[Joel_Stewart]

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

[this land is your land]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Bob_Huntley]

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.  

[RJ_Daley]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Andy Lipschultz]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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!

[John Nixon]

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.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

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!!!)

[Kevin_Reilly]

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?

[A_Clay_Man]

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.

[Lynn Shackelford]

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.

[Bob_Huntley]

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.

[Lou Duran]

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.  
  
  

[Guest]

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.

[Tony Ristola]

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.
 

[Tony Ristola]

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.  

[Guest]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[John Nixon]

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.

[George Pazin]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()