Town Square

Post a New Topic

Butterflies and Edgewood Park

Original post made on Apr 29, 2013

Bill Korbholz is an Edgewood Park volunteer who leads tours and works to advance the survival prospects of the endangered Bay Checkerspot butterfly, which used to thrive up and down the Peninsula. ==I Photo by Michelle Le/The Almanac.==

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, April 29, 2013, 7:33 AM

Comments (50)

Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 30, 2013 at 11:43 am

Edgewood Park has been my "front yard" for more than 47 years. Those butterflys visit frequently.

My family ran our dogs and my kids rode bicycles on that land. I drove golf balls from my side of a canyon into the remnants of an orchard across the way. My views on the use of this public land can be seen in this photo on my website: Web Link

Below is an excerpt from an OpEd written by a friend of mine,the late David L. Collins, which puts it all in nutshell:

"Public property belongs to us all - in theory. But big-time planning has also "taken" public property. A small bunch of people want that public property to be used, not by the citizenry that pays taxes to government for services and facilities, but by "no one". This is the "BANANA" syndrome: "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything." Many acres of public property are restricted for what amount to zero use by humans.

An example of such use restriction on public property occurred several years ago. A project that I worked on with Jack Hickey and the Edgewood Park Golfers Citizens Group was advanced to propose a "win-win" solution to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. This was a proposal in which 453 acres of undeveloped land would be designated for a "pay its own way" golf course that would be designed so as to protect the checkerspot butterflies on the site. A large number of so-called "environmentalists" showed up to protest this reasonable allocation of land uses. The Board listened to the noise of protest. They decided to "give" the land over to the few people who hike on it.

As with most government decisions, a "gift" to some is a "take" from many. The golfers in the central part of San Mateo County who have had to commute many millions of extra miles to play golf at more distant golf courses in Santa Clara County (or elsewhere) have been "taken'.

Planning and zoning are political functions that give to some and take from most of us. It does look like we have gone much too far with planning and zoning."


Posted by Scottie Links, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 30, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Edgewood Park is a county treasure for all. IIRC, it is 2nd or 3rd most popular in use after Sawyer Camp trail. After the construction is finished on Crustal Springs dam, the trail and Edgewood should be better connected, making for a glorious hike for all!

Jack: there's a 9 hole course IN Emerald Hills. My friend was just telling me he can get on it almost anytime, frequently without reservation (though he did say it's fairly busy in summertime after school lets out.)

Interesting to see Jack tilting at a windmill again, this time for a minority called 'golfers'.

San Mateo courses are plentiful: Poplar creek, Sharp Park, Emerald Hill, HMB, Green hills, Crystal Springs, Mariners, Menlo CC, CAGC in SSF, Cypress, Lake Merced, Peninsula, Sharon Heights, Burlingame CC, etc..

Seems the choice to burn gas and take their money out of county is purely the choice and preference of the plaid pant crowd. Yes, you may need a reservation, but heck, if I want a simple picnic or camp spot in the middle of summer, I have to reserve that also!

Get a grip!

//get it? a grip! hyuk!

kinda like a golf joke!

(kinda almost)

;-)

Edgewood rocks!


Posted by Jack Hickey , a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 30, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Scottie, is your home course St. Andrews?

County Parks and Recreation (being restored to its standalone status)is always seeking alternative funding to maintain those "treasures".
I know, because I wrote the minority report for their Alternative Funding Committee. Web Link
Revenue producing golf courses on leased public land was the minority choice. The butterflies and trails could easily co-exist with a golf course in Edgewood Park, AND, wheelchair access would be a collateral benefit.

Perhaps you would prefer user fees.(ya pay yer money and make yer choice).


Posted by Jackie K, a resident of La Entrada School
on Apr 30, 2013 at 1:23 pm

There's plenty of golf courses around, and their access is very restrictive to the average person. Over the lifetime of any of the courses listed above, they have dumped literally tons of pesticides, herbicides and other poisons into our environment, affecting any butterflies that may have once been in those areas. Nice to hear that Mr. Hickey is so pro-butterfly.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 30, 2013 at 3:51 pm

What about Stanford Golf Course? What does Paul Ehrlich have to say about that? Did he ever restore the Checkerspots to Jasper Ridge? And what about the colony of Checkerspots that disappeared when Canada College was built? A golf course at Edgewood Park would protected them.
Crystal Springs get's honorable mention as an eco-friendly course in Forbes
Web Link


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 30, 2013 at 3:59 pm

This National Geographic article about Augusta National is interesting.Web Link


Posted by itz the law, a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Crystal Springs is required to be green because of the ground they lease. It's watershed for our drinking water.

