NOTE: Greg Kendall has an excellent post here, including a very good aerial photo of option B, the potentially troubling one. I cockroached Greg's photo. Go to Greg's web site (link above) for a detailed description of the various options.
Clanging the bell of safety (see below) does not necessarily mean something will pass, as anyone watching T Board issues will attest. The golf course architect needs to be challenged on his own safety assertions, and have those real numbers (assuming there are numbers) balanced against the loss of open space.
As numerous citizens have pointed out on Trinity Drive, we are not carrying people off the road on gurneys every day. I don't think we are carrying people off the golf course and its surroundings on gurneys, either. Yes, I was once hit squarely in the windshield by a golf ball. That doesn't mean we should bulldoze the trails.
Safety is a relative term and is often, these days, used to justify the most outrageous of offenses to liberty and decency. Challenging the process is a good thing. I'm not saying safety is not important. What I am saying is that like any other decision, safety is part of the decision making process and like any other process, safety has to be in balance with other interests.
The concerns for the driving range being short and golf balls bouncing down Diamond Drive (and occasionally into windshields or face shields) are real. But these have to be balanced with the negative quality of life issues that would be imposed by eliminating the trails. I suspect there is plenty of room to dance together on this and end up with a better golf course and still have decent trails, even if some are moved. Some of us actually went towards the edge of the canyon during the Tuesday meeting and were impressed with the possibilities for trails closer to the edge.
As Rod McCrady said on the Tuff Riders listserv, we need to have a win-win on this one if for no other reason than some day we will need a win-win on something we want. I think that is quite possible. To be honest, I think it is better to have a golf course there than urban development; the golf course provides a green space buffer around the trails and having a great course definitely adds to the quality of life of living in Bomb Town. Lets just make sure we keep some room for the trails.
From: DEBBI MAEZ
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 12:12 PM
To: gerry merkey
Subject: RE: [Tuffriders] Woodland Trail & Golf Course Project
I just learned (from a reliable source) that the architect and project people are going to play the ‘safety card’ bigtime at next Thursdays’ meeting at 5:30....(which got moved to Fuller Lodge). So…basically I was told that we need to try and come up with options for a win win on this golf course thing. We do need numbers bigtime at the meeting, but we need to do more than just show up and whine that they cannot take the trail away from us, that we’ve already lost too much, yadi yadi. We need to come up with safety issues of our own. A huge one for me is that if they push us into the canyon trail, now I cannot see if golfers hit a stray ball, nor can golfers warn people because they cannot see them. Another issue could be with animals….getting rid of that greenspace will force all people and animals alike into that narrow canyon, increasing the potential for unpleasant encounters..both for people and animals. A third is that pushing the golf course to the edge or to the edge along woodland disrupts all the dogs on Walnut and woodland, not to mention even more disruption from all the traffic in the bottom of the canyon on walnut, affecting all of walnut street. Think of other things, and put the word out. I have a call into Craig Martin, but we need to be prepared to do more than just complain. I was also told it was of utmost importance to really pack that meeting. Please feel free to distribute......