(Los Angeles’ Chester L. Washington GC)
After proposed legislation failed that sought to strip the classification of the state’s municipal courses as parks, to make it easier to rezone them for housing, its advocates have introduced a new version that would provide grants for municipalities to voluntarily convert courses into a combination of open space and affordable housing. The new bill has once again passed through the Housing and Community Development Committee and must pass another step before it could be considered by the Appropriations Committee, which killed the previous version.
Liberal California lawmakers are teeing off on golf courses again, the Washington (D.C.) Examiner reported.
After failing with previous attempts to convert public courses in the state into affordable housing, some legislators in the California State Assembly have advanced a new bill that would provide grants to municipalities to redevelop publicly owned links, the Examiner reported. Backers of the bill believe golf should take a backseat to housing and that building on courses will help fight climate change.
“This is a voluntary program for municipally owned golf courses for communities that want to look at the possibility of converting them into a combination of open space and affordable housing to help address two dire needs in our community,” Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said.
The revised bill (AB 1910) states that redevelopment of golf courses for housing must include 25% of new units designated as affordable housing, and 15% of the land must be public open space, the Examiner reported.
Garcia’s latest effort passed in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee and will once again have to go through the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it was previously defeated, to get a floor vote, the Examiner reported. The next step before reaching the Appropriations Committee is consideration and approval by the Assembly Local Government Committee
Other lawmakers who supported the new bill said it would allow local control while giving local governments the option to receive funding if they choose to move forward with development plans, The Press of Brentwood, Calif. reported.
Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) noted that there are three public golf courses in his district and that in the last few years, the city council has had conversations about whether or not to use the land for housing, The Press reported. The council ended up declining to do so, but Kalra noted that if they would change their mind down the road, they would now have the opportunity to receive some incentive funds from the state if the new version of the bill became law.
“We’re actually bringing that conversation back to the local level, and that’s what I really appreciate about this legislation,” Kalra said.
California has about 1,100 golf courses, about 250 of which are owned by local governments, the Examiner reported. Proponents believe wiping out those public courses could make way for 375,000 housing units.
In a previous version of the legislation (AB 672) that was defeated in its second iteration in January 2021, the Examiner reported, Garcia had pushed a version that stripped the classification of golf courses as parks under the state Public Park Preservation Act. That would have made it easier to rezone them for housing.
A fact sheet accompanying that previous version of the bill said that building houses on golf courses would also be good for the environment, the Examiner reported. “Golf courses proliferate in and around California’s urban centers,” the fact sheet said. “As golf declines, the state can craft a ‘grand bargain’ to encourage redevelopment of golf courses in a way that promotes equity and affordability, and fights climate change.”
Golf-industry advocates in the state have responded to all of the legislative attempts to repurpose public courses by emphasizing how they facilitate youth programs, including ones for economically disadvantaged urban youth, the Examiner reported. They also warn that not counting courses as public parkland could lead to paving over of a host of open-space amenities, all in the name of affordable housing.
“The Public Park Preservation Act is not just parkland golf’s backstop against commercial development; it is every parkland amenity’s bulwark against development,” the Southern California Golf Association wrote after Garcia’s first bill was proposed. “Golf is just the canary more deeply positioned in this proverbial coal mine. Soccer, baseball, bike paths, hiking trails, swimming pools, equestrian centers, nature centers, tennis courts, pickleball, and land trusts/conservancies are very much in the mine with us, whether they all know it or not.”
Republican Assemblyman Kelly Seyarto, who voted against Garcia’s bill, said urban golf courses such as Los Angeles’s Chester L. Washington Golf Course provide programs for youth who have no realistic access to rural courses.
“I fear that losing space like that for them will be impacting their lives, because if it’s not available at Chester L. Washington and that’s turned into housing instead, then they’re not going to have the opportunity,” Seyarto told The Center Square, which covers state legislature activity.
Nick Bailey, Vice President of the Northern California PGA section, spoke on behalf of the California Alliance for Golf as the new bill was considered by the Housing and Community Development Committee. The bill would reduce green space in communities that already lack it and “excommunicate golf from the park and recreation family,” Bailey said, while also noting how golf courses provide habitat, promote biodiversity and sequester carbon to the benefit of the surrounding community.
“[The new bill] causes considerably more harm than any possible housing good that might come from it,” Bailey told the committee.
The United States Golf Association and other industry groups have also filed opposition letters to the latest version of the proposed legislation in California.
But Garcia believes golf is a sport for the privileged few and that the need for housing outweighs their desire to play 18 holes, the Examiner reported.
“Public golf courses subsidize the hobby of a few people with sufficient means to afford the pricey equipment and pay the ‘green fee,’ which is literally admission to occupy public space,” she wrote in a recent op-ed submission to the Sacramento Bee. “We can reprioritize the basic housing needs of individuals and families when we use the land to build new neighborhoods and community amenities for today’s workforce.”
Tell Us What You Think!
You must be logged in to post a comment.