19th Hole

A reuben, Newcastle on tap, and the Giants losing to the Dodgers on TV. It's all good.

Rick played a mile over his head, I played like crap, but no blood on the skins.

RZ 98
MW 106

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Apparently not.

Answering the question about whether Rick will hold up under the pressure of an 18th hole press.

This is Rick's third shot out of the jail on the left.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

I'm pressing on 18

We'll see if Rick can handle the pressure.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Traditional 16th tee portrait

For some reason I always play the 16th hole from the 17th fairway.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

14th tee

Rick tees off on the way to good score. I am hopelessly behind on skins, and now just practicing for the press on 18

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Somewhere after the turn...

Rick is kicking my ass on the front. 

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rick's 3rd shot on 10

That is my ball on the green in two.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rick's birdie putt on 9

It seems the par five 9th is a real birdie hole, even for bad golfers. In our last few outings I birdied it, Rick's son Adam birdied it, and after three excellent golf shots - Rick was left with a kick-in 2 footer for his birdie:

For some reason the Palm Pre video clip I shot on the hole got lost in the ether on the the way to blogger. Rick kindly reminded me of the absence, so I dug the clip out of the pre to post manually.

I had to do it as this was an important moment in Rick's life - his only shot at a birdie on nine - ever - for the rest of his life.

Still - nice par.

I really need to work on my form.

This is embarrassing.

-- Sent from my Palm Premblo

Live blogging Sharp Park

I'm tired of the politics. Sneaking out for a round with Rick.  

Here he corkscrews one to the right side of the 3rd hole after getting intimidated by my drive.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

7 inches of rain this month

Less than 2 inches of rain in all of May, 7 in June. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has had on the lake levels.

Dispatches from the SF Golf War The Sharp Park Budget Debate A Fair and Balanced Report

As previously reported, early last week your loyal blogger participated in the public comment portion of the San Francisco Budget and Finance Committee Meeting. Lines formed down the hall and around the corner in City Hall. We were asked to assemble by interest group, given alphabetical "tickets" and guidance on when we might expect to gain entrance to the committee room.

They started with the letter "A", we were in group "M", and four hours was the guesstimated wait time. It turned out to be pretty accurate. It still took another hour after we entered the chambers to get our two minutes and, believe it or not, I waited around to hear the opposition who were even further back in the line.

Most everyone was there to defend their financial turf, demanding that their portion of the shrinking San Francisco pie not be touched. As near as I can tell, the golfers were the only ones at the meeting not asking for money, ready and willing to pay higher fees and contribute more to the City in order to help with the budget crisis.

It was heartbreaking to listen to the some of the disadvantaged who will be affected by the cuts coming in the San Francisco budget. The reality is the money is simply not there. The years of reckless spending by a fiscally irresponsible Board of Supervisors voted into office by politically irresponsible San Francisco voters are coming home to roost.

Hanging around City Hall for five hours, one has the opportunity to reflect on just WTF one is doing there. We were there because representatives of the WEBLEEDU Institute (Wild Equity Biodiversity Litigation for Ecological Extortion and Deep Untruths) were there to demand the closure of Sharp Park. It's not like there is any rational financial case to be made for closing the course. Having lost the high ground on the scientific argument for the endangered frog and snake, I guess they have no where else to go.

Excerpt from Rec & Park Department, Sharp Park Financials
presented to PROSAC public meeting, November 4, 2009

In round numbers, Sharp Park golf operating revenues exceed expenses by $100,000 -$400,000 every year depending on weather conditions and numbers of rounds played. The City of San Francisco charges Sharp Park $200,000 - $250,000 in overhead charges that are used to fund non-golf related SF government salaries and services. Therefore, Sharp Park may look on an accounting basis like it is making a $100,000 profit or suffering a $100,000 loss after subsidizing the City of San Francisco to the tune of $250,000. If Sharp Park Golf was to disappear, the $250,000 in overhead expenses would still exist in San Francisco and the shortfall from Sharp Park would have to be made up by higher taxes or cutting salaries and services. It is pretty simple really.

