Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Joel_Stewart on December 31, 2002, 10:05:31 AM
-
Not sure if anyone saw the ruling yesterday by a state appeals court yesterday but it may have a HUGE effect in the golf commmunity and ramifications of building golf courses near the California coast.
Aside from the big name developments such as the Forest course at Pebble Beach and the long stalled Coore-Crenshaw course in Santa Barbara I see many new possibilites of courses up and down the California coast in areas that are economically hurting.
Below is a quick review of the ruling,
The executive director of the California Coastal Commission said in San Francisco Monday he expects the agency to appeal a "stunning" ruling that declared the commission's structure unconstitutional.
Executive Director Peter Douglas said the commission will decide at a meeting in Los Angeles next week whether to ask the California Supreme Court to review Monday's decision by a state Court of Appeal panel in Sacramento.
Douglas said he can't speak for commission members, but said he considers an appeal very likely.
He said that if the decision is not successfully appealed, the San Francisco-based commission could ask a court, the Legislature or even the state's voters to change the conditions of appointing commission members so that the system is constitutional.
The executive director said that unless there is an appeal or a change in the commission structure, Monday's ruling will create "a chaotic situation.''
The commission would still exist, but it wouldn't be able to carry out most of its functions, including granting or denying permits for development along California's 1,100-mile coast, Douglas said.
In Monday's ruling, a three-judge Court of Appeal panel said the commission's appointment structure is unconstitutional because the Legislature appoints a majority of the commission members and can remove them at will.
Since the commission is an executive agency, that violates the separation of powers doctrine of the California constitution, the court said.
Justice Arthur Scotland wrote, "The presumed desire of those members to avoid being removed from their positions creates an improper subservience to the legislative branch of government.''
The court also said an injunction issued by a Sacramento Superior Court judge last year could go into effect. The order bars the commission from granting or denying future permits or issuing cease-and-desist orders against illegal coastal developments.
The order has been stayed until now. The stay will continue for at least 30 days while the commission decides whether to appeal, and Douglas said the commission will ask for a further stay if it does file an appeal.
The decision was issued in a lawsuit filed by the Marine Forests Society, which built an experimental artificial reef out of used tires and other materials off Newport Harbor on the Orange County coast.
The commission was established by a voter initiative in 1972 and was made permanent by a law passed by the Legislature in 1976
-
I hope they are able to get a commission that can protect that land. Much of it is a treasure. Someone with an environmental bias should oversee that land and hand out permits with extremely strict codes.
-
Joel Stewart:
I dealt with regulatory agencies in California during my days in the oil industry and on that basis would be skeptical that the impact of this one ruling will be "huge".
The environmental community in California is very strong. Even with less favorable economic conditions, environmentalists aren't going to give up without a big fight. Sometimes they are forced to take a step back, but the entire permitting process is so long, so complicated and involves so many parties that one unfavorable ruling won't lead to a huge change.
-
The California Coastal Commisssion have acted with such arrogance over the past couple of decades that the decision was long overdue.
Do we want to protect our local coastline? Yes, but not to allow some eco-terrorist dictate that a house in Carmel, California, cannot exceed 1600 sq.ft. in area. Unless one has sat in front of this body, one can have no idea what hoops and bars one has to jump, just to get an extra bathroom in a house. Kafka's nightmares are as nothing compared to a session with the CCC.
-
So, the aspect of unconstitutionality is attributed to the appointing and removing process of commission members by the legislature? That is deemed the wrong branch of government to have nominating authority? Will any of our legal eagles out there comment if that is the gist of the issue? It seems to me that if the ruling is indicating that the executive branch of government is the correct nominating authority, then the commission would become even more political and cronyism would become even more suseptable to special influence. But, maybe I have that wrong.
Here in the great lakes region there is the great lakes commission that is similar in overview authority of permits and development of land around and effecting the great lakes. They also have say over ancillary or secondary land, water, and air issues. I wonder if that California ruling effects how the great lakes commission is constituted.
