Not a big fan of the new layout...

[psychodwarf]

Originally Posted by jshrack

Jeff took the city through the park of his own will... JEFF IS NOT OUR FACILITIES COORDINATOR and shouldn't be making any decisions in place of the club, we have a club to make decisions... oh wait, we did and were overturned (by Jeff and Eric.) Should I also mention that our, safety concerned, decision maker split somebody's head open at DRO last year... on one of the holes our club 'deems' safe and refuses to consider changing. (Not meant to be a jab, just a fact)

It was not worse 18 months ago... I almost got hit with FIVE (5) discs at DRO this year. I saw at least FIVE (5) more come within 10ft of taking people out, I heard a total of two FORE calls in those 10 shanks. This is now an issue in MANY places it wasn't an issue before... especially around putting greens and tees.

Problem Areas: (1's green, 6's tee, 7's tee, 9's green, 11's tee, 14's green, 15's fairway, 16's tee, 17's green, and 18's tee.)
I just listed TEN holes where you have to watch 360 degrees to make sure you don't catch one in the dome... this is NOT SAFE. We have added 3 of those.

Next, are the pro's the only ones complaining about the course? Well, I am not a pro... so that doesn't stick. Here are some reasons anyway:
Because it used to be a challenging environment, now the drunken groups of 8 and can easily hit you with their shanked drive from the next tee over.
Yes, it is more accessible to a recreational crowd, thus no complaints from recreational players.
I would argue that it's more dangerous and less enjoyable to a 'serious' player...

Lastly, why would we destroy a good course in hopes that Peoples Park gets approved?
Why don't we put in the effort to make a good challenging course where we already have the set-up and move on to Peoples when we actually get approval... Which I doubt will ever happen. So many people assume People's will happen, if they find one arrow head or historical campfire, its likely we will never be allowed to use the land.

justin:
i WILL not argue this with you online .. YOU have already made your self quite clear months ago . I ask you this HAVE you had to deal with the city parks dept ? they are kinda slow at doing things . and most of those hole you have listed HAVE some EROSION problems ..

[jshrack]

Originally Posted by psychodwarf

justin:
i WILL not argue this with you online .. YOU have already made your self quite clear months ago . I ask you this HAVE you had to deal with the city parks dept ? they are kinda slow at doing things . and most of those hole you have listed HAVE some EROSION problems ..

Yeah, I have had to deal with Taylor from the parks dept. I found him to be INCREDIBLY helpful and easy to work with. I also worked with Toni from the parks foundation, also helpful and easy to work with.

We have a ton of support from the parks dept but our Club seems to have a tough job getting timely information.
After putting together the Grant Proposal and dealing with SDGA and the Spokane Parks Dept... I have a tough time assuming the Parks Department is the problem.

Erosion problems can be dealt with in a multitude of ways, were other options discussed?

[Yoduh]

We just need to move 11's teepad back to the original spot. That would save skulls on hole 1.:headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g:

[Sky Pilot]

Meeting with City Parks Operation Manager – Taylor Bressler
Friday January 22nd 2010
2:00 p.m.
People’s Park

We had originally agreed to meet on Tuesday 2-19 but Taylor called to say that the meeting he was in was going long.
We rescheduled for the next day and I was there along with Kevin Sakus, Eric Brown & Joe Royer. Kevin brought 3 of the new sturdy yellow bucket stands he’d built to place out in the park. However Taylor called about 2:40p.m., saying that he’d had another conflict.
We rescheduled for Friday 2-22, however though all were invited from the previous day – I was the only one that made it.
At first Taylor didn’t want to walk into the Park too far, but as it turned out he became more interested in how the land was “coming back’ since it’s been blocked to automobile access for many years now. He would exclaim things like, “Wow! This is really different now!”
We walked all around the perimeter of the Park and I was able to cover all of the questions I had written down. We had a great time talking and commenting on the land, it’s current use by the various “nudies” and “cruisers” and how we could use it for the purpose of Disc Golf.


►Concerning any Disc Golf Course under the Park Department:

Note: The following principals apply to all our courses.

Questions:

►How close can we put Tee Pads to the banks?

Taylor is okay if throw away from the banks – but not so close that there is even the remotest chance of breaking down a ledge and on any hole we design, “there must be no opportunity to throw into the water.”
In addition, I told him that I wanted to stay off the trail on the north side (at People’s) so as to not interfere with those walking down it. He thought that this was a good idea.

►Can we put a Basket on the ‘knoll’ (at People’s) toward the end of the peninsula?

He said that we shouldn’t put anything on that knoll – we have to stay over south of the knoll so that we’re not in any way near the nude beach. There are about 5 large pines south of that area and Taylor and I agreed to use this as a boundary. I had wanted to be able to put a basket on this knoll or hill as it would have been the only place where we would be able to see the confluence of the two rivers at a closer vantage point.

►Is it alright to do some minor brush or branch clearing for fairways?

