Don't look now, but your industry is under siege. The attack is coming from those who question the value of dedicating so much acreage for use by so few.
For years, it has been the same usual suspects casting aspersions on golf for all the same reasons — they use too much water and poison the land. But there is a new naysayer in this story; one who simply is hungry for the land, even if it means total disregard for the truth to get it.
Despite the efforts of so many who work to educate the masses about the many benefits of golf and golf courses, getting the word out to those who do not want to hear it is, to say the least, challenging.
During the past 20 years, we have seen so many superintendents and those in academia host field days and work to develop BMP programs to educate lawmakers and non-golfers about the environmental benefits of golf courses and the positive attributes of the game as physical activity.
Still, to this day, press clippings that besmirch the game and the ground on which it is played abound. A quick Internet search of "golf" and "fertilizer" yields headlines such as "Six ways golf courses hurt the environment," "Golf is embracing the dark sky movement" and "Does nitrate in our water come from golf courses or farms?"
There appears to be a new player in this game of blame golf – those who just want the land and are willing to say anything to get it.
In recent years, the golf industry in Southern California, specifically municipal golf, has come under fire by those who believe the land might be better used for multi-family residential purposes in an effort to solve the area's housing crisis.
It appeared that threat was nullified last year when Assembly Bill 1910, known by some as The Public Golf Endangerment Act, died in Sacramento. The bill proposed providing public relief in the form of developer subsidies and grants to local agencies to redevelop California's municipal golf courses into low-incoming housing and green space.
A recent editorial entitled "Why not turn golf courses into homes?" appeared in at least a half-dozen Southern California daily newspapers throughout Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties.
The editorial states: "Golf courses are great for golfers but aren't accessible to families for hiking and picnics. As Reason Foundation noted on these pages last year, 24 of the 27 local California government-owned golf courses it identified through city budgets lost a total of $20 million operating them. Governments aren't good at operating anything in an efficient manner. They should not be operating facilities that cater to a few wealthier residents. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize them."
While we acknowledge a shortage of affordable housing in Southern California, there are several holes in this editorial.
Do the anti-golf groups covet public land for parks and greenspace or housing? Municipal golf may accomplish many things, but "cater to a few wealthier residents" is not among them. According to the Southern California Golf Association, the average muni green fee in that area is $38 for 18 holes. That's less than a tank of gas in SoCal.
The editorial also states that municipal golf in California loses $20 million annually. Were that the case, municipal golf in the country's largest state would have been out of business long ago.
Such claims have not gone unnoticed by the SCGA.
According to the SCGA, the municipal golf courses within the area where the editorial appeared clear a combined $40 million a year "after all expenses associated with operations, maintenance and long-term capital spending."
In an email to members and partners, the SCGA wrote: "Whatever the reason, whatever the motivation, we'll do our best in combination with our allied organizations in the California Alliance for Golf to figure out the who, what, and why of this. Something prompted this. Someone prompted this. Whatever the motivation or reason, one thing is certain. Today's editorial breathed life back into the notion of singling golf and only golf out among all the various park and open space activities to help mitigate what golf agrees is an acute housing shortage in this state."
The plight of public golf in Southern California reaffirms the need for education and outreach aimed at public policy makers and non-golfers, because now you know what you're up against and now you know the truth sometimes is not enough.