And we all know how Jack supports all regulations for the environment. At least when it's water HE (or his kids) are drinking.

So Jack: all golf courses should have the same environmental rules as CSGC?


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 30, 2013 at 4:12 pm

Q.E.D.


Posted by Carlos is confused, a resident of another community
on Apr 30, 2013 at 4:48 pm

QED - huh? demonstration of Jack's love for environmental regulation when it's his water being protected?

Or demonstrating Jack's love of golf courses?


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 30, 2013 at 5:37 pm

"demonstration of Jack's love for environmental regulation when it's his water being protected?

Or demonstrating Jack's love of golf courses?"

are the two mutually exclusive?


Posted by Carlos is confused, a resident of another community
on Apr 30, 2013 at 6:33 pm

> are the two mutually exclusive?

QED


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 30, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Carlos:

I'm not a philosopher, nor do I speak latin. Sorry. Care to make your response clearer?


Posted by Carlos is confused, a resident of another community
on Apr 30, 2013 at 8:00 pm

"quod erat demonstrandum"

=

"which was to be demonstrated"

Carlos = too cute, by half (attempting Hick's game)


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 1, 2013 at 11:08 am

Demonstrating that eco-friendly golf courses can and do exist.

Convincing others that eco-friendly golf courses can also provide revenue to support the remaining 99% of the open space land is another story.


Posted by big government butterfly, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 1, 2013 at 11:53 am

Jack again misses the point of Crystal springs - it is not eco-friendly, it is eco-REQUIRED by rule.

Jack: do you support all environmental regulations that provide you and I with clean water, like the rules and regulations at Crystal Springs?

And the question asked yesterday: should "all golf courses ... have the same environmental rules as CSGC?"

Somehow, "which was to be demonstrated" doesn't quite answer either question.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 1, 2013 at 12:11 pm



"Should "all golf courses ... have the same environmental rules as CSGC?" NO! There are geologic differences which should be considered.
I'll leave it up to experts on the subject.


Posted by big government butterfly, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm

Geologic? Because pesticide/herbicide pollution would be part of the run-off?!?!? Isn't pesticide/herbicide pollution into some other person's groundwater as bad as running off into our groundwater?

"I'll leave it up to experts on the subject."

But Jack, it was the government experts who forced CSGC to be eco-friendly. Therefore, by touting CSGC as eco-friendly (when it was actually eco-REQUIRED) you're telling us you agree with environmental regulations that protect your drinking water.

Being no hypocrite, you must therefore agree there is an important role in environmental protections by government, such as drinking water for OTHER people.

Let me know when you run for office again, why... you may have my vote as a big government conservation conservative!


Posted by Alan, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on May 1, 2013 at 1:32 pm

Jack - you can still use the park - it isn't taken away from you. It is very popular now as a place for people to hike and enjoy the nature.

Please recognize what a fantastic job people have done in restoring the natural environment there. You're living next to a treasure to be appreciated ... it's just not a place to whack your golf balls anymore.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 1, 2013 at 3:15 pm

And, if an eco-friendly golf course were incorporated into Edgewood Park, the cost of maintenance for the native species and habitat would be more than covered by revenue produced by golfers. The hikers, nature lovers and golfers could all use the open space. Wheelchair access would be made available.

As far as big government and my water, I am not thrilled by the fluoride treatment forced upon me.


Posted by big government butterfly, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 1, 2013 at 4:08 pm

Yes, the hypocrisy of wanting CSGC to be eco-REQUIRED by government to protect Jack's water, and jack's otherwise libertarian attitude of being against environmental regulation does start to come out, no matter how much Jack avoids directly answering the question.

Jack: do you support all environmental regulations like that provide you and I with clean water, like the rules and regulations at Crystal Springs, for all Americans in all communities? Or are they just bothersome red tape?

Enjoy the last word.


