Golf Dorks March

Definitely see the need to turn the golf courses into areas that will serve more people, i.e. soccer & baseball fields. One thing to consider - playing on a golf course generates revenue that goes to the city. If my friends & go play soccer - the city gets nothing.

C.W. Nevius’ Chronicle column on July 26, 2007, “2 Ways To Fix Problems In S.F.'S Beleaguered Parks,” reveals a short-sighted view about how the City should best meet the recreational and open space needs of our diverse community.

One of the primary reasons thousands of individuals have signed a petition against leasing the City’s six public golf courses to a private management company is that they want an equitable use of the City’s precious park land.

You can sign the online petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/publand/petition.html

Privatization would effectively lock up 485 acres of public land, representing over 20% of the City’s park land, exclusively for golf – a recreational activity residents ranked 16th out of 19 in a 2004 Recreation Assessment Survey conducted by a national consultant for the Recreation and Park Department.

Even Nevius points out that “the number of golfers nationally has decreased since 2000, with those who say they golf ‘at least once a year’ down almost 5 million.”

In contrast, the City has 25 acres of soccer fields. Youth and adult soccer teams – notwithstanding informal players – compete for limited playfields to get one hour of practice time per week.

The same study recommends that the city build 35 more soccer fields to bridge the gap. And keep in mind that residents prefer other recreational activities before golf, including more hiking trails, baseball and softball fields, dog parks, and other uses.

The Board of Supervisors made the right decision to study the feasibility of other uses with the City’s six public golf courses.

Since there is an oversupply of public golf courses to match decreasing demand, the conversion of several public golf courses for other recreational uses will consolidate public golf activity while also meeting the recreational preferences of City residents.

It’s bewildering that Nevius advocates the City “…should vote to contract the golf courses out to a private company. As we've seen in the last few days, golf may not be a priority in San Francisco, but resources for the parks certainly are.”

He admits that golf is not a top recreational priority, yet he advocates locking up 485 acres of public land for 20 to 30 years exclusively for a low-priority activity when residents clearly demand more equitable uses for their parkland.

If the City is serious about attracting families and children back to San Francisco, then City leaders need to devote more park space for children's activities - like soccer field, softball field, dog parks. Devoting 485 acres to golf courses is not a family-friendly plan. We can shift this land into uses that will benefit the majority of SF resident, and attract families back to the City, while retaining an ample amount of land for golf.

Right now, many competitive youth and adult soccer teams have to travel outside the City to play. They are spending their money elsewhere to play. Check out what the City of Redding is doing. to meet local recreational needs for families, while also luring visitor dollars into the local economy.

Golf does generate revenue too, but this is more a question of meeting the current and future recreational demands of our diverse community.

Even by converting a few public golf courses, the City can still meet the demands of current golfers while also exploring ways to meet the higher priority recreational needs of its citizens.

My biggest worry is that the City will lock up 485 acres for a dwindling number of golfers. A private management firm will invest lots of capital to upgrade these golf courses. Then in order to "recoup" these capital investments, the fees will go up until even our public golf courses become less accessible to the average person.

Just check out this article from the United States Golf Association website.

"The downturn in the golf business has affected everyone in the industry. After two to three years of hearing optimistic predictions that rounds are going to pick up soon, we may be faced with the reality the forces of supply and demand are suggesting a different opinion. Right now, there is too much supply and not enough demand. The boom of the 1990’s led to rapid course construction, particularly real estate driven courses, and maintenance budget increases that far outpaced the rate of inflation. At the same time, entry level golf, whether at the municipal level or at privately owned courses, became scarcer for a variety of reasons. The answer for courses in tight, competitive markets is to create sustainable budgets and to focus on the middle."

While golf advocates march to City Hall to preserve their ability to get tee times almost whenever they want (since most of the public golf courses operate at significant under-capacity), every other recreational user is fighting over scraps of open space.

Is this how the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors want to keep working families in the City?

KWillets, is that why all golfballs are all bumpy and covered with craters?

No, but that could explain the dwindling numbers of golfers.

Perhaps if golf courses were better lit at night.

ummmm, most white people move to the 'burbs when they have children of school age. I doubt any of the remaining children can be steered away from a life of drugs and crime due to the powerful influence of golf.