[00:00:01]
I BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S 3 0 2.SO I'D LIKE TO CALL THE, THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ORDER FOR MARCH 26TH, 2026.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK YOU TO LORI AND TEAM HERE FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER SO QUICKLY.
SO REALLY APPRECIATE THAT FIRST SPECIAL MEETING THAT I CAN RECALL SINCE I'VE BEEN AROUND THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AND WITH THAT, UH, LORI, I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR THE ROLE.
WHAT IS THIS FOR? WE'RE JUST TAKING THE ROLE AT THIS TIME.
YOU HERE? MEMBER MILLER IS EXCUSED.
AND FOR THE RECORD COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANDERSON AND AIRE ARE EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING.
ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE SCENE? NONE.
LORI, I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR OUR SPECIAL MEETING ITEM.
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW, DISCUSS AND IF APPROPRIATE, APPROVE THE TRANSMITTAL OF A LETTER DRAFTED BY THE AB 1954 AD HOC COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR ADVISING THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OFFER THEIR SUPPORT FOR ASSEMBLY BILL AB 1954, PROTECTING ACCESS TO RESERVATIONS ACT, THE PAR ACT.
AND MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR THIS ITEM? MOTION.
SO WE HAD, UH, SO WE HAD A MOTION ILEY AND A SECOND FROM BARRETT.
AND THEN HOW SHOULD WE GO ABOUT THIS AS FAR AS A RE REPORT? I KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED IT AT THE FULL MEETING.
WE SENT IT TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
UM, IT LOOKED LIKE YOU HAD SOME, UH, MAYBE A STAFF REPORT.
IS THAT, UH, WHERE WE SHOULD BEGIN? SO MY, YEAH, IT WAS JUST SORT OF SOME BACKGROUND AND SOME PROCESS NOTES FOR US.
AND THEN I CAN HAND IT OVER TO YOU AS THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
SO, JUST FOR BACKGROUND, UM, AT THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S MARCH 12TH MEETING, UM, YOU REVIEWED ASSEMBLY BILL OF 1954, NOW KNOWN AS THE PAR ACT, PROTECTING A ACCESS TO RESERVATIONS ACT.
UM, AFTER DISCUSSION, THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT THE INTENT OF LEGISLATION ALIGNS WITH THE CITY'S GOALS OF ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS TO OUR MUNICIPAL HEALTH FACILITIES.
UM, AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT DISCUSSION, WE ESTABLISH AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO DRAFT THE LETTER EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY FORMALLY ENDORSE IT.
UM, SO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE COMPLETED ITS WORK AND THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO REVIEW, DISCUSS AND IF APPROPRIATE, APPROVE THE TRANSMITTAL OF THAT LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR.
UM, FROM THERE, UM, IT WOULD GO FROM THE DIRECTOR TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
AND, UM, FROM THERE IT WOULD GO TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR, UM, TO APPROVE PUTTING ON A LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENDA.
UM, SO I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, UM, AT OUR JUNE MEETING WITH AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE IN THAT PROCESS.
SO, UM, BUT I CAN TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
WE WERE, WE WERE ABLE TO GET AN AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED VERY QUICKLY.
SO, UM, I THINK YOU'VE ALL READ THE, THE ITEM.
AND THERE'S A VERY SHORT, SHORT AND SWEET LETTER, I HOPE TO THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND MARINE THAT BASED ON THE AD HOC COMMITTEE'S, UH, DIRECTION FROM THIS COMMITTEE.
AND THEN AFTER VETTING THE MATTER IN MORE DETAIL, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THAT, THAT THE CITY TAKE, UH, TAKE PROACTIVE STEPS TO SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION.
AND PART OF THE DISCUSSION, WHICH WE ALSO SHARED TWO WEEKS AGO AT THE FULL COMMITTEE REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING, UM, THERE WAS A, AN EXAMPLE FROM THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, WHICH HAS PROVIDED A, YOU KNOW, A STRONG LETTER OF SUPPORT.
AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT YOU'LL SEE THERE IS, WE, WE DIDN'T WANT TO WR WRITE THE LETTER FOR THE, THE PARK DEPARTMENT, BUT TO SORT OF PUT A, A, A TEMPLATE TOGETHER THAT COULD PERHAPS BE USED AS A STARTING POINT.
SO YOU SEE BOTH THE LETTER FROM THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SHOULD WE, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION TODAY.