Posted by Carol, a resident of another community
on May 3, 2013 at 10:27 am

'a "gift" to some is a "take" from many.' --Did anyone ask permission of the wildlife (including the butterfly) before wresting almost all the wild lands from them? How about the Ohlone and other tribes evicted from their homes by our ancestors? Did any of them have a vote? I would call our land use policies a "take" from many. I cannot understand begrudging wildlife the tiny, tiny fraction of natural habitat remaining. They're not grousing about being deprived of recreation, such as golf. They are just trying to survive. They have nowhere else to go, but you have other places to play golf. If you consult Dr. Stuart Weiss, who has studied the butterfly probably half his lifetime, you will learn why a golf course cannot co-exist with the butterfly or other natural residents of Edgewood.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 3, 2013 at 1:19 pm

Carol said: "If you consult Dr. Stuart Weiss, who has studied the butterfly probably half his lifetime, you will learn why a golf course cannot co-exist with the butterfly or other natural residents of Edgewood."

I would be happy to read Dr. Weiss's writings which support that hypothesis.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 3, 2013 at 2:54 pm

The late David L. Collins, who I considered to be an expert in the area of this discussion, wrote this article Printed from THE DAILY JOURNAL, dtd. 04/02/2007. Web Link


Golf courses prove positive to nature

Editor,

The identification of ammonia molecules from catalytic converters as "the culprit" for the disappearance of checkerspot butterflies seems disingenuous. ("Checkerspot flying back to local park" in the March 21 edition of the Daily Journal).

Most grasses (including many known as weeds if they are growing in the "wrong" place) survive because of microclimatic conditions, largely soil surroundings and the amount of moisture and precipitation available. In the desert-like extended summer (April to October) microclimate of the Edgewood Park area, "hardy" grasses (Italian ryegrass or many other "warm-season" grasses) will win nature's "survival of the fittest" without (dare I say) human intervention.

At one point in time, there was a proposal for one or two golf courses in the I-280/Edgewood Park corridor. Such golf courses, with "imported" irrigation, could have provided — in their out-of-play "roughs" (two-thirds of total acreage) — ample "sheltering plants and food" to support native plants.

It is ironic that the so-called "Committee for Green Foothills" was opposed to such golf courses. Golf courses take carbon dioxide (an alleged villain) out of the air and convert it to oxygen in the photosynthetic process. Courses also provide habitat for flora and fauna. They would have provided year-round greenery (greens, tees, fairways and roughs) instead of the yellowed-out grasses we see between May and October.

We must be alert to the many sources of environmental pollution. As a for instance, chloramine (chlorine and ammonia), classified as a toxin by the Canadian EPA, "purifies" our water supply. But the concept that ammonia molecules could provide just enough fertilization to ryegrass to have it out-compete native grasses is quite far-fetched. It seems to be a no-hands-barred search for a villain to blame, which makes news at the expense of truth.

David L. Collins

San Mateo


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 9, 2013 at 4:15 pm

All, don't miss the "Free Family Friendly Birthday party" for "Edgewood County Park and Natural Preserve" on May 11, at 1 P.M.

Don't bring the family dog, and please, no bicycles! Horsies are allowed in some locations. Forget about golf clubs.

This will celebrate the "taking" of public land, which should have been a revenue producing golf course. There was a proposal in which 453 acres of undeveloped land would be designated for a "pay its own way" golf course that would be designed so as to protect the checkerspot butterflies on the site. A large number of so-called "environmentalists" showed up to protest this reasonable allocation of land uses. The Board listened to the noise of protest. They decided to "give" the land over to the few people who hike on it.

Entertainment will include:
Premier of puppet skit - "It Could Have Been A Golf Course"
Craft stations, including making an origami Bay Checkerspot butterfly.


Posted by plastic golf course, a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on May 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm

Yes, the community UPROAR, loud and continuous, heard throughout the Bay Area, is deafening!

All I ever hear from community members is the incessant drumbeat about how they preferred Edgewood to be covered in inaccessible fairways!

Well,not so much. It's just one, who won't let it die, tilting away at his windmills.

Edgewood Park is a treasure as it is.

Jack: how often do you play your neighborhood course in Emeralds hills?


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 10, 2013 at 9:20 am

In November, 1998, I ran for a seat on the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. Web Link
I had the following on my website: "Edgewood Park - What's it good for?"
Web Link

Carol said: "If you consult Dr. Stuart Weiss, who has studied the butterfly probably half his lifetime, you will learn why a golf course cannot co-exist with the butterfly or other natural residents of Edgewood."

