Would you take the job ?

[Mark Pearce]

I hope, I really hope that all the idiotic "screw the pigeons, let's build a course", "let's have pigeon for lunch" are intended to be humorous.  However, this site is accessible by the public.  Environmental issues are a big deal for developers and course operators (just ask the people at Sharp Park).  These sort of "humorous" comments are grist to the mill for any environmentalist wanting to portray golfers as anti-environmental.  Perhaps just a little more thought before indulging in student humour?  Of course, if these comments aren't intended as jokes then perhaps the environmentalists are right after all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

The question posed indicated that all permits were in hand.

Would you say that environmentalists can tend toward extremism ?

That environmentalists have engaged in violence and acts of property destruction ?

Before advising those on this site to tippy toe, so as not to offend a group/classification that has an active radical element, an active radical element that tends to be rather vocal, unyielding and destructive, perhaps you should advise the environmentalists  to be more reasonable and engage in "prudent man" dialogue and negotiations.

There's a tendency to view "environmentalists" in a favorable light due to the generalization of the word.
But in reality, the active element  hasn't conducted themselves appropriately.  Hence, your advice and lecture should be directed at those who have acted inappropriately.
I have to wonder, was denying the pipeline on environmental grounds and having Canada sell their oil to China in our best interest, short and long term ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat

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  


IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF


What a little words ‘IF’ is, yet it carries the hope of dreamers ever where it goes.

I could say ‘IF’ only you really understood the game, modern designs could have been so much more in keeping with the traditions of the game. ‘IF’ the game had not been allowed to bastardise, our courses would reflect more of an interest for the general public attracting more to play. ‘IF’ we just stop making excuses for poor design and gamesmanship, we might have a stronger sport. ‘If’ we had a governing body that cared about the game instead of how to milk the game for every penny we might again see the quality of the game and the standing it held in the 19th Century when it went global.

And Sam just for you ‘IF’ only you could understand the British sense of humour, but as you guys can’t spell humour correctly what chance is there that you understand its meaning.

I have not called you out. I just love the picture you paint, destruction before dialogue at every turn, its smacks of insecurity. As there are so many Hawks over the pond I understand the pigeons are becoming an endangered species, just like the Doves.

If only….  

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

Of course environmentalists can and often do verge towards extremism.  That's why idiots giving them bullets to fire at golfers is not a good idea.  The radical extremists aren't the problem, it's the sane ones who can construct an argument.  Why make life easy for them?

It's not even as if any of the attempts at humour got much above third grade, is it?  Did you laugh, or even vaguely smile at any of them?

[Jud_T]

Clearly all environmental regulation should be blindly taken on faith as if handed down on stone tablets:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-government-2010-11#8-untangling-whale-restriction-8

[Jim_Kennedy]

I have to wonder, was denying the pipeline on environmental grounds and having Canada sell their oil to China in our best interest, short and long term ?

Pat,
It's not just wild-eyed environmentalists, remember, Nebraska’s republican governor and its state legislature opposed the pipeline because they were worried about the Sandhills region ( in case of an accident SH, Dismal, etc., could go back to oiled sand greens   ) and the damage from potential leaks that could contaminate the vast Ogallala aquifer that provides drinking and irrigation water across the center of the US, from top to bottom. TransCanada already has a pipeline in the USA (see link) so it's not unlikely that the new one will be approved, although there might be some hold up in Texas as TransCanada is presently involved in 80 eminent domain disputes with farmers and other landowners.

 http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html

...and there is no certainty that the oil it will deliver will stay in the USA:

 Valero states in an investor presentation that it plans to refine the Canadian crude at the same facility it is building in Port Arthur because doing so leverages its ‘export logistics,’ and says that “growing global diesel demand is an export opportunity for U.S. refineries.”
Motiva, a joint refining venture between Shell and the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, is another one of Transcanada’s Port Arthur customers. The rest of Transcanada’s customers include a French company, 2 Canadian companies, and a multinational venture based in the Netherlands.
And it is not just a regular moneymaking export opportunity that many of these companies are seeking.  Port Arthur, Texas is a Foreign Trade Zone, so when these refineries re-export the diesel and other fuels they make using Keystone oil, they won’t even have to pay U.S. taxes!
Lest anyone think that Transcanada isn’t in the re-export business, in December, when the President of Transcanada was asked whether he would agree to ensure that the oil and refined fuels stay here in this country instead of re-exporting them, he said NO!

How are the tar sands oil going to lower our costs (estimated at 1%) and reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil if there's no guarantee that it stays in this country?        

 

 

[Bruce Katona]

Considering that environmental permitting is part of my daiuly job, take my previous comment as you wish.  We've had more projects held up with increased costs due to environmental regulations than a creatrive mind could ever invent - fish, snakes, birds, bats, etc.  These are not bald eagles, snail darters or other critically endangered creatures, just some who happened to be residing at the fringe of their natural range in the area where we proposed a project

[Philippe Binette]

I care for the environment...

but I'm always fascinated how much the environmentalist are fighting over the creation of a golf course (a green space which can be maintained in an environmental way) and how little they are fighting over the creation of a 2000 spots parking lot !!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

I care for the environment...

but I'm always fascinated how much the environmentalist are fighting over the creation of a golf course (a green space which can be maintained in an environmental way) and how little they are fighting over the creation of a 2000 spots parking lot !!!