AND THEN, AND THEN ALSO THE, THE TEMPLATE LETTER.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS WHO WERE THERE, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION AND WE DISCUSSED WHAT REALLY TOOK, TOOK INTO
[00:05:01]
MORE DETAIL WHAT WE'D ALREADY DISCUSSED AT THE FULL GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING.AND I THINK WE VETTED IT OUT PRETTY WELL.
ANY, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
I, WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE MORE DETAIL, BUT I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS AT, AT, AT SOME LENGTH TWO WEEKS AGO.
SO, UM, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS EXPEDITIOUSLY.
I THINK THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I'LL REITERATE IS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, IF IT'S GOING WELL, IS A LONG ONE.
UM, THE BILL HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING ON APRIL 7TH.
SO THAT WILL BE ITS FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THROUGH A POLICY COMMITTEE OR POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, BE, BE STALLED.
BUT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE OPTIMISTIC.
THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE IS ALSO THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL, SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY OPTIMISTIC.
UM, WE BEING THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR GOLF TO SPONSOR OF THE BILL, THEN THE BILL IS ALMOST, UH, CERTAINLY GOING TO BE HEARD IN ITS SECOND POLICY COMMITTEE ON APRIL 16TH.
IF IT, YOU KNOW, GETS THROUGH THERE, THEN IT WOULD, IT WOULD GO TO APPROPRIATIONS AND THEN THE FLOOR.
AND THEN IF YOU GET THROUGH THERE, YOU GO TO THE OTHER HOUSE, THE SENATE.
MAYBE, UH, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY TAKES STEPS TO SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION, UM, IF THAT HAPPENS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
IF IT HAPPENS LATER, THAT'S FAR BETTER THAN NOT AT ALL, BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS LONG.
AND SUPPORT WOULD HELP AT ANY STEP IN THE PROCESS, AND IT WOULD TRACK WITH THE BILL AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS AS WELL.
SO, UM, ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S THE EXTRA INFORMATION THAT WHAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO SHARE TWO WEEKS AGO.
'CAUSE THOSE, UH, THAT THAT FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING HAD NOT YET BEEN SCHEDULED.
AND I'M SURE THIS HAS WIDE STATEWIDE SUPPORT, SO I WOULDN'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE ANY TROUBLE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND I KNOW WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT HERE COMING UP
UM, CAG, UH, WE CALL IT IS, IS SPONSORING THE BILL.
AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME EVER THAT THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR GOLF HAS BEEN THE SPONSOR OF A PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
IT DIDN'T, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE WE, WE MIGHT'VE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON, BUT AS OF A COUPLE YEARS AGO, ALL THE SCRUTINY AND LEADING TO REAL CONCERN FOR HOW DO WE HELP ENSURE THAT WE'RE DOING OUR PART TO SECURE THESE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SO THAT THEY DO REMAIN AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE AND ARE OFFERED IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PARKS MISSION.
OF COURSE, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT, BUT I'M JUST THINKING HOW IS THIS GONNA BE ENFORCED AND WHO IS GOING TO REGULATE IT? IS THAT, YEAH, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL HAVE A, IS THIS THE RIGHT TIME FOR, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT? SINCE WE HAVE THE, YOU, THE CHAIR, YOU KNOW, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR CRAIG TO, UH, USE YOUR, USE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT TIME IF YOU'D LIKE TIMER HONOR.
YEAH, I WAS ABOUT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF FOR THE RECORD.
UH, YOUR NAME IS CRAIG KESLER.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE, REVOLVING A FORMER MEMBER OF THIS BODY.
SO, UH, YOUR ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE THAT WOULD GIVE THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, OR THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, OR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES OR ANY, OR THE COUNTY OR THE STATE ITSELF, WHICH DOES OWN A COUPLE OF GOLF COURSES, A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE ABILITY TO BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT.
SHOULD SOMEONE BE RESELLING OR BROKERING THEIR TEE TIMES WHERE THEY'RE DOING IT WITH A BOILER ROOM OR WITH A BOT USING COMPUTERS, THEY COULD ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER.
AND RIGHT NOW, UH, THAT PRACTICE IS PERFECTLY LEGAL IF IT'S NOT BY AGREEMENT.