-
The real reason the Calif Coastal Commission may be on their way out is likely a little known story.
Some years ago Bill Coore was digging on a bunker with a recent sign-on he did not know well by the name of James Duncan (we all call him "the Duke"). For those of you who haven't met James he sort of looks like a young Oxford don, complete with accent and all!
Anyway, apparently Bill was curious as to why a guy who looked and spoke like James would be digging on a bunker with him so he began to ask James about himself and sure enough James is a PHD in this and that, and you name it! Extremely bright and impressive guy! Of course Bill asked him why he'd want to be digging on a bunker and James told him because he really loved golf architecture!
So Bill had a sudden flash of brilliance!! "Ahha," he says to himself, "Ben and I will sent this guy, James Duncan up against this restrictive Calif Coastal Commission that's been hanging up our Santa Barbara project for about ten years."
Last time I talked to "The Duke" I believe he was on his way to see the Calif Coastal Commission and talk some sense into them in an orderly Oxford kind of way about C&C's Santa Barbara project.
Apparently "the Duke" has succeeded beyond Bill's wildest dreams, not only convincing the Calif Coastal Commission to drop their restrictions against the Santa Barbara project but obviously convincing the necessary people to put them out of business!
You never really know who you're gonna run into in golf course architecture!
-
Bob Huntley:
The CCC and other environmental agencies in California, e.g., Air Resources Board, may display arrogance, but they aren't going away. You may see some tweaking, but I doubt major change.
For example, Jan Sharpless, the former Director of ARB, lost her job back in the early 1990's when certain economic interests (farming and trucking) got upset over new diesel fuel regulations. However, the regulations Sharpless fought for still went forward and the ARB went right ahead with plans for cleaner gasoline specs in California a few years later.
Whether you like them or not, the environmental interests have staying power.
-
From what I gleaned from the court ruling on the CCC, it seems that they will certainly not go out of business, rather, the way 8 of the 12 members are appointed (4 each from the assembly, senate and governor) will be changed.
And thank God someone (even as goofy as they can be) is there for some kind of check on what would be McMansions up and down the coast.
I can't imagine how Ocean Trails got through the permit process with them. When I used to go diving in the area 25 years ago, I was always being warned that that cliff was unstable and to be careful when hiking down to the water.
-
"I can't imagine how Ocean Trails got through the permit process with them. When I used to go diving in the area 25 years ago, I was always being warned that that cliff was unstable and to be careful when hiking down to the water."
AndyL:
It really doesn't matter about those cliffs specifically. Everybody knows the whole state is unstable and has been for a very long time! Beginning around 1849 the highly level-headed and stable East decided to lure as many misfits out there as possible and it's been getting more unstable every year. One should always be very careful when nearing the West Coast!
-
Here in the great lakes region there is the great lakes commission that is similar in overview authority of permits and development of land around and effecting the great lakes. They also have say over ancillary or secondary land, water, and air issues. I wonder if that California ruling effects how the great lakes commission is constituted.
The Great Lakes Commission is a binational body that does not directly regulate activities in the area. It's function is to provide communications, research and other activities to promote the "wise" use and conservation of the resources of the Great Lakes basin.
Here in Indiana the state of Indiana is responsible for permitting activities that affect Lake Michigan. Other Great Lake states either implement their own programs or the US EPA does it.
The California ruling is just that - a California ruling by a California court. Has no impact on other states.
-
I propose that the body of Golf Club Atlas get up to Sand City right away and get it bought immediately.
Come now, time is a wasting!
In truth, I don't want to see our coastlines unprotected by massive untasteful development. (i.e. Newport Beach, Dana Point, San Clemente, etc. and how could I not forget Malibu!!!)
-
In truth, I don't want to see our coastlines unprotected by massive untasteful development. (i.e. Newport Beach, Dana Point, San Clemente, etc. and how could I not forget Malibu!!!)
How about the Ritz at Half Moon Bay?
-
Did anyone else see the Ken Burns film on Huey Long the other night? These type of beauracratic hoaxes, established in the name of "public good" are nothing but fodder for the influential and mythological, in a self-importance sense.