I responded:
"I would be happy to read Dr. Weiss's writings which support that hypothesis."

Does Dr. Weiss come to that conclusion in his writings?
Perhaps he would like to comment in this topic.


Posted by park user, a resident of another community
on May 16, 2013 at 11:22 am

Ah, so YOU'RE the... individual ("terms of use" require diplomacy)... whose golf balls I keep finding out there as we continue to clean up all the mess and damage left by YEARS of unregulated "public use" prior to the establishment of Edgewood park. Funny how the "taking" of the park has in fact preserved this amazingly unique and beautiful landscape for EVERYONE to enjoy in perpetuity, whereas previous unregulated use of the site (unauthorized trails, litter, dumping, off road vehicle use, and more) were well on their way to destroying the unique resources there forever. But heck, even THAT may have been better than YOUR big idea... to put a golf course on 453 acres of the site and "save" the butterfly in the remainder... let's see, Edgewood is only 467 acres to begin with, and about 1/3 is unique serpentine habitat supporting an array of unique species including the butterfly, but sure, what the heck, there's no reason you couldn't blow away 97% of the site and somehow manage to keep all the rare stuff going in the remaining 14 acres... makes perfect sense to me.

And yes, I do mean EVERYONE can enjoy Edgewood. You complain on behalf of pet owners, cyclists, and golfers... ALL of them are in fact welcome at the park... just not with their pets, bicycles, or golf gear. And how is that different, really, from any number of OTHER public facilities out there? Consider things like museums, train systems, ball parks, and more... all have their particular use restrictions in order to protect their intended purpose in order to make it available to all, and this is no different. Some people ARE dog walkers, cyclists, golfers... but they don't do those things EVERYWHERE... really now, this isn't a new concept. And let's not forget that all those activities are in fact available locally:

- Dogs are allowed at Pulgas Ridge Open Space, practically across the street from Edgewood
- Bicycles are allowed at a variety of open spaces in the region, including Waterdog Lake in Belmont
- There's a golf course IN Emerald Hills itself already

Ok, so, you don't have your very own bike path lined, dog friendly golf course right outside your own back door... hmmm... how many others don't either?... and how many people would LOVE to have something like Edgewood Park outside their door rather than the unending sprawl that blankets so much of the Bay Area? If you don't like what's outside your door, and want to live by a golf course instead... well... people do move for such reasons... just a thought... But no, your response instead is to complain about a "taking" from the public and lament the golf course that might have been. Yet let's look at the Emerald Hills course as an example... on a typical day they offer a dozen tee time slots, up to 4 people per slot... hmmmm... that comes to a whopping *48* people per day who get to use that facility... say a course at Edgewood DOUBLED that... 100 people per day... for a SINGLE type of activity... golf. How EVER could one think that wouldn't be a more fair and balanced use of Edgewood?!

On the flip side, how many people use Edgewood Park on an average day? WAY more than 100, that's for sure! And they're doing all KINDS of things... jogging, birding, picnicking, viewing wildflowers, volunteering in a variety of groups and activities, learning about nature on docent walks, and more. Heck, they bring bus loads of school kids out to see the place and learn from it ... hmmm... how often do you see class nature trips to the local golf course? But your idea of a good tradeoff would be to take (yes TAKE) 97% of the park for 100 golfers/day, and squeeze everyone else and their activities into the remaining 3%, along with the butterflies that you say could still be protected. And that's not to even mention the dozen or more OTHER rare, threatened, or endangered species that occur at the park and which conveniently receive no acknowledgement in your arguments. No, it's easier to just keep carping about "taking, Taking, TAKING"... never mind that the proposed alternatives for the site would take away from the ability of OTHERS to use the site. I for one don't want to go to Edgewood and deal with the noise, disturbance, and animal waste caused by other's pets (think that's just a minor issue?... go somewhere where pets are allowed and find out for real!). Nor do I want to deal with the dust and torn up trails caused by bicycles, or have to dive off trail to save my life as they go whizzing by, let alone look at the damage of wildcat bike trails that so often accompany bike access (again, go where they're allowed and see the reality of it). And I certainly don't want to have to dodge golf carts and duck under errant slices off the 4th tee while trying to find whatever barest scraps of Edgewood's beauty might be left after wiping out 97% of it for a golf course.