This should be obvious to everyone, but some people (see Restore Sharp Park Destroy Sharp Park Golf Advocates) do not believe in arithmetic and continue to lobby for the destruction of this historic landmark course. Since they are attending budget meetings and spreading misinformation about the finances of the course, those who support the course must also attend the meeting to correct them. That is why we were there. Welcome to Democracy in Action - San Francisco style.

Since we waited five hours to get in our two minutes, I decided I had to post some excerpts on the blog to justify this colossal waste of time. Embedded below are two YouTube videos excerpting comments of both Sharp Park golf course supporters and detractors (as well as a fair and balanced explanation why the detractor's claims about Sharp losing money is batshit insane). To demonstrate my fair and balanced approach to blogging, each video is the same length - about 10 minutes long.

LOVERS OF SHARP PARK GOLF

HATERS OF SHARP PARK GOLF

Look, I know these videos are lame. You get what you pay for. If you want production values - you'll have to look elsewhere. Or you can watch the unedited source on the SFGOVTV.org website. The complete 6/21/10 Budget and Finance Committee meeting with public comment is available on-line. It is 12 hours and 23 minutes long. Linked HERE. Enjoy.

The next budget meeting is with the full Board of Supervisor on Monday June 28. I guess we'll find out then whether or not all of this has been worthwhile.

UPDATE: 29-June-10
If anything happened on Monday with the Board or budget that was relevant to the Department of Parks and Recreation, I have no idea what it was. The latest update from the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance on the process:

"The Supervisors Budget Committee will hold their final public meeting on the 2010-2012 budget on Wednesday, June 30, starting at 5:00 p.m. at the Supervisors' Legislative Chambers, San Francisco City Hall, Second Floor. The proceedings will be televised live on SF Government TV, Channel 26, on the web linked HERE

At that meeting, the Budget Committee will vote on recommendations that it will make to the Full Board of Supervisors for changes to the Mayor's Proposed Budget. (See link to the Mayor's Proposed Budget - PDF):

After the Budget Committee makes its recommendation, the Full Board of Supervisors will meet twice in the second half of July to vote on establishing the 2010-2012 budget. The full procedure is described at pages 33-36 of the Mayor's Proposed Budget, linked above.

The Rec & Park Budget appears at pages 369-375 of the Mayor's Proposed Budget (linked above). It is not detailed, and Sharp Park is not separately described or mentioned. There is nothing in the Capital Projects section of the Proposed Budget for sea wall or habitat restoration at Sharp Park. So the golf opponents' argument that Sharp should be closed in order to save millions of dollars in sea wall and related capital expenditures is just baloney. There are no such capital costs in the 2010-2012 budget now under consideration by the Supervisors. If Sharp Park Golf Course were to be closed now, the effect on the 2010-2012 budgets would be (1) reduction in income to the city; (2) no capital cost savings; and (3) closure of a much-beloved, widely-used, and historic People's Golf Course."

In that same update, Richard Harris linked to this post and the videos featured here. If that is how you found my little corner of the blogosphere - Welcome. I've been blogging about the Sharp Park kerfuffle for a while. Relevant Sharp Park posts are linked with The Golf War tag.

I also cross-posted a somewhat toned down version of this post on the Fix Pacifica blog. You'll find a lively comment thread there - some of it relevant, some of it not, but all of it entertaining.

Finally, I want to add the complete video that Elaine Harris presented to the budget committee in the meeting on the 21st. I meant to add it in the original post, but did not want it included in my "lame video" characterization. This is a good one that helps to put the fight in perspective:

Richmond Yacht Club - Wednesday night beer can race

Locals watch the proceedings

A big crew and a fun night on board the Morpheus for the weekly "race". Not sure about owning one, but I highly recommend having a friend with a boat.

There is a reason it's call a "beer can race".

Ita supervise boat prep

Raising the main, or the jib, or something.

At the start...

... and underway.

winds picked up...

...it got a little crowded at the finish, "buddy".

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Finally added my 2 cents.