-
TE Paul
Apparently your Oxford friend didn't have sufficient savy in California politics. Recently the Calif. Coastal Commission voted 15-0 against the C & C Dos Pueblos Golf Course. Too bad for us golfers. I suspect the red legged frog will inhabit that land from many years to come.
In today's paper, the Democratic legislative leaders indicated that the Calif. Coastal Commission's latest court set back will be addressed quickly in 2003. The Calif. Coastal Commission is alive and well. I feel the environmental movement is a political movement and acts without reason on occasion. But being a native of California, I do want our coastline protected. I don't want any more oil wells off the coast! That is why God invented Alaska.
-
Lyn:
I want our coastline protected; I look at Malibu and want to cry. However, dictating where and when I can build a bathroom or preventing a family from having sufficient bedrooms in a house is insanity. The Sierra Club's affinity to the three toed red sloth frog has added millions of dollars to projects that would have added benefit to this community.
I realize, as Tim has pointed out, that this is a minor blip in the life of the CCC and it will continue to work its will on the people of California.
-
We should be thankful that we have a few very smart, altruistic brothers and sisters who are looking out for our well being. In this new year, it is not up to us lesser folks to understand or to question, but to accept and feel extremely fortunate that we're being looked after.
For those with developed property in desirable areas of CA, radical regulation has probably had a beneficial impact on wealth. By artificially restricting new development and driving up costs, it just makes the current inventory all the more valuable. If there was a such thing, what would a house in Carmel purchased in 1984 for $170,000 be worth today? Well over a million? In Arlington, Texas, a rapidly growing, desirable area with only moderate barriers to entry, that house might be worth $180 - $200,000 today.
It is rather ironic that in a liberal state like CA, heavy regulation has actually resulted in larger disparities in wealth, and living conditions. The actions of these well meaning Mensians have made it more difficult for lower income people to secure affordable housing, while lining-up the pockets of long-time property owners. Malibu may be unsightly to some, but it sure beats the hell out of east L.A.
And how does this relate to golf architecture? I have long argued that one of the primary reasons that we do not have many upper echelon modern courses is that most of the sites near large population centers are not available because of prior use, price, and regulation. Those courses that are built have to make so many permitting concessions that building an ideal course becomes very secondary to just getting it completed. Dos Pueblos, on a previous oil transport site, can't be built today after 10+ years of careful, meticulous planning. Does anyone believe that CPC or PB would have been built under the present envrionmental regulatory regime? I think not. Can anyone argue that these two courses are not highly cherished and closely identified with CA? Can the economic benefit that they bring to the area be discounted? Then, why do we want future generations to be deprived of similar treasures?
Finally, ask the Alaskans whether they want pretroleum development near the Artic Circle. I believe that polls have shown 80-90% support. Only a few whacko environmentailists, I mean rare, highly enlightened/strongly- principled superior beings, primarily on both coasts, actively oppose the development. If the Eskimos can't do without the oil dividend check, let them eat more fish (but make sure they don't kill whales or baby seals). Mind you that few of them (the elites) and a vast majority of Americans will ever gaze on this pristine environment. But we can sure feel good when we foresake our SUV in favor a Yugo, and we can get our fix of golf on a video game or simulator.
Happy New Year.
-
Lou,
Get our fix on a video game? How many more thousands of courses do you want? There are golf courses struggling everywhere because there is not enough demand. I think we are safely going to be able to find actual golf courses to play the game.
At some point golfers will do themselves a big favor and recognize that a golf course is not always the best project for a beautiful sight. Why would that be a big favor? Because a little balanced dialogue and A LOT LESS name calling will keep non-golfers from seeing golfers as elitest individuals who have no problem looking the other way when chemicals get washed off a golf course into the water supply. It might amaze you, but a lot of people, and not just environmentalists, don't share the golfer's enthusiasm for the game and the use of the land for golf. Name calling won't help them trust or care about the golfer. A balanced, reasoned, unselfish approach would be recommended. The same restrictions on golf courses help keep industry from ruining certain areas. You brand of pollution or effect on habitat might qualify as unacceptable just like another industry's brand of pollution. It sure makes it hard for me to convince my non-golfing friends that the golf world is not made up of people who don't care about the environment. We are looked at in the same light as the oil companies. Golfers will go through pristine lands for their game and if anyone objects those who object are likely to be called tree huggers, or a lot worse.
