City to Spend $2.2 Million on Golf Nets!
Let’s get this straight: The City of San Jose is spending $2.2 million to install posts and netting at the city owned Los Lagos Golf Course to prevent errant golf balls from damaging people and property. According to press reports, the city has paid $22,300 in claims over the past six years.
Let’s do some math. $22,300 paid out in claims over six years is not a lot of money. That averages out to only $3,700 per year. Who spends $2.2. million to try and prevent liability and losses that are less than $4,000 a year? Presumably, the city is worried about the possibility of a major lawsuit should someone receive a really serious injury.
Once again, the current administration is asked to solve the problems created by the previous one. And once again, more good money is thrown after bad. The Los Lagos Golf Course is not the “cash cow” it was once promised to be. It’s another “white elephant” that puts a financial burden on the city and its future.
Rather than spending an additional $2.2 million on posts and netting, why doesn’t the city buy additional liability insurance, and tack on an additional charge per patron (50-75 cents) per round of golf to offset the cost?
Great column Pete, and you’ve asked some very good questions. I just can’t believe that the City put a golf course in the middle of a neighborhood in the first place. As Dr. Phil would say,
“What were they thinking?”
I think the City’s priorities are out of whack. If they really want to save money, why don’t they sell the property and hire Police Officers, or fix streets, parks, etc.? Or as you suggested, charge the golfers an extra fee to support their leisure activity?
I just can’t believe that the City put a golf course in the middle of a neighborhood in the first place.
They probably assumed if the county can build a recreational airport in the middle of East San Jose, then a nearby golf course should not be that big a deal.
After all, if the kids are being exposed to lead pollution from the general aviation planes, who cares if they get bonked on the head by an errant ball.
http://www.reidhillview.com/San_Jose_News_4_16_62.pdf
http://www.reidhillview.com/rhv_history.htm
1 – “What were they thinking,” indeed. If I am not mistaken, then Councilmember Shirakawa was the primary cheerleader for this project. Perhaps you can explain his support for this?
Kathleen #1: Clearly, you’re not a golfer. Many golf courses are in “neighborhoods”, with houses abutting them; e.g. San Jose Minicipal, Santa Teresa, Deep Cliff. Even more private golf courses have houses purposely built around them; e.g. Corde Valle, S.J. Country Club, Eagle Ridge, Ridgemark, La Rinconada, Pasatiempo…and those houses sell at a premium over the same design house not on a golf course. But those folk choose to live there, and assume some risk.
San Jose Muni & Santa Teresa, also City of SJ courses, have nets in strategic areas where an errant golf ball can cause serious bodily injury to homeowners and passers-by.
Pete wants to pay for insurance to cover it, instead of protecting the people who live “in harm’s way”. Tell me the same thing, Pete, if your child’s or grandchild’s eye were put out by an errant golf ball, or she/he suffered a concussion, or permanent brain damage? A golf ball can do serious physical damage to people, especially kids. The Los Lagos neighborhood is full of kids. There’s even a little playground near the golf course. They need to be protected, not “compensated” after they are hurt. Pete’s “solution” sounds suspiciously like Ford’s defense of the fireball Pintos—let ‘em get hurt, and the insurance will cover it.
In fact, the netting should have been part of the original proposal. And it’s not a question of whether to spend the money now or not, Pete. The job is almost completed.
My only concern—if this were a private job @ a private course, I’d bet the farm that the cost would be half what it is as a public job. Public RFP’s are licenses to steal—or at leat double the cost.
Arnold #2—you have your time line confused. The Reid-Hillview airport was there LONG before MOST of the development. The problem there was letting the development in after the airport was already there; especially due to the lead exposure caused by airplane fuel.
#4
You are thinking of the Hillview Airport which was owned by the Reid brothers. Santa Clara County did not build the Reid-Hillview Airport until the mid-to-late 1960s.
Please check the links I provided.
The county bought the 60 acre Hillview Airport in 1961, but did not build the 180 acre Reid-Hillview Airport until a few years later. By this time, most of East San Jose was built, under construction, or planned to be built.