“No tree or bush cutting.” Taylor said that because of some fairway clearing in the past at Downriver there were so many complaints from the neighborhood that “we almost lost the whole deal!” In other words, he was almost forced to close the course. He said, “Don’t F$#% with the land!” Don’t cut trees because the neighborhood just goes nuts!” No bush or tree cutting – you can whip down grasses but do not pull them up.” The group needs to know that they need to respect the whole deal.”

►Will the City Park Department help us with fundraising?

"No.” Taylor said.
However toward the end of our walk he did seem open to perhaps pointing out some people that I might be able to approach for sponsorship.

►Would it be alright to set out our bucket stands out at Camp Sekani sometime?

He doesn’t want anything at Sekani at this time. We need to keep our focus on People’s Park.

►Do the same rules apply at Downriver?

“Yes.” Note: The same rules apply at any course under the Park Department – including Highbridge.

►Other comments Taylor made…

•“I will have some gravel brought down to downriver (for the parking lot) and you guys can have a work party and spread it around.”
•“The parks will not provide any maintenance.”
•“I don’t care if they smoke but they gotta watch their butts!”
•“You can put a picnic table down here (People’s) for tournaments, but pack it in and pack it out.”

We need to keep in mind that this is not 'our' land. We are authorized to use it for Disc Golf within the City's parameters.
It's pretty obvious that we don't have a 'perfect' course at Downriver. It is on the other hand a beautiful scenic place and a tremendous opportunity for us to develop a better course.
It's literally painful to hear so many negative things being said about myself or the board or anyone for that matter. I appreciate those that work hard to improve the courses - as I'm sure others do. You know who you are if your active in the process of improvement. Kudos to all that endure and persevere through difficulties.

Sky Pilot
SDGA President

[Wobbly Bob]

Originally Posted by Yoduh

We just need to move 11's teepad back to the original spot. That would save skulls on hole 1.:headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g::headban g:

While at Downriver last Saturday helping the GPS crew, I conducted a small survey concerning hole #11's tee box. I asked at least 30 people which tee position they preferred and all but 2 said that they liked the original position better. Safety concerns and player opinion seem to favor moving the tee box back to it's original position. We will however have the possibility of people on hole #16 driving on to #11 tee as we did in the old days.

[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.

[jshrack]

Originally Posted by Wobbly Bob

While at Downriver last Saturday helping the GPS crew, I conducted a small survey concerning hole #11's tee box. I asked at least 30 people which tee position they preferred and all but 2 said that they liked the original position better. Safety concerns and player opinion seem to favor moving the tee box back to it's original position. We will however have the possibility of people on hole #16 driving on to #11 tee as we did in the old days.

I don't know where that tee used to be located.
Could we plant some trees or set up a protective barrier (net or something) to block the original 11 tee from hole 16?
We do have options... right?

[Sky Pilot]

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

[Yoduh]

Originally Posted by Wobbly Bob

While at Downriver last Saturday helping the GPS crew, I conducted a small survey concerning hole #11's tee box. I asked at least 30 people which tee position they preferred and all but 2 said that they liked the original position better. Safety concerns and player opinion seem to favor moving the tee box back to it's original position. We will however have the possibility of people on hole #16 driving on to #11 tee as we did in the old days.

Who cares.. you can see it coming at you instead of being blind sided. only 30-40% of players can hit people from 16 to 11. Where as 95% of golfers can hit people in the back of their head on 1. Ask more people I f you need to.

[Yoduh]

Originally Posted by jshrack

I don't know where that tee used to be located.
Could we plant some trees or set up a protective barrier (net or something) to block the original 11 tee from hole 16?
We do have options... right?

good idea. We have needed to plant some trees down there for quite some time.

[Yoduh]

Public relations officer does not mean that they are the only officer allowed to speak with the public or in this case the mayor. I read your report Jeff, while I am glad to hear that Taylor was interested in being more helpful, it seems that there is no real news. I think tying us up with People's park is good way to keep us out of Sekani so he doesn't have to deal with either. I am of course patient because I know how first hand how slow the political machine works.. but there isn't really any news..

[Wobbly Bob]

Originally Posted by Yoduh

I think tying us up with People's park is good way to keep us out of Sekani so he doesn't have to deal with either. I am of course patient because I know first hand how slow the political machine works.

Ain't that the truth!!

[psychodwarf]

Originally Posted by Yoduh

good idea. We have needed to plant some trees down there for quite some time.

first you need the go ahead from the city then you need to find a tree that will last WITHOUT being cut down by club members .. planting trees on hole 11 is a good idea BUT unless you plan on being there 24/7 till the tree takes roots and grow right .. some people go down there JUST to trash the place .. but planting trees to help hole #11 needs at least 5 years for the trees to adjust and live and be strong enough to take the damage of disc`s being thrown at it ..