SO IF YOU'RE THINKING OF GOLF NOW OR SUPREME GOLF OR SOME OF THOSE SERVICES, THOSE ARE BY AGREEMENT.
AND OFTENTIMES IT'S LIKE ALL BUSINESS AGREEMENTS.
GOLF NOW IS PROVIDING A CERTAIN SET OF SERVICES AND VALUES TO THE CITY, CITY, OR IN THIS CASE AMERICAN GOLF.
AND THAT APPLIES HERE AS WELL.
AND THEN THEY, AND IN RETURN, THEY GET A COUPLE OF TEE TIMES THEY CAN BROKER AND SOME PLACES THEY GET GOOD TEE TIMES AND PLACES ARE BUSY LIKE THIS.
YOU DON'T GET SUCH GOOD ONES, AND THEY'RE USUALLY DISCOUNTED.
THERE ARE TIMES THAT IN SOME PLACES OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT BE SOLD AND IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
SO, AND JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, LAST SUMMER, A COUPLE OF BROTHERS WERE T BROKERING IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THEY HAVE BEEN INDICTED, UH, BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR TAX EVASION.
[00:10:02]
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THEY CAN PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT'S A HIGH STANDARD THAT THEY MADE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $700,001.1 MILLION OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD, SIMPLY RESELLING, SELLING TEE TIMES AT THE MOST COMPETITIVELY PRICED GOLF COURSES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOWER THAN THE PRICES HERE.SO NONE OF THAT MONEY WENT TO THE OWNER.
UM, IN SOME CASES, THE COUNTY FACILITIES ARE ALSO CONTRACT, DIDN'T GO TO THE OPERATOR, DIDN'T GO TO THEIR CAPEX FUNDS OR THEIR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUNDS.
WHAT THEY DID WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.
NOW, FAILING TO PAY TAXES, THAT WAS THEIR PROBLEM.
IT WAS AL CAPONE'S PROBLEM TOO.
SO THAT'S, SO THAT'S THE ISSUE.
SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION.
THERE ARE NO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE DONE THAT.
BUT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN, IN OTHER WORDS, THE LAND OF PERPETUAL DEFICITS AND DEBTS, IT'S VERY EASY WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT AN EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH PRIORITY.
AND WE ALL LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND WE KNOW THAT ACTS EQUITABLE.
ACCESS TO TEE TIMES IS NOT QUITE AS BIG A PROBLEM AS HOUSING COSTS, HOMELESSNESS, CRIME, THE PRO, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SO WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS OF THOSE THINGS THAT CAN BE JETTISON, IT BECOMES TOO EASY TO KILL A BILL.
THERE'S NO, PARTICULARLY IF THERE'S OPPOSITION, IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO OPPOSITION.
WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY OPPOSITION.
SO WE WANT IT TO GO THROUGH AND WE WANT THE, WHAT'S CALLED THE, THE APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS TO INDICATE, IN ESSENCE, WE'RE JUST GIVING, AS I WE PUT IT, GIVING THE CITIES AND COUNTIES THE TOOLS THAT THEY DO NOT NOW HAVE AND THAT ONLY THE STATE CAN PROVIDE SO THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES AND TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS.
'CAUSE I KNOW KEVIN WAS PART OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE CITIES OF SAN DIEGO AND LOS ANGELES, WHICH WERE MOST AGREED BY THIS, THEY WERE TIRED OF BEING LAUGHED AT BY THESE GUYS THEY WOULD MEET AT NOW.
THEY'LL BRING THEIR LAWYERS WITH THEM OR THREATENED TO BRING IN THEIR LAWYERS.
SO AT THE FIRST HEARING THAT KEVIN ALLUDED TO OUR PRIMARY, YOU, WHEN YOU, IF YOU'RE AN AUTHOR OF THE BILL, CAN BRING IN TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION CAN BRING TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES AS WELL.
OUR PRIMARY WITNESSES FOR THE FIRST HEARING ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY, OF LOS CITIES OF LOS ANGELES AND SAN DIEGO.
THE SECOND ONE, WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
UH, WE'RE TRYING, WE THINK WE MAY GET THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO BE THAT.
IF WE'RE TOTALLY DESPERATE AND SOMEONE, SOMEONE'S PLANE DOESN'T TAKE OFF.
WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE ARE NOT GONNA GET PRIMARY TESTIMONY, BUT THE LEAGUE OF CITIES IN CALIFORNIA IS PROBABLY GONNA, IS GONNA, IS ALREADY INDICATED SUPPORT.