The very first line from the April 1962 edition of the San Jose News proves that.
“Reid’s Hillview Airport, once an isolated Eastside airstrip for light planes, now is nearly ringed by schools, school sites and subdivisions.”
http://www.reidhillview.com/San_Jose_News_4_16_62.pdf
http://www.reidhillview.com/rhv_history.htm
Mr O’Connor (#4)
I’ll accept your point to a degree. Allow me to ammend, that if kids are directly in harm’s way the nets should go up, BUT, all expenses paid for by the users of the facility, rather than the citizens at large. (I’m just not convinced that there’s a serious danger…One could apply the same argument to the San Jose Giants stadium…yes, theoretically, a kid could get hit by a foul ball and seriously injured, yet no one is arguing that nets should be applied everywhere).
Pete Campbell
#3- Sorry Oliver, you’ll have to direct that and any other questions you have about George to George himself.
#4- Hey JMO, great to see you back on SJI taking part in the discussion! No, I’m not a golfer or a golf fan, but you do make some excellent points. There should have been a safety net when the course was first built. I’m surprised their insurer didn’t require it, or even the City of San Jose! I definitely agree that RFPs are always twice or three times more for government than the private sector, and prevention of injury is vital. I still think putting a golf course in a neighborhood is dumb, but that is just my opinion.
I also agree that people need to take responsibility for the choices they make. If they move into an area near the airport, then don’t complain about the sound of airplanes taking off or landing, or about pollution they put out. If they move near a golf course, they should be sure it is surrounded by safety nets, or move elsewhere.
I voted No on the nets when it was $1.9 million and voted No again when the cost increased to $2.26 million.
#9 – Bluefox –
“Thanks for letting everyone know that you condone childhood lead poisoning, and the associated brain damage, simply so that some people can play.”
That’s uncalled for, and childish. If you have a different oppinion, feel free to share it. But don’t lower the discourse on this blog with comments like that.
I have to say I agree with Kathleen. I once lived in Los Gatos, right next to the railroad. That Train would roar by at 4am like clockwork. While I definitely did not appreciate the timing of the train, it was there first. I learned to sleep through it.
Reid-Hillview: you say the neighborhood was there first – I am now confused. I have always been told, by many people, that the Ried-Hillview was there first. Can you give me some evidence that the neighborhood was there first, so I know for sure?
Arnold #5—thanks for the info.
Pete #6. Big difference between baseball, where the fans in the stands are looking at the game (hopefully), and a kid blithely walking around outside his home and he gets smacked in the head by something he never saw or ecpected. I’ve been hit three times on the golf course, all soft tissue contact, and , Damn, it hurts!
As for users picking up the tab—I couldn’t agree more. I play there a few times/year. I wouldn’t mind paying a couple of extra bucks/round to help defray that cost. But if you start getting into user fees for public property, will they be charging at the library next? How about city parks—a user fee to picnic there?
Kathleen #8: Your idea is sound for people who move to a place after the airport or golf course is built; but what about those that moved there before they were built?
Tiger #12—people duck hook and shank iron shots out of bounds, as well as drives. I am living proof of that assertion.
7 – I only directed my question to you since you have been George’s strongest advocate on this blog. If you can’t defend him or your support of him, that’s OK.
Blue Fox-
“So you are saying that anybody should be able to do whatever they want irrespective of its effects on others or society simply because they were “there first”.”
I never said that or anything like that, nor do I ” condone childhood lead poisoning, and the associated brain damage, simply so that some people can play.”
I would appreciate it if you’d keep this a respectful conversation and stop making this personal. Thanks.
Oliver- The same goes for you. The topic here is not George, it is about a golf course. I’ve already politely told you that I don’t speak for other people whether I support them or not. If you have questions about someone, go to them directly. I am not a spokes person for anyone but myself.
#14-JMO-“Your idea is sound for people who move to a place after the airport or golf course is built; but what about those that moved there before they were built?”
You make a valid point. Unfortunately that is something we all have to deal with at some time or another. When I see projects I disagree with I do what I can to take part in the planning of that project by going to neighborhood meetings, and speak out for or against it before council.