And could those scraps REALLY support the rare species as you and others claim? Hmmm, I'd have to say that scientific believability is one thing not well engendered in the anti-park arguments presented here. Take the Nitrogen issue... much like the climate science debate, the arguments presented here against the ecological impacts of Nitrogen from car exhaust amount to "gee, we don't like the outcome, so we're just gonna say it isn't so." Maybe you ought to look up what "disingenuous" actually means before attributing it to someone else! For his part, Dr Weiss has spent many years on this, has done the research, and has published the results... you disagree with the findings?... fine, go do your own research and publish YOUR results and let's see how they stack up... until then, simply saying "well, that doesn't sound right" is no argument at all.

But no, I guess it's easier to read an article about really dedicated people doing really great things on a unique and irreplaceable landscape, and in response try to tear that down for the sake of one's own interests. And even easier to do so in the supposed name of the "public". Yet let's not forget that the decision to establish Edgewood as a park was a PUBLIC decision after very extensive debate... and that the decision was subsequently reinforced by a later decision to designate Edgewood not just as a park but as a Natural Preserve (the ONLY such unit in the whole County park system)... and then reinforced yet again with the recent approval and construction of the Education Center there (built, by the way, with DONATED funds from the supposedly disenfranchised "public"). So these are in fact PUBLIC policies... if you don't like them, by all means, go get yourself elected and change the policies... oh wait, you've tried that... hasn't worked... could it have anything to do with the fact that the policies you stand for may not resonate as broadly as you'd like with the "public" you claim to be speaking for?




Posted by Cappy Gato, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 16, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Too valid a response, too much info, too easy for the Guvitarian to take snippets and ignore what he wants. Expect a quote and diversion form the topic.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 17, 2013 at 2:14 pm

"park user" says; "how many people use Edgewood Park on an average day? WAY more than 100, that's for sure!"

How much is their "green fee" for exclusive use of those 467 acres?

A golf course integrated into Edgewood Park would provide revenue from "green fees" and other related expenditures. And, improved accessibility to the remaining 2/3 of the site, made possible by that revenue stream, would likely cause an increase in usage by joggers, birdwatchers, picnickers, budding botanists, etc.

"park user" says; "Yet let's not forget that the decision to establish Edgewood as a park was a PUBLIC decision after very extensive debate..."

And, WITHOUT an election! But then, we know that "informed" voters rejected the 1/8% sales tax for Parks in November 2006.

Regarding "...the ecological impacts of Nitrogen from car exhaust...", those who proclaim that golf courses and butterflies can not coexist (I'm waiting for Dr Weiss's input) can't have it both ways. It was these overzealous environmentalists who engineered the rerouting of I280 which placed an additional 1/2 mile of freeway in the system. Ironic that that addition was routed up by Edgewood Park.



Posted by Prime waterfront property uh swamp, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 17, 2013 at 3:09 pm

"A golf course integrated into Edgewood Park would provide revenue from "green fees" and other related expenditures."

No. The fees would be for maintenance, loan repayment and profit. Let's call a spade a spade, rather than a spatulous device for abrading the surface of the soil.

Emerald Hills averages a few dozen golfers a day?!?!!? Right next door?!?!?

Yet Jack's magic financing has it so that a 2nd golf course next to unused Emerald Hills will create so much cash that it will pay for installation, rent, maintenance, payroll and profit, and MAGICALLY create even more cash for the park.

Bought any good bridges lately?


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm

And, if it did " MAGICALLY create even more cash for the park" you would support it?

See: A Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for a New Golf Course in San Mateo County
Prepared for San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Department
June 1989

Web Link


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 17, 2013 at 3:30 pm

You might even add a few more busloads of schoolchildren to discover the wonderful world of golf.

Web Link


Posted by Prime waterfront property uh swamp, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Wow! Jack found a consultant to put a spreadsheet together to claim that a new gold course, next to the underused existing golf course, will make wheelbarrows o' cash! How many consultants did you have to interview to find one to do those numbers? One?

Maybe two? (because the first had scruples?)

