Some of the latest drama here in Los Alamos is a proposed golf course improvement/expansion project which involves cutting down a significant amount of forest in North Community (both north and south of Diamond Drive, depending on the option). As you might guess, I don’t think this is a good idea. I’m in favor of golf course improvement (they really need it), but not at the expense of our internal community forests, especially after two major fires.
On December 8, there was a big public meeting at Fuller Lodge; about 150 people showed up. There was a lot of passion, but a very respectful and community-minded tone for the most part (with the exception of a group of golfers sitting behind us). The Monitor had a moderately good
writeup and a few letters to the editor (
1 2 3) (all behind a paywall, unfortunately). The county also has a fair amount of
background information, with the usual level of bureaucratic disorganization. There are other blog posts appearing (
1 2 3), and the Los Alamos Trails
Facebook group is pretty stirred up.
If you want to weigh in, the county is listening. Please write to the Capital Projects and Improvements Department at
cpfd@lacnm.us or to the Parks & Recreation Board at
prb@lacnm.us. It’s unclear to me which is preferable, so I wrote to both.
Please also don’t hesitate to get in touch with me if you want to talk more about this or swap ideas and strategy.
My letter to the county is below.
Dear Mr. Walker, Mr.
Aragon, and members of the Parks & Recreation Board and
Capital Projects and Facilities Department:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Golf Course
Improvement Study. I attended (and spoke at) the public meeting on
December 8 and found it extremely valuable, particularly in
understanding the perspective of the golf course community. I was
persuaded that the golf course indeed needs work, and that a
quality golf course is in the best interests of both forest users
and golfers. However, I still have significant concerns about the
project, which I detail below.
For context, I grew up on Woodland Road and recently returned to
town to pursue my career. I now live in Western Area. When I was
little, I spend a great deal of time in the woods within and close
to town, particularly between Woodland Road and the golf course.
Much of this time was unsupervised, something uniquely possible in
Los Alamos, with its well-bounded interior forests. As a returning
adult, I am spending time in the county forests at least once a
week; when it’s lighter in the evenings, I expect to spend more. I
am expecting my first child in May and hope to be able to provide
him or her with the same extraordinary and unique outdoor
experiences I was lucky enough to have when I was young.
I have never played a round of golf and expect never to do so.
This does not mean I am anti-golf; rather, I am simply indifferent
to it. However, I do believe strongly in community and realize
that a viable community has diverse interests. Thus, it is
important to me as a community member to support the interests of
local golfers, to the extent that they do not threaten my own, and
in this specific case, it is important to me to reach some kind of
agreement which satisfies both golfers and forest users. I am
happy to put in significant work towards this goal (e.g., by
serving on a working group).
My concerns about the project fall into three basic categories: the removal of trees, the
expectation that an improved course can really be a regional draw,
and the validity of the safety concerns expressed by the golf
course.
Removal of trees
First, I believe the framing of the impacts is incorrect. The
central issue is not trails, but rather their context: the forest.
Neither matching nor increasing the trail mileage is sufficient;
it is the impact on forest that should be considered. Trails are
simply a means to access the forest.
Most importantly, I stand by my opinion that the goal of the
project should be zero trees removed. This is not an extreme
position. Our forest is particularly precious after two major
wildfires in the past decade, once of which had severe effects
within North Community itself. Should we not think long and hard
before reducing what little we have left? The forest and its trees
are a core asset for the people and wildlife that use them, and it
is perfectly reasonable for us to ask that they be left alone.
I worry too about the erosive precedent we would set by removing
trees: a few trees here, a few trees there, and pretty soon we’ll
have nothing left. Many mountain communities have followed this
unfortunate path. Let’s not become one of them.
Allow me to make an analogy. Suppose that instead of trees, the
golf course were surrounded by boulders and cliffs – features
prohibitively expensive to remove. Would the golf course simply
throw up its hands and give up on improvements? Of course not. The
course’s planners would get creative and produce a great solution
within the constraints. My point is this: the cost of removing
trees
is in fact prohibitively expensive. It is just that
the expense cannot be measured in dollars. And thus, I ask the
community to work towards creative solutions which respect the
magnitude of this expense.
Similarly, project
planners must not hide this expense. When presenting options,
planners must quote clearly (a) acres of forest to be removed and
(b) number of mature ponderosas to be removed. If the golf course
is going to ask forest users to give up part of the forest, it has
a duty to be explicit about the impact.
I also note that the golf
course invoked the notion of sustainability several times. I found
this frustrating – does not sustainability include preserving our
rapidly disappearing natural heritage? It is impossible to plant
mature ponderosas; a “sustainable” new course does not make up for
lost trees.