[psychodwarf]

Originally Posted by jshrack

I don't know where that tee used to be located.
Could we plant some trees or set up a protective barrier (net or something) to block the original 11 tee from hole 16?
We do have options... right?

and yet you keep bad mouthing the club BUT you dont even know where the old tee pads have been .. justin ,are planning to come up with the money for the trees or net you want ? are you planning to come down and put all that up just to watch the "recreational golfers " be in your way ? speaking of rec golfers ..Didnt you start OUT as a rec golfer ?

[Yoduh]

Originally Posted by psychodwarf

and yet you keep bad mouthing the club BUT you dont even know where the old tee pads have been .. justin ,are planning to come up with the money for the trees or net you want ? are you planning to come down and put all that up just to watch the "recreational golfers " be in your way ? speaking of rec golfers ..Didnt you start OUT as a rec golfer ?

The club could esily afford to plant trees, bushes or put up nets.. I have never heard of anyone getting hurt on the old teepad. Its EASY to see a disc coming in. JEFF. I am not asking the city to plant trees. The city would not have a problem with planting trees. What they don't like is trees being cut down.. Asking the city to plant a native tree in an undeveloped park is akin to checking to see if you get desert after you did all your chores and ate your vegetables If we planted a group of them they would have a very good chance of surviving. Being that close to the road I would bring a 5 gallon bucket of water for them whenever I went to go play a round. I would also suggest pushing sticks in the ground with ropes running around the trees so people don't traipse through them. unless they have to get their disc.. Could build another beautiful rock lake. I know somebody who has accomplished such a task Hey, Joe. Take it easy on the newbies. I've heard Shrack say good things about the club. He has also volunteered alot of effort on the clubs behalf. If you participate fully you are allowed to gripe. My parents always told me that if you don't vote than you can't gripe.. Well Shrack not only voted, he ran for office, he also headed a major grant application for the club. Your efforts are dually noted. Many thanks for you efforts to help our courses remain beautiful. Everybody's best efforts are valuable and important, just as their opinions and ideas.
Shrack, the teepad is to the left of the existing one on the road, back a little bit.. if you look at the ground you'll see a faded wobbly Bob faded teepad.

[psychodwarf]

Originally Posted by Yoduh
Shrack, the teepad is to the left of the existing one on the road, back a little bit.. if you look at the ground you'll see a faded wobbly Bob faded teepad.

now its back by the parking lot ON the paved road as for the faded Wobbly bob teepad that will be resprayed and have the AM AND REC painted in the middle so those that feel like throwing an extra 30 feet can and if you dont feel like it move up to the other tee pad .. problem fixed .. OH WAIT. someone wont like it .. srry ..

[Yoduh]

Originally Posted by psychodwarf

now its back by the parking lot ON the paved road as for the faded Wobbly bob teepad that will be resprayed and have the AM AND REC painted in the middle so those that feel like throwing an extra 30 feet can and if you dont feel like it move up to the other tee pad .. problem fixed .. OH WAIT. someone wont like it .. srry ..

I love the new pad I just pray that people that can't throw 220 feet on average throw from the shorter pad for safety's sake.

[Yoduh]

Thanks again for all the work down there today Joe

[Burge]

Originally Posted by psychodwarf

now its back by the parking lot ON the paved road as for the faded Wobbly bob teepad that will be resprayed and have the AM AND REC painted in the middle so those that feel like throwing an extra 30 feet can and if you dont feel like it move up to the other tee pad .. problem fixed .. OH WAIT. someone wont like it .. srry ..

here's an idea--i'm sure it would cause all kinds of problems ...

if the teepad is on the road, it's an unsafe place to be.. from drives on #16;
if the teepad remains where it is now, it makes putting on #1 an unsafe place to be;
so...
how about changing the new tee for #1 into the tee for #11 ; changing the new tee for #17 into the tee for #1; and making the old unused tee for #1 into the new tee for #17...?

this would be a solution that would not have to 'grow', or be as obtrusive and expensive as nets, eliminates the issue of the #11 tee location altogether, creates three new challenging lines of approach (especially #11 and #17), could offer the possibility of a "b" pin location for #16, ...and could result in a whole new tangent of contention

...but seriously, it could be a solution to a lot of issues....no?

[jshrack]

Originally Posted by Burge

here's an idea--i'm sure it would cause all kinds of problems ...

if the teepad is on the road, it's an unsafe place to be.. from drives on #16;
if the teepad remains where it is now, it makes putting on #1 an unsafe place to be;
so...
how about changing the new tee for #1 into the tee for #11 ; changing the new tee for #17 into the tee for #1; and making the old unused tee for #1 into the new tee for #17...?

this would be a solution that would not have to 'grow', or be as obtrusive and expensive as nets, eliminates the issue of the #11 tee location altogether, creates three new challenging lines of approach (especially #11 and #17), could offer the possibility of a "b" pin location for #16, ...and could result in a whole new tangent of contention

...but seriously, it could be a solution to a lot of issues....no?

I am having trouble picturing all of it... but from what my mind CAN wrap itself around, that sounds very interesting and possibly quite cool!