Comments by Stan Kaufman

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed the Sharp Park legislation ***unanimously*** this afternoon. Change is coming to Sharp Park.

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

If Ken King and other San Mateo golfers are eager to pay increased green fees to cover the true costs of the Sharp Park golf course, let's estimate what those would be. For the coming year: - $300K supplement from the SF General Fund - $280K emergency repairs to sea wall/pump - $450K EIR costs for Laguna Salada impacts - $18K property taxes to San Mateo county - $1.6M for irrigation project (the $8M socked to SFPUC ratepayers, amortized over 5 years) Total: $2,648,000 -- ***all of this currently…

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

Ken King should not doubt the sincerity of San Francisco taxpayers' determination to stop buying cheap golf for freeloaders in San Mateo county. If he and his pals want the golf course to remain as it is, he should be organizing in Pacifica to buy and run the place instead of demanding that San Francisco continue to throw good money after bad. He conspicuously reveals no inclination to do anything of the kind. It's easy to imagine the howls of outrage that would echo through San Mateo county if San…

Letter: Contrary to claims, Sharp Park is economically viable

It's no surprise that Ken King mistakenly concludes that Sharp Park delivers a profit. The financial data provided by the San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department is confusing, confused, and substantially unreleased. Indeed, the most recent assessment of the golf program -- produced by SF controller Ben Rosenfield on 17 December 2008 (not 2009 as asserted by King) in response to a request from Supervisor Sean Elsbernd -- is a case in point. This report includes as "revenue" the major subsidies…