Assembly Bill 672, the brainchild of California State Assembly member Cristina Garcia (D–Bell Gardens), poses a threat to municipal golf in California; that is, public golf courses that are owned by cities or counties—but how big a threat? Some responses to the proposed legislation have verged on the hysterical, but I think that a closer look at the wording of the bill, and a wider evaluation of the situation, is called for.
What would it do?
This much is true: the gist of the bill’s intent is to incentivize local agencies (city and county governments) to close down municipal golf courses and convert them to sites for housing. The bill’s text specifies that 25% of the housing is to be “affordable to, and occupied by” low-income households (as defined by the Health and Safety Code), and that 15% of the development is to be publicly accessible open space—but with this twist-of-the-knife proviso: space used as a golf course shall not be considered open space.
Some of the response to AB 672 have been needlessly reactionary; for example, this Golfweekheadline: “Could all California golf courses be converted to housing? A new bill proposes just that”, and a post on the Uken Report website that predicts that local muni courses in the Palm Springs area would be turned into homeless camps should this legislation be passed. The fact that these extreme takes aren’t realistic doesn’t mean that there is no cause for concern.
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest (a summary, of sorts, of the bill’s effect) on the AB 672 page on the California Legislative information website gives the following assessment of the bill in its current form: “This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the [Department of Housing and Community Development] to administer a program to provide incentives in the form of grants to local agencies that enter into a development agreement to convert a golf course owned by the local agency into housing and publicly accessible open space, as specified.”
Not exactly a smoking gun, but slightly worrisome even in its vagueness.
Changes over time
The bill, which was originally introduced in February 2021, has been amended four times, and while some of the revisions have weakened the bill’s proposed directives, changes which make it less radical also increase its palatability and may boost its chances of passing.
For example: the March 18th, 2021 version of the bill would have removed protection for municipal golf courses under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a radical and unquestionably anti-environment move, but one which would have greatly simplified the process of converting what had been protected green space to residential uses. This provision was removed in the next amended version of the bill for the very simple reason (as I am informed by my wife, a career land-use/urban planner) that it is not possible to simply exclude a development project from CEQA. Can’t be done.
The next version, amended in Assembly on April 6th, 2021, would have required city, county, or city and county entities to rezone municipally owned golf courses to allow residential or open-space uses. The word “require” carries weight, making this version of the bill more worrisome, but again, the wording of the bill was amended in committee, and this proviso was removed.
(Also removed from the verbiage of the bill was a reference to the terms of the legislation being applied to “under-utilized” golf courses, but if you have tried to get a good tee-time any time in the last 12–15 months, you know that there is no such thing as an under-utilized golf course in California these days.)
Too clever by half?
Ms Garcia is making what I am sure she and her staff consider to be a clever two-pronged attack with this bill. First, proposing a solution (of sorts) to a problem which everyone acknowledges—the shortage of affordable housing in California, especially in the urban centers—but a solution which will only affect people who play golf; and second, making a show of being progressive and populist by attacking golf, which everyone knows is a terrible elitist game that is only played by ROWMs (Rich Old White Men), thus gaining favor among know-nothing would-be do-gooders who would willingly trade golf-course space for “affordable” housing.
Careful examination of the text of the bill shows that everything about it, from the early, more openly antagonistic versions to the current relatively toothless version, reeks of uninformed antagonism and borderline incompetence on the part of Ms Garcia and her staff.
The since-removed CEQA proviso should never have seen the light of day, and the requirement that local agencies rezone municipally owned golf courses is the kind of over-the-top direct action that will always raise flags in proposed legislation—these versions demonstrate, to an experienced reviewer, that neither Ms Garcia or her staff are really on the ball.
The other aspect of the bill: the singling out of golf courses, among all possible land uses, is redolent of the kind of misguided populist-elite thinking à la Malcolm Gladwell that informs attacks on golf as an elitist game for rich white men.
Ill-conceived – but still worrisome
While the likelihood of this bill being passed, and thus having a measurable impact on the availability of municipal golf in California, is low, the embracing of this clichéd antagonism toward the game of golf is still worrisome.
Even in its current, weaker, form, AB 672 represents an attack on the game of golf because it still singles out golf courses for this “incentive program”. No other open-space use is cited—not soccer fields, not baseball or softball diamonds, not dog parks, not playgrounds. Golf courses, and only golf courses, are mentioned by the bill. The current version of the bill is vague in its wording, and virtually toothless, but it is worth the attention of the golf community to keep an eye on AB 672, because it represents a potential “thin end of the wedge”.
A hair-shirt take that only a Pope could love
A recent post on the Lying Four golf-blog site posits the bill as a call to action for the game of golf:
“This episode should be a learning opportunity for golf—a chance to rededicate itself to changing its elitist practices (and, in turn, the reputation), if only out of the self-interest that the California bill exposes.”
The post on Lying Four also mentions that passage of AB 672 would unfairly target one segment of the golf-playing population (and by far the largest), making them pay (potentially) for the sins of the other, which is true—but goes on to say that golf, as a game, must:
“…[resist] the temptation that elites often indulge: to shut themselves away behind strong walls, and to assume therein their safety.
The California bill shows that tendency’s fallacy: the public is at the walls. We can either invite them in, or wait for them to tear down the walls on their terms.”
While it looks more realistically at the governmental aspects of AB 672 than many of the articles and analyses posted over the eleven months since the bill was introduced, the Lying Four column presents something of an hysterical response in itself, assuming that the people and organizations that comprise “the game of golf” are going to adopt the same elitist attitude that is assumed to be universal in golf by people who support actions such as that which AB 672 proposes. The column’s author doesn’t give any examples of ways in which “golf” can push back against the elitist stereotyping of the game, so the article is less of a call to action than it is a strident scolding that is waiting to be turned into an “I-told-you-so”.
In my opinion, the author of the Lying Four column is assuming something of a “mea culpa” attitude, and while golf, as a sport, must have a care as to the way the non-golf-playing public perceives it, supporting existing education campaigns by industry organizations is a better way to do this than the sanctimonious finger-wagging and hand-wringing approach that this column presents.
The Bottom Line
I don’t see AB 672, in its current state, having much chance of passing. It is a grandstand play by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, but one which was ill-conceived and, so far, incompetently executed.
But… despite its weaknesses, AB 672 represents a calculated attack on an industry that employs 128,000 people in the state of California, representing a total economic output of some $6.3 billion in 2021, and $4.1 billion in wages, while providing a healthful outdoor exercise experience that has been shown to have a positive effect on longevity and general well-being.
The golf industry must remain vigilant in the face of attacks of this kind, fighting back with facts, not hysteria, about the economic, health, and environmental benefits of the game of golf—which have positive effects up and down the economic spectrum—and stave off the ill-informed haters and opportunistic politicians who would restrict, or at worst, shut down, the game we love.
