SDMGA comments to Coastal Commission staff regarding the City's promotion of its fee based Advanced Reservation System ready made for its more affluent residents
The City of San Diego ran an advertisement to promote its “advanced reservation” system to ”residents” “for $25 per player” to “guarantee yourself a reservation” at Torrey Pines (See San Diego Union-Tribune, Tuesday, December 12, Section D, p.D5.) SDMGA's concerns and analysis relating to this system were sent to the Coastal Commission Staff Member Ms. Lirley on December 13, 2006 in an email letter. The full text of the letter is given below.
_______________________________________________________________________
From: Paul Spiegelman [mailto:pjs@san.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:13 AM
To: 'elirley@coastal.ca.gov'
Cc: 'J&R Beaver'; 'Ellsworth Burwell'
Subject: RE: SDMGA Supplemental Statement on Torrey Pines.
Dear Ms. Lirley,
I noticed that the City of San Diego ran an advertisement to promote its “advanced reservation” system to ”residents” “for $25 per player” to “guarantee yourself a reservation” at Torrey Pines (See San Diego Union-Tribune, Tuesday, December 12, Section D, p.D5.) (I will mail a copy of the advertisement to you by conventional mail.)
One significance of this advertisement is that it belies the claim that the City is paying for the projects under appeal out of fees charged to non-residents. The ad shows that the City is seeking to charge local residents more to raise funds for the projects and is not simply charging them “for the cost of a round of golf.” (See Supplemental Statement, pp. 12-14). The “guarantee” noted in the ad shows that for $25 per person, one resident can gain an advantage over other residents who depend on a telephone lottery to obtain reservations on the golf course. As mentioned in the Supplemental Statement, this $25 per person per round charge amounts to $6,250 per person over five years (250 rounds @$25) for the once-a-week golfer, a charge so substantial that it makes relative affluence a criterion for access. (See Supplemental Statement, p.4) Such a criterion is wholly inconsistent with a public park and in direct conflict with the Coastal Act’s goal of maintaining low cost access to coastal recreational facilities.
To make matters worse, the “advanced reservation system” allocates 12% of rounds to this preference based on wealth which when added to the 30% of the rounds which are reserved to non-residents through the non-resident advance reservation system and preferences to the Lodge and Hilton guests could prevent locals unable to pay this fee from obtaining a tee time that allows them to finish an 18-hole round of golf. (By thus allocating 42% of the total rounds to preferential tee times, it allows individuals paying more to take the desired tee times leaving less affluent local golfers little chance to finish a round of golf). This is why SDMGA has advocated that the Coastal Commission either disapprove the projects which are the impetus for this commercialism in a public park or at least condition any permits on the elimination or restriction of the advance reservation system for local golfers. (See Supplemental Statement, p.9, proposed condition (a)(iv).
I hope this information will be helpful to you.
Paul J. Spiegelman
Individually and as attorney for John Beaver, Ellsworth Burwell, Paul Spiegelman, and SDMGA