Golf play stops at Sunset time – so must restaurant operations.
The Herald published an unsigned, misinformed and misleading editorial advocating for expansion of the Golf Club restaurant to the non-golf customers – after sunset hours. I wrote a response online, but their systems screwed up the formatting so it was barely readable. Here is what I wrote in a readable fashion (with minor improvements).
“the clubhouse [that residents] opposed for so long” = misleading.
The Herald editorial makes it sound like the Clubhouse is a new concept and that it was always opposed.
Both wrong.
The earlier Club house existed there for many decades with no opposition.
Neighbors only opposed the recent expansion because it was a financial mess and just as they suspected – the Camel’s nose under the tent that would dramatically harm neighborhood quality of life :
Extremely expensive and No Business Plan (which was shown to be folly with the last concessionaire, not to mention the preposterous wall blocking views of the ocean).
Now they want to expand uses to non-golf commerce.
Even your own article on this disclosed the Pacific Grove’s City attorney has advised the Council they must comply with law that requires a delay while the potential harms of the project are “objectively” analyzed, but the City Manager and several Council people don’t care – and demand to go full speed ahead.
On top of that the expansion of use beyond that related to golf — is solidly prohibited by City law.
“A functional clubhouse” (what the Herald advocated for) is already allowed by law.
Expanding the Clubhouse to non-golf uses is not.
Camel’s Nose: The Herald argues the restaurant can’t succeed when the “concessionaire is not allowed to provide dinner service.”
Whoa. The concessionaire knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed the contract earlier this year. The “Bait and Switch” was not on the concessionaire – it was to hoodwink neighbors.
Then the editorial defends its “lets break the law” conclusion with faulty logic — wordy accusations of “Not in my Backyard” and “Vocal minority.”
As the neighbors have said – if you want to allow that use – first try to change the law. The problem for Restaurant advocates is that changing the law would require allowing businesses in other Open spaces like our Parks and along the ocean.
Restaurant advocates know that’s not likely to get voter approval.
No, the Council should not approve turning the Clubhouse into a restaurant this week – because it is flatly illegal – in two different ways.
That’s explained in the article “Pacific Grove Intends to Violate Law “But only Temporarily” at http://daviddilworth.com/pol/?p=2841
More, . . . always more.
No matter how much economic activity is going on – for some its never enough.
That’s called greed.
References:
Herald Editorial: Give Pacific Grove clubhouse a chance to survive
