Parks Board Member suggests we build whole new clubhouse after golf cart shed burns down

And they wonder why we wanted these meetings recorded?

During last Wednesday’s Parks board meeting there was a discussion about a temporary golf cart shed for 2019. One of the parks board members suggested OR asked if it would just make more sense to build a new clubhouse when rebuilding the shed (I’m not sure who said this, because they have yet to video record the meetings so we could tell who is talking). In Director Kearney’s defense he basically said that it needs to be looked at in the CIP budgeting process this year. Makes you wonder if something was promised to the new golf management contractor and a few people on the board seem to know what that is.

So if my unattached garage burned down by accident, do you think my homeowners insurance would give me enough money to rebuild my house? Hell no. If the insurance company pays for rebuilding a simple shed, then we rebuild the shed. We don’t go into full building mode. There is nothing wrong with the Elmwood clubhouse, this isn’t MCC, and we really are not competing with them. I have felt for a long time we should either sell the golf courses or just charge a flat lease. The city doesn’t need to be in the golf business anymore, especially with so many regional courses. I felt the same way about the indoor pool.

Speaking of the indoor pool, I find it interesting that while this is a government holiday, the Midco is open, but the libraries are NOT. With school in session today, where are a lot of the kids supposed to go for after school programming while waiting for parents to get off work? Maybe they can come and swim for free at the Midco?


#1 matt johnson on 01.21.19 at 2:23 pm

It is my recollection (and maybe I am wrong) that several weeks ago this blog was critical of the city for providing funding for after school programs at the schools- but now I am to understand that you are concerned that the city is not providing after school programming at the library; what is the difference in the use of funds?

#2 l3wis on 01.21.19 at 2:38 pm

I was critical of the funding, not the programming. I think the programming is needed, I just think the SFSD should pay for it, not the city. And since this programming takes place in our libraries, they need to be open days the school is open.

#3 D@ily Spin on 01.21.19 at 4:50 pm

This sounds more like let’s repair the outdoor pool then building an Olympic indoor pool. Or how about let’s expand the convention center then building a giant coliseum next to it. Probably the only difference is the parks people burn it down for justification.

With pyromaniacs at Parks and pedofiles at Fire, there’s a criminal problem with city personnel.

#4 l3wis on 01.21.19 at 7:28 pm

It’s the Pyro-Pedi’s I worry about.

#5 matt johnson on 01.22.19 at 7:29 am

so the sfsd should pay for after school program at the public library ???

#6 l3wis on 01.22.19 at 8:25 am

Sure. Or the United Way, or some other non-profit.

#7 D@ily Spin on 01.22.19 at 8:52 am

Parks has its own logo and offices way away from city hall. Next step would be privatization. Maybe not, they’d have to have a business plan and become profitable.

#8 matt johnson on 01.23.19 at 3:43 pm

and we want the school district dictating the hours of operation of the library system- and to my knowledge the city is a non-profit organization

Leave a Comment