was heavily involved in the design of Chambers Bay.

P.S. Check your messages for info on my days "far above Cayuga's waters."

DT

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David thanks to you and Brad for keeping this subject in front of us.

[David_Tepper]

Here is the latest news. There are still many cards yet to be played.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/07/BAIP1M9A28.DTL

[JLahrman]

So the current vote has Sharp Park being transferred to the National Park Service...which does not bode well for the golf course.

However, the mayor can veto a 6-5 vote and it sounds like he will (though I don't know what his 'significant amendments' are that the article says might prompt him to not veto the vote).

Seems to get more and more complicated every time I read the latest article!

[David_Tepper]

Joel L. -

My understanding  is that, even though the SF Board of Supervisors yesterday voted 6-5 to give the Sharp Park property to the National Park Service, there is little evident enthusiasm on the part of the National Park Service to actually receive and manage this property going forward. If push comes to shove, the NPS may very well say to the SF BofS "thanks, but no thanks."

As I said earlier, this journey is a still quite a ways from being over.

DT   

[Brad Klein]

Supervisor Avalos' attempt to pass the golf course on to the National Park Service is an ill-disguised way to kill the course, but it might all be for naught or sheer political grandstanding to the extreme populist ecologists in town if, as expected, the mayor vetoes and, as seems likely, the Board of Supervisors doesn't override his veto.

My latest Golfweek dispatch, merely suggestive of an incredibly complicated situation:

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/dec/07/sfs-sharp-park-suffers-political-setback/

[Matt Day]

for us non americans can someone explain how the government process works at this level with Sharp Park?. Are the board of supervisors and mayor elected council officials?

[David_Tepper]

"for us non americans can someone explain how the government process works at this level with Sharp Park?. Are the board of supervisors and mayor elected council officials?"

Matt D. -

Yes, both the Mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors for the City & County of San Francisco are elected officials.

This is a very complicated situation as it involves, for starters,  the elected government of SF, Federal environmental law and the U.S. National Park Service. In addition, the Sharp Park property (which includes another 200 acres in addition to the golf course) actually sits outside of the city/county limits of San Francisco. The property is located in San Mateo County, in the town of Pacifica. Those entities have elected governments as well.

Finally, here in California, we have a Coastal Commission (members appointed by the state government) that has some authority an property development along the coastline. To my knowledge, they have yet to weight in on this affair.

Finally, it should also be noted that there is an argument being made that the operation of the golf course loses money each year for San Francisco and is a drain on the budget. While that argument may be dubious, it does give some of the SF Supervisors another reason for getting rid of the course.

DT  
 

[Kevin_Reilly]

for us non americans can someone explain how the government process works at this level with Sharp Park?. Are the board of supervisors and mayor elected council officials?

The golf course is owned by the City of San Francisco (even though it is located outside the city, in Pacifica, CA).  Decisions about the city are generally made by the Board of Supervisors, which is comprised of 11 elected Marxists officials.  Ed Lee is the Mayor of San Francisco and he can veto a vote of the Supervisors, and the Board can only override that veto with at least 8 votes.  Which they don't have.

Ed Lee is a golfer, thankfully, and he said that he is in favor of retaining Sharp Park as a golf course on a local radio interview that I heard the other day.

[Mike Benham]

My understanding  is that, even though the SF Board of Supervisors yesterday voted 6-5 to give the Sharp Park property to the National Park Service, there is little evident enthusiasm on the part of the National Park Service to actually receive and manage this property going forward. If push comes to shove, the NPS may very well say to the SF BofS "thanks, but no thanks."

Many have suggested that government (city, state or federal) should not be "running" businesses ... Sharp Park/SF/NPS may be the perfect example of that statement.

If SF is willing to give it away, I'd bet there is a golf course operator willing to take it over ... but then again, it would be more work for the Board of Supes to have to put out an RFQ and manage the process of securing an operator, far easier to give it away, much like a white elephant gift at the company holiday party.

[David_Tepper]

Mike B. -

Even if a commercial group was brought in to lease and operate the course, the question would still be "who assumes the liability for operating the course in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act?"

I cannot imagine a commercial group would want to assume that liability, which would still leave the City of SF on the hook for lawsuits and fines if there is environmental harm.

In addition, something I have heard little discussion to date of the future of the seawall that protects the golf course property. At some point in the next decade or two, the seawall may very well need to be replaced and/or repaired and that will cost millions of dollars. Who will be on the hook to pick up that expense?

DT   

[Matt Day]

thanks for the answers guys, I work for a council here but the big difference is the veto power the mayor has. Our mayor only has a casting vote in the event of a tie.

I've followed this from afar as a passionate supporter of public golf courses, it reads bewteen the lines that any decision made is going to be challenged by the other party?

[Mike Benham]

David -

Perhaps you answered your own question ... let the seawall deteriorate, we can call it a renovation back to the early 1900's design, the snakes and frogs will no longer be endangered by anything other than mother nature.

I believe mother nature has a position senior to the Fed's ESA ...

    

http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2010/11/seawall.html

[Lou_Duran]

I believe mother nature has a position senior to the Fed's ESA ...

     

http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2010/11/seawall.html

I was under the impression that the concensus opinion of those in the know- the uncompromised, purely objective, publicly-funded scientific community- if we spend many hundreds of billions $$$$ closely adhering to their directions, Man can be God, relegating MN to a relatively junior position.  That thousands upon thousands of species have been wiped out through the ages by ongoing climate change and various natural catastrophes is beside the point.  And in the much grander scheme of things, why do we need golf not to say anything about Sharp Park anyways?  Wth resources running out at such alarming rates, this should be a non-issue.  Where is Malthus when we need him.      

[Tim Leahy]

Someone needs to post the names, adresses and phone #'s for the six board members that voted against the golf course so that they can be contacted by those that don't agree and voted out of office next election.

[JLahrman]

Someone needs to post the names, adresses and phone #'s for the six board members that voted against the golf course so that they can be contacted by those that don't agree and voted out of office next election.

Tim,

After a quick search, it appears that the six who voted turn the course over to the NPS are (unofficially): John Avalos, David Campos, David Chiu, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi.

Golf in SF seems to get the "who cares, it's a rich man's game" kind of general response, but public sentiment actually seems to be against this particular decision. So maybe these six are getting some complaints.

[David_Tepper]

Tim L. & Joel L. -

Remember that, since Sharp Park sits outside the SF city limits, a healthy portion of the people who play there do not live in San Francisco, especially compared to the other SF muni courses (that sit inside the city limits). Much of the play at Sharp Park comes from people who live in Pacifica or elsewhere in San Mateo County. That possibly contributes to the lack of concern about maintaining the course on the part of some SF Supervisors. Those Supervisors might be thinking (rightly or wrongly), "why should San Francisco operate a golf course at a loss that is patronized mostly by people who are not residents/voters/tax-payers of San Francisco?"

My feeling is the best outcome for the course would be for San Francisco to cede the course to San Mateo County.

DT

      
 

[JLahrman]

David, you are more up to date on the politics behind the scenes so I will defer to your judgment...it would be a real shame if something can't be worked out for this course though. Historical significance aside, it's a fun place to play and there shouldn't be any reason why it can't be managed in an environmentally protective manner.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()