SO THIS IS AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, CLIFF.
THIS IS, THIS IS FAIRLY POPULAR.
HAVING SAID THAT, THEY ALL TOOK GRADE SCHOOL AND SAID, HOW BILL BECOMES A LAW.
I'M LESS WOR, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE ASSEMBLY, WORRIED A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE SENATE, BUT BY THEN WE'LL HAVE LETTERS FROM LONG BEACH AND SOME OF THE OTHERS.
IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET A LETTER FROM A GOVERNMENT AND SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL.
THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF THE MAYOR OF SAN DIEGO WROTE THE LETTER HIMSELF SHOULD TELL YOU HOW ANGRY THEY ARE AT T AT T BROKERING.
SO AS THIS MOVES ALONG THROUGH THE PROCESS, I AM MOST WORRIED ABOUT A GUBERNATORIAL VETO AS HE LOOKS AT THIS IS WHY WE MESSING AROUND.
BUT THERE'LL BE TIME, ASSUMING IT GETS THROUGH THE SENATE TO, YOU KNOW, TO GET OUR CASE BEFORE THE GOVERNANCE AND REALLY THE ACE IN THE HOLE.
MAYBE SOMEDAY WHEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS A SURPLUS, AGAIN, IF THAT EVER HAPPENS, WE MAY COME BACK WITH A, WITH A, A SECONDARY BILL THAT CREATES SOME ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.
THERE'S AN INTERESTING, THERE'S A BILL LIVE LIKE THIS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH DOES PUT A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.
BUT I THINK WE WERE WISE IN LEAVING THAT OUT SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS AND GET A HOOK AND, AND SORT OF, AND, AND BRING A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCIPLINE TO A PROCESS THAT WAS ON EYEWITNESS NEWS.
YOU KNOW, KEVIN, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WAS CHAIRING THE LA CITY GOLF COMMISSION.
AND AT THAT MEETING WHERE THE GOLF MANAGER WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO GO BECAUSE THERE WERE DEATH THREATS, THAT'S HOW DICEY THIS WAS.
HE IN ESSENCE HAD WHAT, LIKE 70 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THEY WERE NONE TOO HAPPY.
AND CAMERAS FROM KTLA AND FOX AND ALL THESE, AND I WAS SITTING NEXT TO MATT HAMILTON, THE LA TIMES, WHO WROTE TWO FRONT PAGE STORIES ABOUT IT.
I ADVISED HIM BEFORE, LET PEOPLE TALK AS LONG AS THEY WILL, BECAUSE IF YOU CUT THEM OFF, YOU'LL HAVE A RIOT.
SPEAKING OF THAT, CRAIG, YEAH, SPEAKING OF THAT, I THINK A LONG TIME AGO HE HAS LIVED FOR THE MOMENT WHERE HE COULD SAY, MR. KESSLEY, YOUR TIME IS UP.
YOU DON'T NEED TO CALM IT DOWN.
I HOPE I ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND BILL, AND THEN JUST IN CASE IT WASN'T CLEAR, CRAIG IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR GOLF, THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
[00:15:03]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? COMMENTS? YES.IS THIS THE LETTER YOU'RE GONNA SEND TO THE STATE ASSEMBLY? NO.
SO THIS, THIS LETTER ON THE, THE PAGE PRIOR TO THAT WOULD BE THE LETTER FROM THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, THIS WAS REALLY JUST AN ADD-ON.
THAT WAS A STARTING POINT TEMPLATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT COULD, COULD HELP AS, AS THE CITY MAY CONSIDER FILING A LETTER OF SUPPORT SO THAT THIS IS JUST A VERY MINIMAL DRAFT TO HELP GET IT STARTED AND KIND OF AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL THE MEMBERS TODAY TO SEE WHAT, WHAT THIS COULD LOOK LIKE.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT IT NOW? SURE.
AND I THINK THIS LETTER SHOULD TALK MORE ABOUT THE GOLFERS IN LONG BEACH.
YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH EXPLAINS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
BUT SOMETHING OUGHT TO BE IN HERE.
THAT CITY OF LONG BEACH HAS HOW MANY GOLFERS? YOU PROBABLY HAVE AN IDEA.
AND THEY'RE BEING CHEATED OUT OF TEE TIMES BECAUSE OF THESE THIRD PARTY CROOKS.