I’m very lucky though I’m a renter. If I hate the project enough, or find it to be something that I just can’t live with, I might just move. But that can be very costly, so I personally feel that neighbors should work together with the builder, City etc., to see if some kind of adjustments, or compromises can be made or implemented in the plan so that you get a win/win.
#15
I’m sorry. I thought you said in #8:
“If they move into an area near the airport, then don’t complain about the sound of airplanes taking off or landing, or about pollution they put out.”
If that does not mean that you feel people can do whatever they want irrespective of its effects on others then I’m not sure what it means. Why should someone be able to engage in harmful, damaging behavior, especially if it is for a primarily recreational activity, but it is not okay to object? That does not make any sense.
Are you saying that it is okay for people who do not live near airports to complain about the lead pollution? But, that does not make any sense. Why should only people who do not live near an airport be able to complain?
Why is okay for children to be exposed to airborne lead pollution, but not okay to complain about it? That does not make any sense. That appears to condone childhood lead poisoning.
I guess I just do not understand the thought process that leads someone to say that it is not okay to object to physically and mentally harmful recreational activities that do not belong in the middle of a residential neighborhood. However, after thinking about this I seem to remember your opposition to regulations that would limit individuals from being exposed to second hand smoke. In that context, your statement makes sense.
#17- Thank you for the apology.
To clarify my position on this topic, my statement was simple in its meaning and it is clear to me that you took its meaning further than I intended it to be. In short, I would never knowingly move into a home with flying golf balls, or near an airport with loud noise, air pollution, or heavy traffic. I wouldn’t move near a bar, or a concert hall either, but people do it all the time, and then have the nerve to complain about it. Go figure.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that people knowingly move into these areas and then expect businesses to move or accommodate their needs. The City, all cities for that matter have a general plan. Folks buying property should look into the plan before buying a home. However, if as JMO has so articulately pointed out, a project is done after you move in then that is a different ball game all together. That is when citizens need to get involved in the process to try and negotiate a fair deal for all. If there are serious dangers like the ones you are concerned about, and officials ignore them and plow ahead, then you have legal recourse to get the change you want to see happen. Another words, you are not helpless to change the situation.
Having said that, I do agree with you 100% that any kind of major project that would harm human or animal life, or the environment would cause me concern as well. Presently, I am deeply concerned that our State is under a drought warning, yet many plans to keep building housing is on the table. I have to tell you that draining our planet’s resources just to make money is going to have some very devastating consequences in the end. As to pollution caused by airplanes and jets, I see your point.
PO,
A cheaper solution would to be replant mature trees near the front of the homes. that is what real golf courses do.
the nets are only needed to protect areas where the golfer is “driving the golf balls” and there is high traffic and or pedestrians.
#8
“If they move into an area near the airport, then don’t complain about the sound of airplanes taking off or landing, or about pollution they put out. If they move near a golf course, they should be sure it is surrounded by safety nets, or move elsewhere. “
So you are saying that anybody should be able to do whatever they want irrespective of its effects on others or society simply because they were “there first”. Even, as in the case of Reid-Hillview, it was not there first. The neighborhood was there first.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you condone childhood lead poisoning, and the associated brain damage, simply so that some people can play.
Better start talking to your Councilpersons, folks. They are the ones approving housing in terrible locations. People who those houses need a little clarity on the subject as well, but tell your Councilperson to stop approving housing in locations that would be best left unbuilt—at least with residential units.
Apparently Los Lagos doesn’t agree with the hours set by the City for the 3/4-mile-long Coyote Creek Trail segment that passes through the golf course (they lock and unlock the gates at each end of the trail as part of golf-course operations). Signs indicating the trail’s open hours were removed recently and replaced with signs that show incorrect, slightly shorter trail hours. This happened once a few years back also and the City had them removed and replaced with correct signs.
Not surprising since there have been numerous reports over the years of the trail gates getting locked 15-60 minutes early, locking trail users in or out of the trail when it should still be open. People who complained received an apology, but that didn’t stop the situation from recurring.
