The huge Los Angeles County municipal golf system (20 facilities) is following suit with its City of Los Angeles cousin (14 facilities) in adopting almost identical reservation policies calculated to mitigate to the greatest extent possible the practice of tee time brokering.
At its June 25 meeting, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took the following action:
Effective August 1, 2024 at all County of Los Angeles owned golf courses:
The only differences between the county policy and the city policy adopted a couple of months ago are the following two: 1) A 48-hour cancellation window in the county as opposed to a 24-hour window in the city, and 2) an 8-day advance reservation window as opposed to the 9-day one still in use in LA City.
The good news for both large municipal golf systems and the enormous number of public golfers disproportionately dependent upon their courses for their golfing enjoyment is that the initial returns from the city’s first few months of the new registration regimen are, truth be known, more positive than its designers and supporters envisaged. To wit, a few statistics from the city’s first two months of the new regimen (May/June):
These statistics support the anecdotal evidence, as golfers who had indicated combinations of skepticism and aggravation when the new policies were proposed have come to support them as they have been able to secure times at courses that they previously had been unable to access (e.g., Wilson, Harding, Rancho).
When LA County’s huge tranche of courses is added to the mix and more months of data become available from a much wider base, our guess is that utilization rates that were already high will be even higher as fewer tee times remain unclaimed or partially claimed – a definite goal in terms of engendering equitable access and an unintended benefit in terms of generating additional revenue without raising the price to the golfer.
Speaking of that last subject – raising the price to the customer – it’s important to remember that the City and County of Los Angeles were both intent on creating economic disincentives to both tee time brokering and golfer irresponsibility without raising the price to any golfer who redeems his/her reservation, otherwise known as the “advance reservation fee” that is the much more popular technique of disincentivizing both. Both systems deemed that as a de facto greens fee increase and rejected it out of hand. In its stead, both created what is in the final analysis a down payment or earnest money for encumbering a tee time that others would gladly snatch up if it were available – the exercise of a privilege as opposed to a right.
Despite that and despite the language in the County Board Resolution about the fees not exceeding the cost of the service to be provided, it is our strong surmise that the revenues generated by both the city and county will exceed the costs associated with developing and administering the new regime – revenues that are certainly trackable. The city is already taking 10% of these newly generated revenues and depositing them in the capital reserve account it uses to fund large capital projects (roughly $33 million and counting), and the county has set up in advance a protocol that will feed some of these revenues to its junior golf programs. However, to the extent that our surmise about the revenue generating capacity of the new reservation paradigm is correct, there should be monies generated in excess thereof that both systems should consider using to soften the financial impact to those generating that revenue – golfers. Once the dust settles and things come into clearer focus, both in terms of data collection and the world’s ability to counter technological salves with new workarounds, the city and county’s laudable goal of avoiding de facto greens fee increases would be well served by using some of the excess (and unintended) revenue from golfers to fund additional salves.
What began as a social media firestorm is enjoying a happy ending – so far, anyway. And that “happy ending” has another aspect that has captured much attention, the central policy role played by the golf advisory commissions/committees in both systems – in the city for helping craft the policy solutions that are proving effective as well as acting as the front-line absorbers of the public ire that generated by social media – in the county for having performed per the following language from the June 25 Board Resolution:
The city “GAC” didn’t get the same “shout-out” in its version of an enabling Board Report, but it certainly got a great shout-out from NPR in its popular “Imperfect Paradise” podcast. With credit to NPR and social media influencer Dave Fink, SCGA put together a condensed version of it (4 minutes) that you can access by clicking here. It’s well worth the listen, particularly for the generous words from Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Hamilton about the value of public golf and his own pleasure at seeing government institutions work as intended.
To which we would only add, that’s why SCGA is such a firm believer in the value of citizen golf committees/commissions/boards.
- SCGA Public Affairs Team