After over five hours of waiting, I got my one minute in. They grouped us together by whatever issue was being advocated to speed the process along, and provide a little coherence to the comments. These two cute kids were from the First Tee program at Sharp and love playing there. I was afraid to ask them what they shoot, as I expect they were better golfers than me.

Anyway, about a half hour after we had our say, the golf hater contingent got the podium. As usual, we outnumbered them.

I need to digest what I heard a bit, so I think I'll just call this post a placeholder until I can download the clips from SFGOVTV in few days. When I have them, I'll post both the pro and con comments here. It'll be enlightening.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Made it into the chambers for the SF budget hearing.

Got to hand it to these Supervisors... They've been listening to public comment for almost 4 hours with no end in sight. Don't know how they do it.

It seems everyone here wants to save their piece of a shrinking SF budget pie. That is part of what makes this so frustrating. Sharp Park is a net contributor of operating funds to City overhead salaries and services. Closing Sharp Park makes the budget problems worse.

We are probably the only ones here to advocate a plan to contribute more to the City coffers. Sharp Park golfers are not going to solve the City budget woes, but we can make it a little better.

Here is the plan: Keep the course. Raise green fees or apply a $5 surcharge across the board on residents and non-residents alike. Split the surcharge between course improvements and city overhead. This modest increase should not unduly burden the blue collar golfers who enjoy the course, and the improvement in course conditions will increase rounds played at this landmark Alister MacKenzie gem. Win for the City. Win for the course. Win for the frog and snake. It is the right thing to do.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

At City Hall for the budget hearings

I guess this is my week to wait in long lines.

This is the line for public comment. Really. No shit. SF Democracy in action.

Found some comrades in arms in The Golf War. We are waiting to get a "ticket" designating when each group will be permitted to go in and speak. They've increased the time limit from 1 to 2 minutes per speaker. Everyone in this line wants to speak. Do the math.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Sharp Park Golf - profitable, popular, and subsidizing San Francisco salaries and services.

As indicated in a recent post, the Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity, and the Wild Equity Institute (founded by ex-CBD staff attorney Brent Plater), are actively engaged in a disinformation campaign about the finances, popularity, and historical importance of the landmark Sharp Park golf course. This is apparently an effort to con the people of San Francisco into giving away 400 acres of valuable coastal park land that was a gift to the people of San Francisco.

This post is an attempt to explain the financial reality of Sharp Park Golf in terms that even a journalist might understand.

The Arithmetic Explanation
This is a simple math problem. If you can do 3rd grade arithmetic, you can understand that green fees from Sharp Park subsidize San Francisco government salaries and services and The City is not subsidizing the course as claimed by those who would destroy the course.

In round numbers, Sharp Park operational revenues exceed expenses by about $100,000. The City of San Francisco charges Sharp Park $200,000 in overhead charges that are used to fund non-golf related SF government salaries and services. On an accounting basis, Sharp Park then looks like it is suffering a $100,000 loss. But, if Sharp Park was to disappear, the $200,000 in overhead expenses would still exist in San Francisco and the shortfall from Sharp Park would have to be made up by higher taxes or cutting salaries and services. It is pretty simple really.

But some people (see Destroy Sharp Park Golf Advocates) do not trust arithmetic. So as a supplement - I offer a couple of other explanations.

Phil Ginsburg's Explanation
Phil Ginsburg is the new Director of San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department. Phil Ginsburg explains it to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi during the Audit and Oversight Committee meeting chaired by the Supervisor on 12/16/09:


As Ross Mirkarimi says in this clip - the number are actually "de minimus". In the context of the Rec & Park budget, the profit (or loss) of around a $100,000 is not that meaningful. Nevertheless, it shows that Sharp Park is helping not hurting the San Francisco budget shortfall. If Sharp Park were to disappear, the SF budget shortfall gets worse.