San Jose By The Numbers!
(1) Restore Core Services ASAP.
(2) Establish a list of “Core Values”
(3)Close Reid Hillview Airport.
(4)Get out of the “Distribution Business.
(5)Get in touch with the 21st Century.
(6)Privatize all Golf Courses
(7)Increase Sunshine Reform Laws
(8)Listen to Public “Core Values”
(9)Define City Services
(10)Create a”Real Incredible City Experience”.
“Nothing Else Matters To The Citizens of This Good City”.Listen to the PUBLIC.
Let us think back a few years to the HP Arena (or whoever was paying for the naming rights that week or whoever is paying for the naming rights now).
A young girl was killed at a professional hockey game (not in San Jose) when the puck hit her in the head. All of a sudden all professional hockey rinks required nets from the rink to almost the ceiling. How many decades had hockey been played around the world and suddenly a spectator dies and nets are required.
Frankly, you get used to the nets in a hurry and they do not interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Why they were not required earlier, who knows.
Now, the City of San Jose, for once may be thinking ahead. Just think if one software engineer happens to be walking by and gets hit in the head with a golf ball traveling 120 miles per hour and gets killed. The payout would be in the millions. Maybe the City has learned something. Maybe with the small insurance payments that have been made in the past, they are taking that as an indication there could be a big one in the future. Maybe someone in City Hall is actually thinking.
The moral of the story is you should not have to wait until someone is killed to install the nets. I am not a big fan of how this City is run and I may be giving them way too much credit in this comment but to me they are doing the right thing. Perhaps a little late but clearly before something more serious happens.
It is also absolutely clear from the article and prior posts Pete Campbell is simply opposed to municipal golf courses as a whole. He is entitled to his opinion. But you know what Mr. Campbell, cities cater to all types of people who do different things with their leisure time. Kids in soccer leagues and swimming pools and parks. Adults and kids in libraries. Etc. And a fair number of people (men and women and children) golf and many, many municipalities across the United States own and provide golf courses for their citizens. Get over it. Just because it is an activity you are not interested in, does not mean a city should not provide it for other citizens who are. Many citizens do not use our libraries at all. Perhaps one or two of them should comment about the cost of maintaining XX number of libraries. Only one library is needed.
#22 (Michael Schwerin): I have to admit to agreeing with Pete Campbell on this one. The City of San Jose should have gotten out of the golf course business before spending $2.2 million on netting for the Los Lagos course.
There are lots of good reasons why municipalities, especially San Jose, should not be providing golf courses for its citizenry—at least not multiple such courses, as San Jose apparently does.
For one thing, the demographic attracted to golf can by-and-large (and I know there are exceptions) afford to indulge the attraction privately. A municipal golf course is, from my vantage point, a regressive, reverse subsidy to the rich, or at least the reasonably well-off.
For another thing, a golf course in an urban area appears to be an environmental disaster, devoting an absurd amount of scarce land to non-native, water-thirsty, lavishly manicured lawns.
Finally, San Jose, especially its eastside, is starved for additional recreational soccer fields for its youth. The land employed for golf courses could be better devoted to recreational soccer fields, and of course the money spent on golfball netting better used for building these soccer fields.
And it’s not just a matter of cultural and environmental insensitivity for San Jose to have built a golf course instead of recreational soccer fields on the eastside (and to have compounded the blunder by investing $2.2 million in golfball netting); it’s also a law-and-order issue, because some of the the kids out gang-banging might have been some of the kids enjoying those soccer fields.
Here’s a thought: maybe if the city spent its parks money a little more wisely, it would need to spend less on police officers and graffiti abatement.
#23 Mr. Gagliardi:
Never pass up a chance to promote soccer. It does not hurt to agree with Pete Campbell if it gives you the opportunity to stump for more soccer fields. That is what you are paid to do. Maybe if we spent less on police officers and graffiti abatement, we could afford more soccer fields. Maybe if we close all the libraries the money spent on books and librarians could be used to build more soccer fields. Close the swimming pools for the summer so we can build a few soccer fields. Let’s turn off all the street lights and signs for a week and the money saved on electricity could be used to build a soccer field.
