The Presidio Golf Course Is SF’s Most Egregious Waste Of Public Land

The Bay's best newsletter for underground events & news

I recently went on a jog in Presidio Heights, because — for all of their horribleness — the richies who live on Billionaire’s Row have some really sweet Halloween decorations. And as I jogged in to the Presidio National Park, something not-very-National-Park happened. I was told I have to leave immediately, because I was on a certain 150 acres of this national park that are not open to the general public.

That 150 acres is the Presidio Golf Course, which could be shelter for every single one of San Francisco’s more than 8,000 unhoused residents, but instead operates as a very non-public park priced at $65-$85 a day for SF residents, $90-$100 a day for non-residents. Even on its busiest possible day, the 150 acres of the Presidio Golf Course are used by fewer than 1,000 people, all of them paying in the neighborhood of $100 to do so.

This might be acceptable if the public were also allowed to stroll the course’s sidewalks, or access the 150 acres of National Park land in any way. But we are not! This is unusual for a national park.

Because of COVID-19 accommodations, this area was briefly open to the public for a couple months in 2020. But that shit came to a complete halt in May 2020, when it went back to being paid golfers only.

There is no logical reason for golf courses to exist in modern-day San Francisco, particularly when the city is facing a housing crisis. If we can outlaw cemeteries within city limits, we can outlaw golf courses, and solve our homelessness crisis in one fell swoop. The fact that we have a paid-only golf course on National Park lands is particularly offensive to any San Franciscan with a conscience.

Though we understand that haughty suburban dipshit C.W. Nevius would disagree.

Like this article? Make sure to sign up for our mailing list so you never miss a goddamn thing!
Previous post

Should The Castro Pride Flag Be Updated? People Have OPINIONS

Next post

A Creepy, Poetic, Halloween Fundraiser? Yes Please!

Joe Kukura- Millionaire in Training

Joe Kukura- Millionaire in Training

Joe Kukura is a two-bit marketing writer who excels at the homoerotic double-entendre. He is training to run a full marathon completely drunk and high, and his work has appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on days when their editors made particularly curious decisions.


  1. Jim
    October 28, 2021 at 12:13 pm

    Yes…But…As long as regressive politicians like Dean Preston are in office NO housing will be built anywhere. They claim to want to help people and control housing costs but when it comes down to it he blocks any and all housing he can. See this week where Dean et al blocked a very reasonable and desirable 500 unit building that meets all affordability and environmental goals – but killed it. Why? Because Dean wrongly believes ALL housing causes gentrification. WTH. In the mean time housing prices continue to skyrocket for lack of supply. We are living in the most regressive city in the country.

    • SF Bong
      October 29, 2021 at 7:50 am

      Blah blah blah.
      Did you write that in your sleep?
      FWIW…Preston enjoys support in his district.

      “most regressive in the country” That is total bullshit.
      Have you ever been…. anywhere?

  2. Stephen W Martin-Pinto
    October 29, 2021 at 10:35 am

    This is quite possibly the stupidest, most petty, poorly thought out article I have ever read in my entire life. Everyone who has read this article is now 20 IQ points dumber for having read it. At no time, in this author’s contorted, non-sensical argument did he ever approach anything that resembles logic.

  3. Mark
    October 31, 2021 at 5:43 am

    Stephen, I like a counter-argument as much as the next person. But you are really doing no favors for your side (the counter) by slinging mud. Provide facts, rebuttals, interesting asides if you must.

    Seriously, try to maintain at least a posture of balance, even if the other side (the argument) did not. You can’t really call for better arguments when your own response only brings the level of discussion down. And appealing to logic? Well, you can guess my observation. Notice, too, that I said nothing about the substance of your point or the one to which you responded. I am just asking for a better form of back-and-forth.

    All that said, I hope it felt good to unleash a bit. Bu the way, you take a more professional tone on your website promoting your approach to the city’s problems. Why scuttle said tone with this response?