Nancy Wuerfel's Explanation
Nancy Wuerfel is a professional fiscal analyst and member of the San Francisco Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee. Nancy Wuerfel's explanation in the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Claims that city golf courses lose money are just not true. I analyzed the financial information for the first six years of the city's Golf Fund. The Recreation and Park Department's accounting practices have created the appearance that Sharp Park golf course is losing money when it is not. These findings were submitted to the Recreation and Park Commission and the Recreation and Park Department."

And her more detailed explanation in the referenced report [PDF]:

"The golf revenue was understated due to internal practices that allowed operating expenses to be paid off the top. When this bad accounting is corrected, it is evident that revenue has been sufficient every year to pay the first priority costs of golf operations and maintenance. The bad accounting has been used to promote Prop J privatization of the golf courses and, potentially, the give away of Sharp Park to the federal government. When this bad accounting is corrected, different questions emerge as to why these actions are even considered."

More on Current Operating Expenses vs. Future Capital Expenditures
To be sure there are significant future capital expenditures in Sharp Park's future. The important point is that those capital expenditures exist regardless of whether or not the golf course is around to continue subsidizing SF services on an operating basis. Those who would destroy the course deliberately obfuscate and confuse the issue by conflating current city operating expenses with future capital expenditures. Some of these capital expenditures must be taken regardless. Most significantly the berm must be armored to protect the current habitat of endangered snakes and frogs, local neighborhoods, and Highway One, regardless of whether the golf course is there. This is the conclusion of Karen Swaim, the leading scientific authority on the endangered snake and frog habitat in the bay area:

"You need to protect the sea wall. You need to have a fresh water managed habitat currently for this species to recover it, and that is all there is to it." - Karen Swaim

The remaining capital expenditures in the Park & Rec plan to modify the course pale in comparison to the costs that would be incurred by destroying the course. This is well documented in the Sharp Park Conceptual Restoration Alternatives Report [PDF]. Of course, it is a little difficult to compare these alternatives to the Restore Sharp Park Destroy Sharp Park Golf "vision", as the advocates of the "vision" have never explained or detailed the costs for their massive "destroy the course" project. Where does the money come from to bulldoze the course, remove all of the beautiful "non-native" cypress trees, kill and dispose of the kikuyu fairway grass (which is invasive and aggressive if not cut and managed by the golf course), destroying the seawall and rebuilding a new seawall on the other side of the course to protect the neighborhoods and Highway One? At no point has anyone explained how all of this "restoration" is paid for, or how the revenues that flow to The City from 55,000 green fees/year will be replaced.

How Golfers Can Help The City Budget Crisis
There is a common sense solution that would permit Sharp Park Golf to help City finances even more than it does now. First a caveat - I am speaking only for myself, and don't know if other golfers would agree with this solution.That said, in my opinion, Sharp Park green fees are too low.

San Francisco could impose a modest increase (or temporary multi-year surcharge or both) in the green fees at Sharp Park. A 10 or even 20% across the board increase (approximately $3 -$7/round) could help both The City and the course. I could be wrong, but doubt that those who play the course would oppose such an increase, as long as half the additional revenues raised stayed at the course to improve the course. An improved course will draw even more golfers and revenues for the city. With modest improvements, the landmark Alister MacKenzie course could live up to its reputation as the "Workingman's Pebble Beach". Rather than City taxpayers subsidizing Peninsula golfers as falsely claimed by those who advocate the destruction of the course, this would be an easy way of increasing the contribution of the course to The City, from both resident and non-resident golfers alike. This is a win-win solution for The City, the course, Pacifica, San Mateo County, and bay area golfers.

Tomorrow (Monday - June 21), the San Francisco Budget Circus will once again be on display at City Hall. Most of the public comment will be from those who are begging/demanding more money from The City budget during their one minute of public comment. As a bad golfer and an appreciative patron of San Francisco public golf courses, I plan to be there and offer something different with my one minute of advice. Specifically I'll be suggesting that we Sharp Park golfers can and should contribute even more to help the course and help The City out of its budget crisis.

19th hole

Bad golf.
Good beer.

