Text of Letter from Dave Collins to Supervisor-elect Jerry Hill
with editorial comments by Jack Hickey
2019 Ticonderoga Drive, San Mateo, CA 94402-4019/ August 24, 1998
The Honorable Jerry Hill Supervisor-elect, San Mateo County 714 Hurlingham Avenue San Mateo, CA 94402
Dear Jerry:
Thank you for your letter of August 6 in response to my having filled out "comments and suggestions" as part of your campaign.
County Supervisors need to hear from constituents on a variety of issues (transportation, labor-management relations, development control and budgeting and finance), but much of what I could offer at this point on these subjects would be reactive rather than pro-active. I hope that you will consider my pro-active views on open space in the County.
First, a little history, portions of which you probably already know.
In 1969 the County, Caltrans, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Mayor of the City and County of San Franciso signed a multi-party agreement moving I-280 up from Canada Road to the present ridge route alignment(adding 1 mile to the round trip commute)with future promises of recreational development exchanged for the additional cost($4 million in 1970 dollars) of building on the ridge route. Two "proposed" golf courses were in the "plan" attached to the scenic easement document. These golf courses have never been developed, which is something of a broken promise.
The Edgewood Park property(450 acres) was acquired by the County using federal funds which were obtained on the promise of developing a golf course course on the property. This golf course has not been developed -- another broken promise.
Over 25 years ago, the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District was approved by the voters (by a very narrow margin) to acquire, preserve and protect open space. The District, in a decision that defies "conventional logic" does not consider a golf course as "open space". The District has largely ignored combustibles in its policy of preserving open space and seems to engage only in land deals that increase its holdings.
Is there a need for golf courses in San Mateo County? Yes. In 1966, the County's population was something like 200,000 persons. Thirty-two years later it is over 600,000 persons. There has been one course developed in those thirty-two years, the very expensive Ocean Course at Half Moon Bay. Interestingly enough, the Blue Ribbon Committee that was formed to explore golf course sites in the County was the recipient of an "environmental restraints" policy paper prepared by Thomas Reed and Associates, a Pale Alto environmental consulting firm, that concluded that Half Moon Bay was too cold to support a new golf course.
About ten percent of the population plays golf (17% for Sierra Club members nationwide). The San Mateo County Parks Department commissioned a study by Economics Reseach Associates of San Francisco that concluded that there would be support for seven or eight new courses in San Mateo County based on demographics. This firm has also done similar studies for San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties and reached similar conclusions about the need for additional courses in those counties. The San Franciso Bay Area was ranked something like #336 on a list of 350 markets with golf courses available. San Mateo County is "starved" for golf courses, and golfers who play at public courses have to commute to Santa Clara County (and even farther away) to play.
If there is a need, why hasn't it been met? This is the $64 question. There are many reasons, and here are a few: (1) So-called "environmentalists" do not want anything to happen that would "impact" pristine open space; (2) The vast majority of golfers are not well organized politically and will drive millions of vehicle-miles to play golf at distant courses rather than get into the adversity of political and community processes; (3) Golf courses have been "smeared" as having contaminated ground water due to the run-off of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that are applied to keep the grass healthy; and (4) "The Emperor Has No Clothes" seems to prevail in municipal government with respect to the opportunity to provide open space that pays for itself and even can generate a net return that will pay for other open space maintenance.
The one local group that has been somewhat active, the San Mateo County Golfers Association, has prepared some excellent materials on the environmental benefits of golf courses. There are hundreds of national studies showing, among others, that: (1) Golf course superintendents "spoon-feed" chemicals in amounts that the turf grass plants uses entirely, so that run-off is negligible to non-existent; (2) The Audubon Society has concluded that golf courses result in an increase in birds over whatever landform or type of use was there before; and (3) An l8 hole golf course produces enough oxygen for a city of 32,000 persons.
When a golf course gets into the adversarial processes of environmental impact reports, the nay-saying wing seems to prevail, notwithstanding all the environmental benefits. This happened with Edgewood Park: a large group of self-annointed environmentalists showed up before the County Supervisors in response to a proposal to split the 450 acres into 220 acres of golf course and 230 acres of County Park. Rather than allow a golf course that would save checkerspot butterfly habitat ("Checkerspot Meadows Golf Course") and provide 230 acres of County Park (mostly trails and natural terrain), the Supervisors went along with the majority who showed up, and Edgewood Park was voted in as a permanent park (unless someone sues the County for reneging on its federal open space promise, and that is a tunnel with no light at its end).
Several years ago a fellow by the name of Jack Hickey and I(Jack has run for office on a limited government basis but was ahead of his time) met with County Manager John Maltbie and outlined a proposal to develop four golf courses in the scenic easement or on Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District land. The courses would: (1) Produce enough oxygen for 96,000+ persons; (2) Serve as a firebreak (800 acres of irrigated land in among a highly-combustible mini-forest; (3) Be able to be designed to serve other recreational needs (jogging and mountain bicycle trails along their perimeters); and (4) Generate a net return to capital (i. e. profit) which would help pay for maintenance of adjacent open spaces. On the latter item, a typical(whatever that means) 18-hole course with 70,000 rounds per year and average greens fees of $30, electric golf cart fees of $400,000 per year, range income of $200,000 per year, retail sales of $250,000 per year and a modest food-and-beverage operation should bring in over $3,000,000 per year versus expenses of $2,400,000 and thus generate a net return to capital of $600,000 a year.
There are some drawbacks, of course. Sites are all "taken" by so-called environmentalists or what someone once termed "the open space Mafia". Raising capital for land acquisition must be followed by financing for development, and then it takes a while for the grass to grow in. It has been done elsewhere, and I enclose an article from the May 1998 Golf Journal describing how the State of Alabama has put together its Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail, several golf courses that are paying dividends. But that's Alabama, and they aren't as sophisticated(or as divided?) as we are in San Mateo County.
Now, that wasn't as painful as having your teeth cleaned at Peninsula Periodontal Associates, was it?
Sincerely, David L. Collins
Editor's note: Dave Collins is Golf Operations Manager for Shoreline Golf Course in Mountainview, CA.