Honestly, didn't click on your 1989 'report' - I've seen enough promises in business plans since 89 to know when something doesn't pass the smell test.

regarding: busloads of school children and the wonderful world of Disn... I mean, golf: bus them over to Emerald Hills, a few blocks away - they have openings.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm

There's a reason Emerald Hills is underutilized. It's a lousy course. They don't call "goat hill" for nothing. Up the road Crystal Springs golf course does quite well. But then, it's a very nice course and relatively level.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 18, 2013 at 9:11 am

The "Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for a New Golf Course in San Mateo County" was prepared for San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Department in June 1989 at a cost of $85,000.

That was 7 years before Tiger Woods joined the PGA tour and changed the world view of golf. Golf is for the masses, not just the "preference of the plaid pant crowd".

See: Web Link


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 18, 2013 at 9:19 am

It's time for San Mateo County to get on the First Tee bandwagon by establishing a chapter here. It would help if we opened up 1% of our open space land to accommodate a few first class golf courses.
Start with 1/3 of the Edgewood Park land as originally envisioned by former Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, who put up $500,000 for acquisition of the land for that purpose.


Posted by Cappy Gato, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 18, 2013 at 10:25 am

The kids have to have a "few first class golf courses" in order to start... um, okay.

I guess open tee times at emerald aren't good enough for beginning players -- they need "first class golf courses"!

Yet you know Jack probably won't support public investment in schools, specifically to add a "few first class" schools in Belle Haven and EPA.

85 grand? Poster Prime Waterfront was right -- you had to go through a few consultants to make up the numbers, eh?


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 18, 2013 at 11:08 am

That "85 grand" for the "Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for a New Golf Course in San Mateo County" Web Link was paid for by tax dollars. Unfortunately, your elected officials (Board of Supervisors) succumbed to pressure from overzealous environmentalists. They ignored the obvious. They denied voters the opportunity to vote on genuine Alternative Funding for Parks, instead choosing alternative taxing schemes.
Revenue producing golf courses on open space land leased by the County is a win-win solution.


Posted by Cappy Gato, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 18, 2013 at 11:57 am

We wasted 85 grand for a study to put a golf course at Edgewood, next to an already underused golf course? Talk about a waste of public money!

At least the golf course proposals at Bayfront didn't take a bunch of taxpayer money and funnel it to some consultants to pull some hyper-optimistic numbers out of some (dark corner.) The public spoke about their preference for parks over golf courses on that one too.

Let's hold a vote, Jack, on whether that 85 grand should have gone towards a "few first class" schools in Belle Haven and EPA. Or to some consultants paid to provide rosy revenue projections for a new golf course next to an unused golf course.

Only one mile apart, up Wilmington Way. Why not give the 85 grand to the Elks and let them improve Emerald until it at least gets it's use up to capacity? Then Jack can bus some kids out of Belle Haven to chase his dream of creating the next Tiger Woods.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm

Excellent suggestion! Bayfront Park Golf Course! That would serve the Belle Haven community better than the Elks Course.

Let's get it on the ballot!


Posted by Cappy Gato, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 18, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Why waste more taxpayer time and money, Jack? Apparently, you are libertarian only about the needs of others, but gosh darn it, let's make the government spend more time and money to work for Jack and his plaid pant crowd!

Bayfront was turned down decisively. The golf course company left the deal saying the numbers didn't add up (now we know they should have hired Jack's 'creative accountants'!)

Invest your time and money in Emerald Hills, only a short walk from your home. If you want better, there are numerous golf courses only 15-20 minutes from your home. Do not inflict your monstrosities on the rest of us until you get the rest of the golf courses up to capacity.

There are far greater needs: schools, or even youth ball fields, both of which are at or over capacity.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 19, 2013 at 7:57 am

Taxpayer's money? What taxpayer's money? Proper stewardship of open space lands should include revenue producing use of a small portion (~1%) of those lands to support the upkeep of the remainder. Eco-friendly golf courses are the logical choice.

Carol said: "If you consult Dr. Stuart Weiss, who has studied the butterfly probably half his lifetime, you will learn why a golf course cannot co-exist with the butterfly or other natural residents of Edgewood."

I responded:
"I would be happy to read Dr. Weiss's writings which support that hypothesis."
Does Dr. Weiss come to that conclusion in his writings?
Perhaps he would like to comment in this topic.


