Sharp Park: State Senator Unwittingly Signs Resolution to Keep Golf Course Open
Categories: Local News
 |
| Taka via Flickr |
| Perhaps this SF Gartner snake forged Sen. Leland Yee's signature |
The San Francisco Public Golf Alliance (SFPGA), asked for -- and got -- a state resolution in favor of making the much-debated Sharp Park Golf Course an important historical landmark. What they didn't get was state Sen. Leland Yee's support for that resolution.
Strangely enough, Yee's John Hancock appears on the document, despite the fact that the San Francisco senator says he never signed it -- nor did anyone on his behalf.
What's more, Yee says in a letter to the Sierra Club, he had never
seen the resolution, nor does it even reflect his views on the controversial golf course.
"The language of the resolution implied my support for keeping the golf course as it currently is. This language was not cleared by my office, nor does it accurately represent my position on Sharp Park. While my signature was on the resolution, it was electronically generated and not approved by my office," said Yee.
How exactly did Yee's signature get on this particular resolution? We don't know -- and neither does he.
However, the Wild Equity Institute -- an environmental conservation group pushing for the closure of the golf course -- seems to be pointing the finger at the SFPGA, claiming the group has been prone to circulate "misinformation" on this debate.
"They've been engaging in all kinds of dubious tactics to try and prevent change out there," said Brent Plater, the WEI's executive director. "This is just their latest one in their disinformation campaign."
We contacted the golfing group multiple times to get their side of the story, but nobody got back to us.
Meanwhile, Plater's group has called for the resolution, which was authored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), to be withdrawn, and that San Francisco start taking steps toward closing the course and turning the land into a park that would benefit both residents and the endangered species living there.
"Right now the golf market in the Bay Area is overbuilt -- 6 million more rounds of golf are offered on an annual basis than golfers can actually play, so some golf courses are going to have to close. The only question is, which ones?" said Plater. "Our suggestion is that we should close the ones that ... can help us supply the kind of recreation that modern Bay Area residents demand, not what was in demand back in the 1930s when Sharp Park was constructed."
Follow us on Twitter @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly
"The language of the resolution implied my support for keeping the golf course as it currently is. This language was not cleared by my office, nor does it accurately represent my position on Sharp Park. While my signature was on the resolution, it was electronically generated and not approved by my office," said Yee.
How exactly did Yee's signature get on this particular resolution? We don't know -- and neither does he.
However, the Wild Equity Institute -- an environmental conservation group pushing for the closure of the golf course -- seems to be pointing the finger at the SFPGA, claiming the group has been prone to circulate "misinformation" on this debate.
"They've been engaging in all kinds of dubious tactics to try and prevent change out there," said Brent Plater, the WEI's executive director. "This is just their latest one in their disinformation campaign."
We contacted the golfing group multiple times to get their side of the story, but nobody got back to us.
Meanwhile, Plater's group has called for the resolution, which was authored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), to be withdrawn, and that San Francisco start taking steps toward closing the course and turning the land into a park that would benefit both residents and the endangered species living there.
"Right now the golf market in the Bay Area is overbuilt -- 6 million more rounds of golf are offered on an annual basis than golfers can actually play, so some golf courses are going to have to close. The only question is, which ones?" said Plater. "Our suggestion is that we should close the ones that ... can help us supply the kind of recreation that modern Bay Area residents demand, not what was in demand back in the 1930s when Sharp Park was constructed."
Follow us on Twitter @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly
Email to Friend
Write to Editor
Print Article