I believe strongly that the golf course has not made its case for
removal of trees. The way to make this case is to show first that
zero-tree options have been creatively and exhaustively explored,
and then make a persuasive case that such options really are
unworkable. Currently, it is clear that improvement within
existing boundaries (currently Option C) was not explored anywhere
near as thoroughly as the expansion options. The golf course must
do so in order to credibly ask for tree removal.
Can an improved course really be a regional draw?
I sympathize with the golf course’s desire to become a regionally
known course that draws golfers from beyond our community.
However, I’m not yet convinced this is a realistic goal. In
particular, I note that anyone coming up to Los Alamos to play
golf must drive
past courses in the valley which golfers
in the meeting acknowledged as excellent. Thus, if the course were
to become a regional draw, it would need to not only match
neighboring courses in quality but exceed them sufficiently to
justify another half hour of driving. As I mentioned, I’m not a
golfer, but that seems like a tall order to me.
In particular, I am concerned that factors beyond course condition
have a significant effect on the course’s ability to become a
regional draw.
I believe the golf course has a responsibility to quantify the
degree to which course condition has hurt the course as well as
the degree to which improving it would help. What data support the theory
that improving the course will lead to increased interest (and
accompanying player numbers)? How much of the cited play decline, and the expected
play increase, are due to course condition as opposed to other
factors, including construction and improvement of nearby courses,
change in popularity of golf in general, and the economic
downturn? How
much does the additional driving beyond competing courses matter
to players?
In other words, why should the golf course attempt to become a
regional draw rather than an excellent community course? My point
here is that the golf course must be improved under realistic
assumptions and toward realistic goals. The golf course must make
a credible case, backed by data, that becoming a regional draw is
in fact plausible and likely under the proposed changes, before
asking the community to endorse steps towards that goal.
Safety concerns expressed by the golf course
While I certainly agree that safety is an important consideration
in most things, I do not believe the golf course has adequately
made its case that meaningful safety problems exist and that the
proposed improvements would mitigate them. At the meeting,
evidence supporting the existence of a safety problem was limited
to course standards and anecdotes (and especially in this town,
the plural of anecdote is not data). No evidence at all was
presented supporting the implicit claim that the course is
meaningfully worse off than similar courses. (While the golf
course showed that it did not meet current design standards, that
is not the same thing.)
The golf course must present
data showing (a) that a
safety problem exists, and the specific nature of that problem,
(b) that these problems are significantly worse than similar
courses, and (c) that the proposed improvements sufficiently
mitigate the problem. Additionally, the similar courses must be
selected appropriately; new courses constructed to the most modern
standards would not qualify. In these analyses, the golf course
must be clear about who in particular is benefitting from improved
safety, and to what degree. Golfers? Motorists on Diamond Drive?
Hikers in the forest? In particular, simple signage could go along
way towards improving hiker safety (if indeed there is a problem).
At this point, I worry that the golf course is simply “playing the
safety card” in order to get what it wants. Being more specific
and quantitative about the issue will allay this concern.
Moving forward
I do believe, based on the respectful and community-minded tone of
the meeting as well as my own goals, that an agreement can be
reached which would satisfy both sides. I also agree with Mr.
Walker that a proposal that does not enjoy broad support would
probably be unsuccessful (certainly, I would vigorously oppose a
proposal which I believed did not adequately take into account the
interests of forest users).
I also believe that keeping this constructive tone is important.
While in general I do not see any problems emerging in this area,
one that concerns me is vocabulary. The county is calling the plan
an “improvement”, but several of the options include increasing
the size of the golf course, which clearly meets the definition of
“expansion”. (In particular, I was frustrated and worried when Mr.
Stupka stood up at the end of the meeting and asserted repeatedly
that the golf course was not seeking to expand. Denying the
meaning of common words is an important ingredient in the collapse
of good will and common purpose. I hope that the golf community
will not continue down this path.) I suggest renaming the project
to “Golf Course Improvement and/or Expansion Project”, in order to
reflect the fact that some of the options involve expansion.
Along those lines, I’m interested in serving on a working group to
hash out an agreement. It seems to me that having stakeholders sit
down, get to know one another, and work out disagreements at
length is a fruitful strategy that would lead to a solid agreement
supported by both sides. (It is not clear to me that the current
process really involves the two sides working together.) I’m sure
it’s obvious that that I am firmly on the side of the forest,
which I believe makes me an excellent candidate for a working
group – if I’m satisfied, then there is a good chance that most
forest people will be satisfied.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I would love
an opportunity to participate more deeply in this process. Please
do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
[my full name, address, phone number]
