Filed by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D; Bell Gardens), AB 672 is a spot bill that begs additional actions to effectuate its intent. The full text of the bill is:
“It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would enable the use of underutilized golf courses for open space and affordable housing.”
Those “additional actions” are amendments to two California laws that have long protected the state’s parks and open spaces from commercial development – the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 [Public Resources Code 5400 ff] and the Surplus Land Act [Government Code 54220 ff]. The former has long been municipal golf’s bulwark against the temptation to solve municipal fiscal problems by selling golf’s acreage to developers for hefty sums.
Given that 22% of California’s golf courses are owned by governmental agencies, more than 40% of golf’s play in California is on those publicly held facilities, and roughly 90% of golf’s myriad junior and developmental programs is practiced on those facilities, it’s easy to see why the California Alliance for Golf (CAG) has identified the defeat of AB 672 as its highest legislative priority in 2021.
As important as the direct threat posed by AB 672 to the municipal sector is the bill’s clear underlying premise: That golf courses are not truly parks like soccer fields, baseball diamonds, trails, tennis courts, pickleball courts, or simple picnic areas – that the dedication of public space to golf is of negligible value. “Underutilized” as used by AB 672’s author doesn’t mean a vacant golf course; it means a fully packed one. Fail to understand that, and you fail to understand what this bill means and what it portends.
The verdict implicit in a successful AB 672 provides a straight line to parallel challenges in the private sphere. The Public Park Preservation Act is municipal golf’s bulwark. ARTICLE XIII, Section 10 of the California Constitution is the private sector’s bulwark. It defines golf courses as open space for the purposes of property tax assessments. Both are central to the game’s hopes of remaining strong, not to mention its pretensions about growth, particularly growth in traditionally underserved communities. Laws can be changed. Constitutions can be amended. Turf – vegetative and political – can be lost.
The language of AB 672 may amount to a textbook case of running something up the proverbial flagpole. Taking it down as quickly as possible may amount to a textbook case of wisdom. And preservation.
SCGA and its allied associations/organizations in the California Alliance for Golf (CAG) will soon be sending E-mails to their respective constituents giving them instant access to their legislators should they care to express an opinion about AB 672.
# # # # # # # # # # #
Long Beach has just amended its Golf Appendix to restore club play, putting/chipping greens, high school competitive golf, and group instruction. There are restrictions to militate against crowding and ensure proper social distancing, but we have no doubt that clubs, schools, and individual golfers will find them easy to manage. Golfers have been among the most compliant of communities during the pandemic. We have strong reason to expect that Los Angeles County will soon join Long Beach and the rest of the region by revising its Golf Appendix in parallel fashion. You can click here to read Long Beach’s new Golf Protocols.
Stay tuned.
Are you interested in becoming an advocate for golf in California? The CGCOA is seeking amateur golfers who are passionate about protecting the game of golf and promoting public policies that enable golf to flourish in California. Take the next step to becoming an advocate for golf by completing the attached Golf is Good Ambassador Application.
Read More →FORE - The magazine of the SCGA. Find archived Public Affairs articles on the website of the SCGA's award winning quarterly publication.
Read More →Four Los Angeles City Council members introduced a motion yesterday that seeks to crack down on what the motion describes as “black-market tee time brokers” who book and resell city golf course tee times for profit.
Read More →When introduced by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) February 16, AB 3192 contained a provision that would have banned the use of all nonorganic pesticides and fertilizers on golf resorts in California’s Coastal Zone.
Read More →A cautionary tale from semi-rural Santa Barbara County to remind you that the pressure to repurpose golf courses is not just a phenomenon in California’s densely packed urban cores.
Read More →The National Golf Course Owners Association’s (NGCOA) Harvey Silverman may have characterized the City of Los Angeles’ uncommonly quick reaction to intense media scrutiny (five separate Los Angeles Times stories including a Sunday lead editorial) of the depredations of tee time brokering with his quip in the organization’s “Golf Business Weekly” about the city having reacted “faster than fixing potholes.”
Read More →Every year there seems to be one bill filed in one house of the California Legislature that keeps the California golf community up at night.
Read More →Here's the difference this last week made, and it’s a difference not just in terms of the alacrity with which we can expect the major municipal golf systems to begin implementing mitigations, but also in terms of what the week means in terms of disabusing all notions of golf somehow being underutilized and golfers not as passionate about the object of their affection as others are about theirs.
Read More →With respect to the furor over tee time brokers making it nearly impossible for Los Angeles Basin’s public golfers to secure tee times at almost any time of the day or week, let’s just say that we’ve seen this picture before.
Read More →