With 5 members voting aye, 2 members voting nay, and 1 member abstaining, the Assembly Local Government Committee moved AB 1910 out of committee today and on to Assembly Appropriations. Sort of. The 5th member and deciding vote, Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), who has expressed skepticism throughout, made clear that his deciding vote to move the bill out of committee was contingent on a pledge from bill author Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) to significantly reduce the scope of the bill by amending it in three (3) areas to his satisfaction before it reaches Appropriations; otherwise he has Ms. Garcia’s pledge to drop the bill in the 2022 session, not to mention that absent that “satisfaction” the bill is more likely than not to meet the same fate in Appropriations that it met back in January as AB 672.
In addition to maintenance of 100% local control over any decision to repurpose a parkland golf course as affordable housing per a requirement that the resultant housing be at least 25% of the finished development and the finished development be at least 15% open space, the only golf properties subject to qualification under the program must meet the following limiting conditions: 1) The subject golf property must be deemed “underutilized;” 2) the subject golf property must be in a community that rises to a certain level of “population density;” and 3) the subject property must be in a community deemed “park poor.” And per today’s discussion, all three limiting conditions or criteria must be “objectively measured” in order to pass muster.
What do “underutilized,” “population density,” and “park poor” mean in concrete terms? What are the metrics of each? How are they to be “objectively measured?”
Those are the devils of these particular details – devils to be hashed out with Local Government staff, Assembly Member Bloom, and by implication Assembly Appropriations Chair Chris Holden (D-Pasadena).
Who or what will serve as the final arbiter of whether real meat can be put on the bones of these three vague admonitions? That’s not entirely clear. Will golf be invited to provide input on how real meat can be put on those slender bones? It’s not uncommon to invite opponents of bills to do just that; to determine in this case whether a bill that started out as a case of legislative overreach can be pared down to obviate opposition. That too is entirely unknown as of late Wednesday afternoon. Should golf seek such dialog cum input? Again, way too early to make that call, albeit that’s a call that would need to be made fairly quickly to have meaning.
Lots of questions. No real answers yet. Golf has gotten this far by being unified. And make no mistake about it; a bill that began as a disaster promoted by a corrosive and practically libelous narrative is now a much more limited proposal accompanied by a respectful narrative only because the game has been unified in its response. And united we will remain in deciphering the curiouser and curiouser course of this bill and then charting a course capable of achieving a best possible outcome – an outcome we trust all understand is constrained by a number of political and other considerations.
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 →
It's worse than 2016. It’s not worse for everybody, not yet anyway. And it’s never as bad in the Coachella Valley as it is virtually elsewhere in Southern California, although convincing Sacramento of that can sometimes be a losing proposition.Read More →
AB 1910 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s Suspense file today, killing it for the remainder of the 2022 legislative session.Read More →
When we counseled “concern, not panic” regarding recent headlines about water allocation curtailments, we didn’t mean to diminish the seriousness of the moment; we meant only to assuage the many of you who read those headlines and concluded that golf courses in certain areas of the Southland, most particularly Ventura County, the San Fernando Valley, and parts of the San Gabriel Valley, would be restricted to irrigating one day a week come June 1.Read More →
Given the thread by which this bill continues to hang, we’d be remiss if we didn’t first reiterate the status report we issued immediately after last Wednesday afternoon’s Assembly Local Government Committee meeting, followed by a verbatim transcript of the comments issued during that meeting that formed our initial assessment and the questions raised by both.Read More →
Many of you have read today’s headlines about yesterday’s announcement by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) that the purchaser of water that serves 19 million Southern Californians has taken the unprecedented step of declaring a “water emergency” and ordering outdoor water usage be restricted to one day per week.Read More →
With 5 members voting aye, 2 members voting nay, and 1 member abstaining, the Assembly Local Government Committee moved AB 1910 out of committee today and on to Assembly Appropriations. Sort of.Read More →
After pulling AB 1910 from the April 6 docket of the Assembly Local Government Committee, bill author Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) has now set it for a hearing on April 27, which is 2 days before the deadline for bills to pass out of committee. Fiscal bills that don’t pass out of their respective policy committees of reference by the 29th die.Read More →