Imagine you're on the shortlist to design a course parking lot on a wonderful bit of golfing country. The land has everything a gca civil engineer could want, sand base, interesting flat 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.

 

[Niall C]

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.

Don,

It was a hypothetical question but you are right that I was suggesting, probably even stating that the permits had been obtained by dubious means. I wasn't intending to suggest that this was how things were always done but giving it as the reason in this instance so as to guage the gca's view as to whether they go with their own judgement or just go with the authorities OK even though that OK might be dubious.

However for the sake of argument, lets say the environmental bodies had been satisfied by legitimate means but you still didn't feel right about depriving the Lesmahagow pidgeon of its one last natural habitat, would you take the job ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Considering that environmental permitting is part of my daiuly job, take my previous comment as you wish.  We've had more projects held up with increased costs due to environmental regulations than a creatrive mind could ever invent - fish, snakes, birds, bats, etc.  These are not bald eagles, snail darters or other critically endangered creatures, just some who happened to be residing at the fringe of their natural range in the area where we proposed a project

My emphasis in bold.  Bruce makes a good point here.

When we were building Lost Dunes in Michigan, we had to do a lot of environmental mitigation work to fit the golf course around a threatened wildflower, which I believe was called Rose Pink.

I later found out that it had "threatened" status in Michigan largely because it was at the very north end of its range in the southern end of our state.  It is a fairly common plant in Indiana, 15 miles away.  But its "threatened" status in Michigan came close to stopping us from building the course.

[Niall C]

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!

Tom

The Lesmahagow pidgeon only has one wing, fly's round in circles which is why it is only found in Lesmahagow 

BTW, looks like you are happy to rely on your own judgement which was what my hypothetical question was aiming at.

Niall

[cary lichtenstein]

Republicans will build it, Democrats will not...simple as that

[Don_Mahaffey]

However for the sake of argument, lets say the environmental bodies had been satisfied by legitimate means but you still didn't feel right about depriving the Lesmahagow pidgeon of its one last natural habitat, would you take the job ?

Niall

Niall, I still don't like the question

Your forcing me to assume the environmental entities that approved the project don't care about driving an endangered species into extinction. That's taking hypothetical to unbelievable.
There's a lot of reasons not to do a job. Turning one down because you think environmental experts don't know what they are doing would be a new one on me. I guess I'd have to learn more about your the hypothetical situation before making a decision. Sometimes what seems obvious may not be so obvious. When we built Wolf Point we applied for TX Wildlife exception. It's typically done for ag land that has been taken out of ag production, but not used for commercial gain (there's more to it then that, but that's basically the deal). To get the exemption you have to develop and implement a wildlife management program and show you are enhancing habitat. When we were inspected by the state the wildlife guy informed me that the outer roughs were a great habitat for a coastal shore bird and that type of habitat was diminishing along the gulf coast. I had no idea there was any short grass areas along the coast nor did I have a clue we had a bird that was using it as habitat. We figured the area around the golf course was what they would be concerned with, who knew a wild life expert would tell us the turfgrass itself was providing habitat for a rare bird?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Republicans will build it, Democrats will not...simple as that

That great democrat republican, Richard Milhouse Nixon, created the EPA...and let's not forget that other traitor, Teddy Roosevelt.

You might be be surprised if you open this link.
  http://www.rep.org/ 

[Kirk Gill]

There were some pictures posted recently of a golf course built in China amongst some amazing rock formations, and my first thought when I saw the photos was that it almost seemed wrong that a golf course would be built there. Has anyone ever had that thought when a job was on the line? Like.......yes I want to design a golf course, but.........not HERE..............? Are there some sites that just need to be left as they are? Or is it inevitable that they'll be messed with in some way or another, and a golf course is a better choice than a shopping mall?

[Niall C]

Don

To use a real life example, Donalds course north of Aberdeen. While not entirely black and white, the environmental lobby were against but the politicians gave the go ahead on economic grounds, so you have a course that wouldn't have got consent on environmental grounds normally but got consent for extraordinary reasons. Now, assuming you agreed with the environmental lobby, would you have taken the job ?

Niall

[Don_Mahaffey]

Niall,
Now why didn't you just ask it like that in the first place?

I would not be involved in a project if I felt legit environmental concerns were overpowered by special interests. The key is the word legit. If I really had to make that decision I would probably enlist someone more familiar with the issues to give me some honest non-political data.

[John_Cullum]

Republicans will build it, Democrats will not...simple as that

In Scotland???

