L.A. Times Editorial Supporting California AB 1910 Highlights The Absurdity Of It All

The L.A. Times editorial board weighted in on the latest attempt by assemblymember Cristina Garcia to help fast track conversion of some California golf courses into affordable housing and in doing so, inadvertently highlighted how bizarre the proposal is.

It’s a sign of how desperate our housing shortage is that lawmakers and some cities are even considering converting golf courses to housing. This should be a last resort given the paucity of open space in many communities. Empty shopping malls and other unused commercial space should be the first places to look.

Yes they should.

Then there is this:

There are 960 golf courses in California, according to the National Golf Foundation, a trade association for the golf industry, but only about 200 are owned by local cities and counties.

Some municipal courses are financially struggling and have to be subsidized by the local government. That could make them candidates for conversion — especially in a community that would rather have housing and open space than a golf course.

It’d be fascinating to hear who many courses right now are being subsidized—as opposed to doing the Parks and Rec subsidizing that so many golf departments do—and how many fall into the category of being in crowded communities eager to convert open space to “affordable housing”.

Conversion to parks maybe, but not more housing that brings more density and traffic. It feels like that would be a very short list.

And there’s this catch on the whole affordable case, too.

Under this bill, developers would be required to make at least 25% of the units affordable to low-income renters or buyers and set aside at least 15% of the land for publicly accessible open space.

So all of this for just 25% falling into the affordable category? And we know developers will not go higher than the minimum.

There’s no question that golf courses are ideal, even idyllic, swaths of real estate as large as 100 acres or more. Even with the requirements for open space, that kind of land could hold a lot of housing.

But there are a lot of issues to keep in mind. Public golf courses are already offering something affordable — golf. The average price nationally for an 18-hole round of golf at a course open to the public was $38 last year, according to the National Golf Foundation. That includes all courses — public and privately owned — that are publicly accessible. That’s a deal compared with private clubs with expensive membership fees.

Numerous golfers of diverse backgrounds — in terms of income, ethnicity, age and gender — learned on public courses and still play there. Golf long ago stopped being the exclusive purview of rich white people. That’s partly because people from varied backgrounds found an accessible public course and a youth program or golf league they could join there.

And while making the case for how asinine Garcia’s effort appears to be with so little upside, also note the image included with the editorial shows Canada geese—migrating birds—enjoying a stopover at a course. Taking these valuable habitats away will run afoul of laws and “understandings” designed to protect the beautiful and innocent creatures of the sky.

Although the bill is supported by housing advocacy groups and builders of affordable housing (such as AIDS Healthcare Foundation), it is opposed by dozens of golf clubs, the National Golf Foundation, and the nonprofit Southern California Golf Assn.

No city is going to sell off popular or fabled public golf courses. Rancho Park in Los Angeles, Torrey Pines in San Diego come to mind. Nor is the author of the bill, Assembly member Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), trying to kill off public golf courses — particularly the ones that communities want to keep.

“Let’s have a conversation,” Garcia said. “Is this the best use of this land? Do we want to use this property in a different way?”

Ultimately, someone here really doesn’t like golf and in a funny way, the editorial helps point out what a reach Garcia’s effort appears to be with such a small upside for affordable housing well, well down the road unless all environmental laws are kicked aside.