I find it intriguing that you are talking about reverse subsidies when the city just did you and yours a major favor in changing zoning on a major amount of property in exchange for a soccer stadium. Who will be paying the price on that one in the future?
There are lots of good reasons why a city should provide a municipal golf course, or in this case multiple golf courses. Some of them were mentioned in my initial post. Just as there are lots of reasons to have soccer fields which I am sure you could point out.
San Francisco, with it’s smaller population than San Jose, has 6 municipal golf courses. San Jose has 3. Do the numbers matter? At the time they were built they were found to be needed.
You then question whether they are needed when times get tough or a major expense is contemplated. San Francisco went through heck getting the Harding Park course renovated but it hosted a significant tournament a few years ago and is holding a major international tournament in the near future. Now people in San Francisco take pride in their municipal golf courses.
Go to Santa Teresa golf course or San Jose Muni or even Los Lagos on a Saturday morning and sit there for an hour and watch the groups tee off. Tell me they are the upper class of San Jose. These are the working men and women of San Jose that want to play a round of golf at a reasonable price. Your position that golf is the playground of the rich is nonsense. In fact, that is just the reason there are municipal golf courses, so the sport is not just for the rich.
Face the facts. The parks and recreation money spent by the City has to be spread around to many sports and many activities. Any you can pull each and every single activity out of the budget and argue why it should be there and why it should not be there. You would prefer all of it be spent on soccer, that is clear. Do I think it should all be spent on golf? No, at least I know that it has to be spread around. And I would not be the one complaining when a major improvement or renovation needs to be done to the swimming pool or library or even the soccer field.
Mr Schwerin:
Please provide me a reference that supports your assertion that I am, “opposed to municipal golf courses as a whole.” And, you also suggest that I am not “interested” (in golf). How do you know whether or not I play golf regularly, on or off San Jose courses? Your false assumptions undermine whatever points you were attempting to make.
But I do appreciate you signing your name to your post.
Pete Campbell
Michael Schwerin (#24):
“Stump for more soccer fields. That’s what [I’m] paid to do”?
As it happens, I’m not only an advocate for recreational soccer fields, but also libraries and swimming pools and street lights—those things you suggest I believe should be done away to support more recreational soccer fields for our youth.
Not only am I NOT paid to advocate for neighborhood-serving amenities of all sorts from our city officials, I spend a good deal of my own money in the process.
Having recently served on a sports fields study group commissioned by the city council under the parks and recreation department, I can attest that San Jose has a serious deficiency in recreational soccer fields all across the city. On the other hand, I do not recall a need for more golf courses ever being mentioned once in the year-long discussion despite numerous meetings held in every city council district.
Sure, soccer fields are not the only thing needed. San Jose needs a roof for the—one and only—public roller hockey rink (in Roosevelt Park), for example. (Without the roof, the rink is unplayable when it rains, i.e. during much of the winter, or in the heat, i.e. during much of the summer.)Also, San Jose has zero criquet fields despite desire from them from our sizeable Indo-American community. But, except for you, Mr. Schwerin, there appears to be no one else clamoring for additional golf courses or improvements to those we have.
Finally, regarding your question who pays for the professional soccer stadium for the San Jose Earthquakes: As I’ve mentioned previously, and is reflected in the publicly-available city staff report, the deal proposed by Lew Wolff provides MILLIONS of dollars of NET POSITIVE benefit to the city, even after accounting for the re-zoning of an orchard in Edenvale.
Moreover, the effect of that benefit from the soccer stadium deal is ALREADY being enjoyed by the City, because the City has already sold the former FMC site for the eventual stadium to Wolff and his group and thereby saved itself several MILLION dollars per year in mortage debt service on that land. I may be mistaken, but I believe, after unloading the FMC albatross, that leaves the Los Lagos Golf Course as among, and perhaps THE, largest real estate mortgage obligations of the City, and one which continues to be a significant drain on its general fund.
So to recap: Soccer is good for the city’s bottom line, while golf is not.