Some people don't have such a high opinion of themselves to place their leisure time activities above the health of an endangered species. And someone in the know has to protect those species. And our country has chosen to spend more money on traditional, fossil fuels instead of spending more money on alternatives. That is a business choice that affects the environment. That is capitalism and democracy at work. It may be the best we have. But it is not perfect. So watch out Alaska. You may get what you ask for.
-
Guest:
Your claims are...to quote another architect..."pure urban legend." It's people like you propagating the myth that golf is harmful which sets the game back, by perpetuating the myth that golf is harmful to the environment.
Golf courses are responsible for improvements in ground water...this has been proven repeatedly. If they were responsible for polluting water supplies we would hear about TOXIC GOLF on Page 1 of the NY Times, on CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. The enviro groups would have papers galore on it. This misperception is among the first hurdles to be overcome in any development...that courses are still constructed in "sensitive" areas (near or on water supplies) proves the point.
Golf courses have preserved many beautiful sites, are often the last bastions of green space in urban environments, and just because a site is beautiful...that disqualifies it from potential use?
Oh yes...beauty...those 30 yard high windmills that have sprung up across the landscape (especially in Europe) are truly beautiful...they don't generate any meaningful quantities electricity, are government subsidized (citizens tax dollars at work)...but because it is seen as being sensitive (green), it's overlooked by the green crowd, though they are the worst sort of artificial eyesore.
As for fossil fuel...you don't think companies would die to have the patent which would draw us away from them? I sure would love to own it...it would be a license to print virtually endless supplies of money, and make us more independent as a nation.
-
One further point...golf courses are managed by college trained professionals. If you want to look at potential mismanagement of turf and ornamentals...look at the neighborhoods you drive through...perhaps your own front and back yard.
-
Tony, I have worked on golf courses my whole life. I know first hand what gets washed into the water, both when spraying occurs along lakes and creeks and from runoff and when equipment is washed and chemicals are washed down the drain. This happens everywhere. So don't try to convince me that golf courses are above reproach. You can't get Audobon Sanctuary status without taking special steps that a lot of golf courses simply cannot take. So they keep doing what they have always done and chemical containment is in some cases very sloppy.
It is your defensive and negative attitude toward someone in the golfing industry trying to tell you how you are perceived that hurts you. When my friends criticize golf course pollution, I try to tell them that things are getting better. I don't get huffy and try to dismiss them. That would make me look like I have blinders on. That is like trying to convince someone that a big Home Depot asphalt parking lot doesn't hurt the environment. Sure it does. The runoff goes straight to the storm sewer along with whatever oil ect. is leaking out of the cars parked there. Trust me, it does nobody in the golf industry any good to get defensive and make bold claims. Just admit what is happening and then convince your critics that you want it to be better. If homeowners are hurting the environment with lawn chemicals, then how is the golf industry immune? It doesn't pass the reason test. And I have seen so many unqualified people operating sprayers that you will not convince me otherwise.
-
Guest,
I'm not clear where you are coming from. Can you share with us whether you believe golf courses can be built and maintained in an environmental sound manner?
If so, what do you see as the critical success factors? If not, why not?
Also, you suggest there are golf courses that can't achieve Audobon status. I'm wondering why not? (My own club did so despite building on a site that was about one third wetlands.) What stands in the way?
By the way, don't assume everyone here is anti environmental. Having grown up in the oil industry, I can say without hesitation that environmentalists have played a very constructive role in that industry. They have made mistakes like everyone else, but anyone who takes a look where environmentalists have had very limited impact can see the price paid for not including their input. The best and perhaps most tragic examples can be found in the former Soviet bloc countries where environmental standards for oil exploration, production, refining, transportation and storage were decades behind Western standards.
