Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: David Stamm on March 27, 2015, 08:38:08 AM
-
A significant step closer to a restoration perhaps?
http://www.sfpublicgolf.org/news.php?news_id=1686
-
Lets hope its good news.
-
Correct me if I'm missing something, but the idea of putting money towards a restoration is way down the pike, isn't it? I don't know who would pay for that.
As I understand it the only battle right now is to keep the course open.
I'd be happy to be wrong about that.
-
Joel -
With this hurdle cleared, I believe the next one is to transfer ownership/administration of the property from San Francisco County to San Mateo County.
Once that is done, I also believe there are parties willing to donate substantial sums to fund the renovation/restoration of the course.
DT
-
David,
Great news...thanks for sharing and hope your restoration dreams are realized.
-
This is great news. Seems as though there is a little movement afoot with this, Goat Hill Park, and others. Hope to see it continue to grow.
-
With this hurdle cleared, I believe the next one is to transfer ownership/administration of the property from San Francisco County to San Mateo County.
How is that looking?
-
Jim Nugent -
I am no more than a casual observer of this whole situation. From time to time, I speak with some of the people involved. My sense is progress will continue to be made. But given the nature of San Francisco politics, it will take a while.
DT
-
Will a transfer of administration from one County to the other make that much of a difference in moving the resto project forward? Do the obstructionists have any arrows left in the quiver or does this appeal really become moot?
I love te quote: "On appeal, San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Jim Emery said the question on appeal was academic: “was the case moot then [at the District Court] or is the case moot now”? “Moot squared” was how attorney Palmore characterized the case."
No mention if any evidence that may have showed that any of the red legged frogs or whatever snakes have ever been seen let alone has any of the two named endangered species been caused harm by any aspect of directly attributable to golf course maintenance operations. I sounds like the only way these obstructionists can continue to ply their feckless intervention is to wait until current permitting runs out in 10 years. By that time we may be extinct, or the frogs will have made a huge come back and mutated into ninja frogs or the snakes may become prolific and join all the rest of their brethren in law school and churn the moot court machine of mental masturbation. I wonder what that 34 minutes of court time on the video cost the tax paying public? Geeesh ::)
-
"Will a transfer of administration from one County to the other make that much of a difference in moving the resto project forward?"
At the risk of oversimplifying the situation, the governing body of San Francisco looks at the Sharp Park golf course as a liability, while the governing body of San Mateo looks at the golf course as an asset. ;)
-
How has San Mateo County performed in course management? Is Crystal Springs a county course? Are there others besides the former Ssn Mateo Muni?
-
"How has San Mateo County performed in course management? Is Crystal Springs a county course? Are there others besides the former Ssn Mateo Muni?"
Bill -
I am sure the esteemed Mr. Papazian can speak with greater authority than I on the subject.
I am not sure who actually owns the Crystal Springs property. It has been run by the Courseco golf management company for a number of years. I believe the San Mateo muni (known as Poplar Creek) is owned by the city of San Mateo. I presume the Palo Alto muni is owned by the city of Palo Alto. I don't know who manages either of those courses.
DT
-
A bit off topic, but I was reading a little of The Spirit of St. Andrews last night, and in it the good Dr. reports that he built two (mirror images of each other) of his prize winning hole (that was included in the Lido course) at the Sharp Park course. Was one or both of these lost to the sea?
-
A bit off topic, but I was reading a little of The Spirit of St. Andrews last night, and in it the good Dr. reports that he built two (mirror images of each other) of his prize winning hole (that was included in the Lido course) at the Sharp Park course. Was one or both of these lost to the sea?
GJ - I had the chance to visit Sharp Park for the very first time yesterday and the answer to your question is: yes. See here for pictures, history and current and former routing: http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sharp-park/
The alternate 'bold' fairway for what is now hole 14 was long ago overtaken by the marsh and, currently, even the 'safe' fairway has been compromised enough for them to move the tees up nearly 150 yards. The angle and defense of the green is clearly set up to favor an approach from somewhere in the middle of the marsh so, unfortunately, the strategy isn't quite functioning, though you can still appreciate the original green and deception bunker.
What is now hole 17 (on the western side of the same marsh) looks like it lost it's 'safe' fairway when the seawall was built, necessitating that hole 16 take it over going the other direction. Again, the green and some of the fairway shaping is still intact though, undoubtedly, much of the risk of the 'bold' approach close to the marsh was removed when it became the only official landing zone for hole 17. In this case, everything but the most wayward hooked tee shot down 16 gets a decent angle into the 17th green.
Overall though, I must say that Sharp Park exceeded my expectations. I had resigned myself to seeing a beat-up muni (which it is), but the greens, bunkers , fairway width and landscaping all contributed to a really interesting and beautiful round of golf. It's not hard to imagine it as one of the best municipal courses in the country, pre-seawall and pre-SF budget constraints.
ms
-
Matt
Thanks for the answer.
Garland