Quote:
Originally Posted by jshrack
Reading Jeff's report, I wonder why we are still able to use holes 8 or 9? Seems like one of the worst erosion issues we have is near those two pins, yet these aren't even under consideration for changing... 
Also, it seems that Jeff got his questions answered but didn't really consider any of the rest of the club in his inquiry (which seemed oddly focused on People's Park.)
Once again, I don't think we should have a recreational golfer designing our courses, especially when the club voted someone else into the position. Sadly, the last two people the club has voted into this position quit participating with the club due to similar situations...
I also repeat myself when I argue that communication between the club and the Parks Dept. should be handled by our Public Relations representative, who was also chosen by the club to represent them in specifically this way.
The continued mis-communications/lack of communication should be reason enough to review the process.
I asked earlier but was not answered:
Were any other options even considered for erosion control management?
Or did we just decide our only, most drastic option, was to re-design the course to circumvent erosion control issues. |
Concerning Justin’s post:
Reading Jeff's report, I wonder why we are still able to use holes 8 or 9? Seems like one of the worst erosion issues we have is near those two pins, yet these aren't even under consideration for changing...
#8 & #9 are stalled because people like them. Yet they have been in ‘consideration’ for quite some time.
Also, it seems that Jeff got his questions answered but didn't really consider any of the rest of the club in his inquiry (which seemed oddly focused on People's Park.)
Please take a look at the date of this conversation with Taylor Bressler – this was over a year ago when questions about our development of People’s Park were just being formulated.
In addition, I was precisely there representing the club as President. I was there to help to ‘open up’ People’s Park as a future Disc Golf Course. Did you miss the part where others were invited but didn’t show up? I was there to work and develop a relationship with the City Parks Department as encouraged by the club and the Board of directors. This has been and continues to be a good relationship. Please go back and read my 1st report online at our website. One of the reasons I got involved with the club was to answer the seemingly un-anserable questions about expansion of High Bridge, the “A” street question and where the money went that the City spent from a grant from the Latah Creek Community and other issues. This positive relationship is a part of how People’s Park was presented to the club and subsequently Camp Sekani.
Once again, I don't think we should have a recreational golfer designing our courses, especially when the club voted someone else into the position. Sadly, the last two people the club has voted into this position quit participating with the club due to similar situations...
The current changes were agreed to (except Hole #2) by the Board on site and later ratified by the Club. Hole #2’s Tee Pad placement wasn’t placed where I expected (from our Board meeting) that it would be placed, but some leeway is implied in the decisions… The current changes (as the post states) were in response to the City’s regulations about erosion etc. As far as I know – there is currently no one person that is designated as the ‘course designer’
I also repeat myself when I argue that communication between the club and the Parks Dept. should be handled by our Public Relations representative, who was also chosen by the club to represent them in specifically this way.
P.R. is always an aspect of any President’s role.
The continued mis-communications/lack of communication should be reason enough to review the process.
I am in regular communication with the City Parks Operation Manager and the Board. There have also been several Board/Club Meetings recently. I’m also in regular communication with disgruntled Club Members.
I asked earlier but was not answered:
Were any other options even considered for erosion control management? Or did we just decide our only, most drastic option, was to re-design the course to circumvent erosion control issues.
Re-design was the City’s specific solution to erosion. Lesser steps were not suggested.
If we do decide to undertake an erosion control project, this would not supplant the directions of those who are over us in the hierarchy.
FYI - Erosion control is a specific part of the job description of the Facilities Coordinator
Sky Pilot
President SDGA