Posted by Cappty Gato, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 19, 2013 at 9:40 am

Yes, Jack, ignore the facts: folks don't want a 2nd golf course on public land just a mile from an underutilized golf course, nor do we want to spend another $85,000 of taxpayer money on phony numbers from consultants, nor taxpayer time and money on a ballot issue when so many other things need our attention. Again:

- Bayfront was turned down decisively. The golf course company left the deal saying the numbers didn't add up (now we know they should have hired Jack's 'creative accountants'!)

- Invest your time and money in Emerald Hills, only a short walk from your home. If you want better, there are numerous golf courses only 15-20 minutes from your home. Do not inflict your monstrosities on the rest of us until you get the rest of the golf courses up to capacity.

- There are far greater needs: schools, or even youth ball fields, both of which are at or over capacity.

I'm done here. Keep tilting at decades old windmills, Jack.


Posted by business sense, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 19, 2013 at 1:17 pm

Took 40+ posts and three months, but someone finally nailed it...

"...folks don't want a 2nd golf course on public land just a mile from an underutilized golf course..."

Nice and succinct, just eliminate the fluff and make it a complete sentence...

Folks don't want a 2nd golf course on public land just a mile from an underutilized golf course.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 20, 2013 at 10:03 am

Which folks? Are you afraid of an election in which real people can voice their opinion?

The Emerald Hills Golf Course is mostly, a "pitch and putt" 9 hole course. It serves a purpose. With a $16 green fee for 9 holes, it is not a big attraction for serious golfers.


Posted by new golfer fo jack, a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on May 20, 2013 at 10:33 am

yo, jack, if no body uses it, there is so much room then for you to set up lessons there for the kids!

Wassa matta, Jack?

It's too cheap and not good enuf for ya, bring in those busloads of "Tiger" you and 1st tee were talking about, only a few blocks from yr crib, bring them over from my side!

Money and action talks jack, fill up emerald with kids since it ain't a place for a big timer like you, and we talk about a new place after that


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 20, 2013 at 10:56 am

This is about butterflies. Wouldn't it be better to lease the land to an eco-friendly golf course developer who could restore the habitat for those endangered species? It would be their money, not taxpayers, which would provide a win-win situation.


Posted by for the children, a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on May 20, 2013 at 11:36 am

Take a couple holes and make them playing fields for kids that don't have enough room for the games they actually love to play.

16 holes for funny slacks, 2 holes for kids' fields.

- 1 hole... 400 yards x 50 yards = 20,000 sq yards

- soccer/lacrosse/football field... 130 yds x 60 yds = ~8,000 sq yards

- 2 holes = 5 playing fields

Five fields in constant use that would have thousands of kids playing, running, having fun, and looking over at the occasional odd old gent in the funny clothes trying to hit a ball that isn't even moving. A great way to expose kids to golf.

Put it on the ballot. Mr Hickey, do you have experience with that kind of thing?


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm

For the children, I would be willing to give up 1% of the open space. Golfers ask for a similar 1%, but we're willing to pay for it through our green fees. Leasing 1% of open space land to eco-friendly golf course developers would produce the revenue to provide the facilities you seek for playing fields.

When the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District changed it's name from a Park District to an Open-space District, they were no longer friends of ours. Active recreation was excluded from their lands.


Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Jun 3, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Cappty Gato said: "Yes, Jack, ignore the facts: folks don't want a 2nd golf course on public land just a mile from an underutilized golf course, nor do we want to spend another $85,000 of taxpayer money on phony numbers from consultants..."

That "85 grand" for the "Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for a New Golf Course in San Mateo County" Web Link was paid for by tax dollars. It was prepared under the supervision of Mr. J. Richard
McElyea, Executive Vice President of ERA and Mr. Chris Yoshii, Senior
Associate of ERA. Ms. Anne Trela, Associate of ERA, conducted the research and analysis.

You might want to share your opinion of "phony numbers from consultants" with Anne Trela. She can be found at: Web Link


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Acai bowls, headed to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,547 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,091 views

Background and Ideas for the Comp Plan
By Steve Levy | 21 comments | 1,028 views

The State’s Proposed “Rainy Day” Fund Threatens Local School Districts’ Ability To Keep Their Financial Houses In Order
By Erin Glanville | 3 comments | 324 views

Aging and Training
By Paul Bendix | 0 comments | 131 views