DG 99
MW 109
RG 116
RZ 117

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Bringing it home on 18

Golf shot.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rick out of fairway trap on 17

But not very far out.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

First of Dave's two tee shots on 16

He found the other

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rick tees off on 15

After his sparkling 2 on 14 - which I failed to document (Rick is not speaking to me).

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rajeev's 303 yard drive.

No shit. Really.

Maybe a bit of a wind assist. Like 20 knots. And he had the 61 at the turn. So... You know.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

At the turn...

Really 11th faitway.

Mw 53
RZ 57
Other guys 61 and 44

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rajeev gets it all on 9

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Rick off the 5th tee

On his way to a bogey

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

2nd hole

On in regulation. Missed birdie by an inch. Par.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Live blogging Coyote Creek

OGC event. Rick and I were foisted on two unsuspecting players, Dave and Rajeev. Poor bastards.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

We should have left earlier - US OPEN parking shuttle screw-up

The line for the buses to get to the parking lot. You'd think The Open would have figured out a better system. Or at least get enough buses.

UPDATE:

Over two hours later, it was dark, it was getting cold and we we were still in that line. There were periods of time with many thousands in line that only one bus with a capacity of about 50 people was loading. There was extended periods of time where there were NO BUSES LOADING.

No general attendance spectator had any choice but to park in the spectators lot and take the shuttle buses. Everyone you see in this picture paid $110-$175 for the privilege of walking the course and watching the US Open for a day. Paying that much for ticket, we have a right to expect to be treated better than this and find a competent operation for getting us to and from the course.

The organizers know how many tickets they sold. They know it was a sellout. They knew how many cars were in the spectator lot. They knew exactly how big a "corral" they needed to build to manage a line of this size.

So how is that no one could figure out how many friggin' buses they needed?

What a colossal cock-up. It left a bad taste after an otherwise fine day at the Open.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Tiger misses short birdie putt on 17

One of the pleasures of the Open is watching a train wreck hole. 17 is a train wreck hole. Watched Rollins come to the hole in the lead and post a triple bogey. Even Els doubled to fall back to 2 over with Tiger.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

On the 4th tee at the Open

Watson and Macilroy watch Ishikawa's tee shot.  Watson has been playing golf for longer than the ages of his playing partners put together.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

5th green - US Open

Ernie misses his birdie, settles for par. Tiger pars. Westwood has a bit of bad luck - a gust knocked his tee shot into the trap - bad out - 3 putt doible.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

At the US Open

Watched the leaders on 15, Weir and Choi at 2 and 3 under. Chai dropped a stroke. 

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Who cares about Sharp Park Golf?

It looks like the San Francisco Golf War is about to enter a new chapter. Late last year, the Center for WEBLEEDU (Wild Equity Biodiversity Litigation for Ecological Extortion and Deep Untruths) failed to secure the destruction of the course and force the city to give away valuable coastal park land by using legal intimidation and bad science. Now, the advocates for the destruction of this historic landmark course are soliciting new allies and have turned to bad accounting as the new field of battle. There is no more merit to this new line of attack than any that have gone before. The sad thing is that the "protesters" don't seem to realize that green fees from Sharp Park golfers subsidize San Francisco Rec & Park overhead costs as well as other San Francisco services and not the other way around. If Sharp Park were to be closed, taxes would have be raised or more San Francisco services would need to be cut.

This blog has participated in the Sharp Park golf kerfuffle over the last year or so. I don't like to personalize the debate, as I think it detracts from the argument when simple truth, logic, and common sense support keeping the course. But this Plater character, this self anointed crusader for the destruction of the course, sure makes it hard to keep to the high road.

Brent Plater and his Big Brass Brent Buckle.

Consider this Platerism from a recent column in the SF Weekly:

"Nobody in San Francisco cares about Sharp Park," says environmentalist Brent Plater, executive director of the nonprofit Wild Equity Institute, who has spearheaded the campaign to close the course. "If that golf course were to fall into the ocean tomorrow, nobody would blink an eye... If Spock were in charge of these things, or the social insects, who deal with these collective problems a little bit better than we do, there's no doubt" that Sharp Park would be shut down, he says."