[Tom_Doak]

Don

To use a real life example, Donalds course north of Aberdeen. While not entirely black and white, the environmental lobby were against but the politicians gave the go ahead on economic grounds, so you have a course that wouldn't have got consent on environmental grounds normally but got consent for extraordinary reasons. Now, assuming you agreed with the environmental lobby, would you have taken the job ?

Niall

Niall:

I never got to answer that question, because while I did play around with routings for Trump's property, I was never offered the job.  [And if I had been offered, my #1 reservation in taking the job would probably not have been environmental reasons!]

However, it might surprise you to know that in many cases, the golf course architect is kept out of environmental negotiations, especially when hardball politics is being played.  We had one environmental engineer on a project who WOULD NOT LET ME ASK even the simplest question directly to the field person for the state's environmental watchdog ... I don't know if the engineer really thought I was that dangerous, or if he was just protecting his own turf.  But, it's really hard to do a routing for a project like that, when nobody will tell you how complicated the environmental issues really are, and whether you should be avoiding a portion of the site or pushing into it.  [Hint:  the client nearly always wants you to push into the sensitive areas, because that will leave more room at the end for development.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

In reality, I doubt any gca could get into a job as described, where all the permits were in place.  Most are dependent on both a decent grading plan and lots of other design details.  Also, after preliminary submittals, done to whatever we think the agency we are working with will allow us to do, they send out the plans to every other concerned agency and of course, the public for 45-120 day comment period.  In my experience, that is where the left field objections come from. 

The govt regulators on a local level have their rules to follow and are really just trying to do that.  Sometimes a project gets caught up in a state or national directive, such as my course at Giant's Ridge where the state was "considering" expanding the endangered species list.  So, we were delayed a year or so because someone MIGHT want to add the Marsh Marigold at SOME POINT in the future, a clear case of where that particular govt agency didn't really care how their agenda might affect us.

I was just told on a current project that another agency is famous for having gotten their review period extended to 120 days from the normal 45-90 and also for asking for a 120 day extension on the last possible day.  So, they are trying to pass a law that says that if no comments are recieved, it is considered approved.

A funny story from Giant's Ridge, but the state was touring while trying to stop the golf course because of pesticide use, and just at that moment, a state DNR plane came by and crop dusted an island for Crown Vetch, putting much 2-4 D or whatever right in the lake that we were told we were harming.  When asked what the difference was, they said, "We're the govt." and the supervisor there chastised the young ones who said that, and the permit was forthcoming soon.  While rare in reality, that kind of arrogance is the stuff these stories are made of.

And of course, the public, no one knows what someone will object to, but you can guess that the NIMBY's will find something you need to address with time, exhibits, science, etc..

That said, in my recent meeting, I agreed to stay out of their sensitive areas by a beautiful stream for environmental sympathy, plus the practical considerations of how hard it would be to build a reliably functioning golf hole in that flood zone, those soils, etc. etc. etc. 

In reality, at least the intent of most environmental rules is pretty sound, if not the implemetation.  At the same time, its often a matter of perspective.  We would say we are preserving nearly 100% of trout habitat with our design, while an environmentalist would say "You are preserving ONLY 99% of the trout habitat with your design......"

[Niall C]

Don

I think thats what most folk would say, me included. Even if I didn't have a guru to lean on for independant advice, I would still be prone to making my own judgement. One mans Lesmahagow pidgeon is another mans rare orchid........I think.

Tom

I can imagine the number one concern at Balmedie might have been how do you establish a course in such a landscape, or more likely do I want to work with this client (no need to answer).

With regards to that environmental guy, I can see where's he coming from. When you are dealing with people in the same line of business there will usually be set positions and arguments which invariably get reversed the next time you meet that person. Each have validity depending on how you employ them. The last thing you want is the client (or architect) undermining the argument you're making by sticking his oar and saying something that has consequences that they don't realise.

Niall  

[Niall C]

Jeff

Ever had a situation where you had the OK to build somewhere and you looked at where you were building and thought that it would be better left alone for environmental reasons ? I'm a great believer that golf courses can improve the environment but just wondering if you've ever come across the instance where you thought, well maybe not here.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

Not exactly, because as I mentioned, the reg guys probably ID areas with a very protective attitude.  I do observe every clearing line on my courses, and can think of times when I adjusted a line from tee to green to save the best of the trees out there.  I recall saving a few nice wildflower areas, but they weren't particularly regulated.

In one case near Atlanta, I rerouted to save what I thought was a pretty signifigant civil war relic - a natural stone waterfall that maps showed the Army of the Ohio used in May 1864.  To no avail, as a few years later the sanitary sewer engineers were not so respectful of something that helped the Yankee invaders, and blew it out of the ground, almost with some glee!

Its all in the perspective.  As mentioned, we think preserving 9.99% of the environment is a pretty good deal.  Some think that 0.1% is worth fighting harder for.  And I would, at reasonable cost.  Adding, say $1M to the cost of a project to satisfy someone's "perception" that some additional protection feature is necessary, when it cannot be really proven, is hard to go to bat for, given our normally cash strapped clients.