-
Tim,
I don't assume that everyone here is anti-environmentalist. A quick read of this thread reveals some who are glad to have environmentalists protecting our land. Some call them whackos. Calling them whackos doesn't get us very far especially if we are not willing to see just exactly what we are doing to the environment.
It is often extremely difficult for the average golf course to do everything needed to get sanctuary status. Putting up nesting boxes and some of that stuff is very doable. But other stuff is more difficult. For example, having a separate chemical storage area, a shed if you will, that is locked. Ideally if chemicals are spilled they are captured. For most courses, the reality is that the chemicals are washed down the drain. It is easier for new courses to build chemical capturing systems in the course of construction than for an existing course to retrofit their maintenance areas.
As for whether or not I think a golf course can be environmentally friendly, it depends on your definition of "friendly". Is an undisturbed meadow better off or worse off from an environmental standpoint if a farmer comes in and begins farming it, adding to the soil whatever chemicals are necessary to grow crops? Obviously that land is worse off. That is the price we pay to grow food. A golf course should be looked at the same way. If we want golf courses, and we do, we have to acknowledge that chemicals are being put into the soil. The extent to which you want to define chemicals going into the soil and sometimes into the ground water as environmentally friendly is up for some debate. Compared to not putting chemicals into the soil, what golf courses do can easily be said to hurt the environment. Maybe certain golf courses don't destroy the environment, but compared to a pristine meadow, a golf course pollutes the environment to some degree.
Now, is a golf course a better use of a tract of land than some other industries? Sure. But it is always in our interests as golfers to own up to whatever damage we are doing to the environment and to minimize it where we are able and to communicate evenly with those whose main objective is to protect the environment. It makes us look reasonable and not defensive or combative.
-
In this new year, it is not up to us lesser folks to understand or to question, but to accept and feel extremely fortunate that we're being looked after.
Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. Do you really think this way ? Go ahead and consider yourself a "lesser" person if you want - personally, I'll do my own thinking.
-
It is rather ironic that in a liberal state like CA, heavy regulation has actually resulted in larger disparities in wealth, and living conditions. The actions of these well meaning Mensians have made it more difficult for lower income people to secure affordable housing, while lining-up the pockets of long-time property owners. Malibu may be unsightly to some, but it sure beats the hell out of east L.A.
Nothing ironic about this at all. It's rather simple economics. Unfortunately, the field of economics at the University level & beyond should probably be renamed "Political Economics."
Guest -
You make some interesting points and seem to approach the problem in the same manner I do when attempting to discuss the matter with people who are of the environmentalist persuasion. The problem is, I have yet to meet anyone on this side who argues rational logic back to me - it's always name calling, mud slinging, party line politics with no rational discussion whatsoever. There are plenty of us of the non-environmentalist persuasion who are actually considerate, generous & not looking to pollute the earth back into the stone age - after all, we have to live here, too. Try explaining this to an environmentalist. Environmentalism in today's world is mostly about power & ego. Andy Lipshultz thanks the CCC for preventing an outbreak of McMansions up & down the coast, yet questions how Ocean Trails got approved. Gee, I wonder how they did it?
P.S. to Nixer -
That was sarcasm by Lou. Read the rest of his post.
-
George,
I absolutely agree that there is unevenness on both sides. I would like the golf side to be as even as possible so that we are doing all we can to make the best of it.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
Geeze, Lou. You crack me up... Let's hear it for Libertarians! ;)
-
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!!!!
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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. :-/
-
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.
-
RJ,
I hadn't seen your last two posts before my last post. Well said.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
Guest, your initials wouldn't be MH would they? If so, I took your course and read your book. ;D 8)
-
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
-
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. ;))
-
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.
-
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".
-
Lou, well said. Keep it up.
Now what was your New Year's Resolution again?
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
I'll guess g.