Really. Read it again. It s all there in this quote - The arrogant elitism: I Brent"Spock" Plater, Oakland resident, know what is best for you San Francisco plebeians; The slavish admiration for a hive mentality; The assertion that individual rights and needs are unimportant and must be subjugated to the will of the collective - particularly those collective needs as defined by the smarter and wiser Spock Brent Plater of course. This is a world view where unsupported pronouncements are reality and actual facts in direct contradiction to fabulist inventions are simply ignored. It is a lawyer's conceit - the conceit that one can paint a verbal picture so compelling the jury will not notice that the fantasy does not comport with actual reality.

Perhaps Brent Plater is right. Perhaps - despite Abe Lincoln's homily - you can fool most of the people most of the time. Based on the way that local fawning "journalists" in both the mainstream and independent media unquestioningly report anything he says, you'd think he was Moses delivering the Ten Commandments. They function as his personal PR firm and swallow the selfless environmental crusader bait - hook, line and sinker. And so the contributions come rolling in to the Brent Institute - or not - I have no idea. What the hell. I'll leave the links to Brent and the Brent Plater Institute in the referenced quote. For anyone who has so little respect for their hard earned dollars that they would give money to a guy who can say stuff like this with a straight face, well - you deserve each other. I am sure you will get exactly what you paid for. Maybe he'll send you a Brent Buckle.

That said, this particular absurdity:

"Nobody in San Francisco cares about Sharp Park... if that golf course were to fall into the ocean tomorrow, nobody would blink an eye."

- cannot be left unchallenged.

So permit me to offer a dose of reality. Compiled here are a few video clips of the people who care about Sharp Park. And a few of the people who will be hurt if Brent Plater gets his way.

I've attended a number of SF government committee meetings on Sharp Park over the last year. They have all been well attended by people who care a great deal about Sharp Park golf, with meetings lasting for many hours to accommodate all who want to voice their opinion to our tone deaf Board of Supervisors. My observation is the Sharp Park supporters always outnumber those who would destroy the course. These first three video clips are from one of these meetings.

San Francisco Laborers Union Local 261 Support Sharp Park Golf:

"Our organization is foursquare behind the preservation of the historic Alister MacKenzie golf course at Sharp Park."
- Zack Salem

The Sierra Club supports the Sharp Park Golf plan to enhance the snake and frog habitat:

Recommended enhancements are consistent with Sierra Club resolution to protect the snake and frog.

Karen Swaim, biologist and noted expert on the endangered frog and snake supports the recommendation to continue but modify the Sharp Park golf course:

"Golf is not what is responsible for the decline of the San Francisco garter snake." - Karen Swaim

Of course, the women, men, elderly retirees, students, and diverse golfers from all over the bay area who pay for the 55,000 rounds per year per that go into the City coffers and subsidize city services also care about the affordable golf course they love:

"This is a workingman's golf course."

Even from across the pond, they care about landmark Sharp Park Golf Course. The Alister MacKenzie Society:
Finally, as an indicator of the depth and breadth of support for the course, a few clips I shot at a fundraiser and rally for the course last October. These were shot using a little point-and-shoot camera - so the quality is not great. But there were sure a lot of people and pols who care a great deal about Sharp Park Golf in attendance:


So given the obvious nonsense that he spouts, what is one to make of Brent Plater and his inane pronouncements?

Is he willfully ignorant? -or- just another tool?

You decide.

Free the Turtle! - The Sequel

These pics were texted from RAC. Henry is a painted turtle that was captured as a cute little turtlet in Big Shag Lake a decade or so ago. The thing about turtles is that they live a long time. Bringing home a turtlet on a lark can turn into a very long term commitment. Henry was well cared for in a large tank in several Chicagoland locales. After learning that Henry was actually Henrietta when she started laying eggs, RAC started looking for a new home.

Janice's turtle rescue pond in Lake Forest must look like heaven to Henrietta:

Home sweet home...

... and 40 friends to keep her company. - RAC

A fitting sequel to Live Free Die Hard.