This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

This blog headline heralds a new, bad idea in California, a state which has had a lot of contenders for the label “bad.”

This time, the issue is that a proposed bill in the California Legislature would provide financial incentives to turn municipal golf courses into “affordable housing.”

It was a decent objective – more affordable housing – chasing a bad idea, trashing golf courses.

It appears that, at least for now, the bill (AG 1910) is dead.  It was pulled from a committee vote by the author, the latest step in what has been an unsuccessful struggle to gain momentum toward a full vote in the full legislature.

Good.

But, speaking as a retired lobbyist in Oregon, I note that a bill is never dead until a legislature shuts down.  It only is dormant.

The Southern California Golf Association (SCGA) and other allied golf associations in the state, along with the United States Golf Association, have banded together to oppose AB 1910.

It would have allowed golf courses owned by municipalities to be redeveloped into affordable housing.  But not just “allowed” — it would have provided $50 million in state grants for developers of such proposals, a costly incentive, one that might have worked.

Craig Kessler, director of public affairs for the Southern California Golf Association, says approximately 22 per cent of the 1,100 golf courses in the state are municipally owned and, thus, would be threatened by the bill.

Now, why am I writing about this today?  A couple reasons.

First, it has been true for years that bad bills from three states – Oregon, Washington, and California – move up and down the coast.  A bad idea in one state often ends up in another state as legislators in all states, buoyed by their associations, share ideas and strategies.

I wish good public policy ideas also would move north and south, but it does not seem usually to work that way.

Second, affordable housing is a genuine public policy issue.  So, I say work on it without trashing one industry, golf, to boost another, housing.

Think of this in terms of Portland, Oregon if such a bad bill were to arrive here.  Four municipal courses – Glendoveer, Eastmoreland, Rose City, and Heron Lakes – all could become housing tracts, thus depriving golfers of places to play, and increasing density and congestion in those areas.

I say leave such golf resources alone, be they in Oregon, Washington, or California.  Find other smart ways to provide more affordable housing.

For now, the California bill appears to be dead – read, dormant.  But golf advocates in California are remaining alert for a resurrection and I hope those in Oregon and Washington will do so, as well.

[Footnote:  I am a member of both the Southern California Golf Association and the Oregon Golf Association, so I have a stake in making sure a bad idea does not rise again.  As a committed golfer, sometimes on municipal courses, I root for the success of those courses.]