THEY CAN BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED IF THEY TRY TO DO THAT.
NOT PENALTIES, BUT A STRICT LAW.
THAT THEY CAN BE INDICTED CRIMINALLY.
THEY TRY TO BE A THIRD PARTY, A THIRD NOT UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY SHOULD BE STRONGER AND, AND, AND PUT IN THERE.
THIS IS, THIS IS FROM THE PUT GOLFERS IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE IT MAKES GOLFERS ANGRY.
I KNOW THAT A YEAR OR TWO AGO, GOLFERS WERE VERY ANGRY 'CAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET A TEE TIME.
A LOT OF GOLFERS ARE STILL ANGRY ABOUT IT.
BUT I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR MANY YEARS AND OVER THE PAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF, IT'S GOTTEN EASIER FOR RESIDENTS TO MAKE TEE TIMES AMAZINGLY DIFFERENT.
BUT YOU'VE GOT TO PUT IN PUNISHMENT AND IT'S A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.
YOU DO A LOT MORE THAN A PENALTY.
THEY'LL BE MAKING SO MUCH MONEY, THEY WON'T MIND PAYING THE PENALTY.
WELL, I CAN SAY WE, WE, WE CAN'T WRITE THE LETTER FOR THE CITY, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY ADD WITH EMPHASIS SOME, SOME GREAT SUPPORT FOR WELL, HOW ABOUT THE GOLF RECREATION COMMITTEE WRITING A LETTER? YOU, YOU DRAFTED THIS ONE.
WE, WE COULD, WE COULD DEFINITELY DO THAT TOO AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I GUESS WE DIDN'T PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA.
WELL, THIS IS THE ONE, THE ONE BEFORE IT THOUGH IS THE ONE YOU'RE GIVING TO THE CITY.
SO THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT, RIGHT? MM-HMM
AND, AND I CAN, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME STRONGER COMMENTS IN MY MEMO TO THE DIRECTOR THAT GOES WITH THE LETTER.
BUT THE, WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE THE COMMITTEE ITSELF ISN'T, ISN'T AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A LETTER TO SUPPORT IT.
SO THIS IS YOUR WAY OF DOING THAT TO ASK THE CITY TO SUPPORT IT.
SO THE GOLF GOLFERS IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, THE COMMITTEE CANNOT THE COM THE COMMITTEE CAN REQUEST THAT THE CITY, UM, BACK THE LEGISLATION.
BUT, UM, WE WERE, BUT THE COMMITTEE CANNOT ISSUE ITS OWN LETTER.
BUT YOU CAN AS INDIVIDUALS YES, CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY AS INDIVIDUALS IF YOU WANTED TO.
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW MANY GOLFERS THERE ARE IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH? I DON'T.
YOU, YOU, I MEAN, AS IN TERMS OF RESIDENCE, THE ONLY WAY YOU TRACK THAT IS BY RESIDENT CARDS AND BY NON-RESIDENT CARDS.
AND THAT STILL WOULD NOT GIVE YOU NO.
IT WOULDN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE NUMBER OF MY BELIEF.
THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR KEVIN.
ANY OTHER CARRIE? SORRY, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN I SAID INDIVIDUALS CAN WRITE LETTERS, INDIVIDUALS AS CITIZENS, RESIDENTS CAN WRITE LETTERS, NOT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, RIGHT? JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
WELL, AND I THINK DURING OUR FIRST MEETING ABOUT THIS, WE HAD SAID IT WAS MORE POWERFUL TO GO THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAN A CONSUMER LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN, IF I RECALL RIGHT? YEAH, EXACTLY.
AS OPPOSED TO THE PUBLIC GOLF ENDANGERMENT ACTS, WHICH YOU MIGHT REMEMBER FROM A COUPLE YEARS AGO, UH, WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO GET EVERY GOLFER IN THE STATE, EVERY GROUP CLUB, FACILITY, MUNICIPALITY TO SEND LETTERS AND, AND UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF FLOOD THE ZONE WITH CALLS AND SO ON.
[00:20:01]
IN THAT CASE, WE WERE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, STOP SOMETHING THAT HAD A, A FAIR AMOUNT OF MOMENTUM THAT COULD HURT MUNICIPAL GOLF.IN THIS CASE, THE STRATEGY WITH, WITH VERY MINIMAL, AT LEAST, OR PERHAPS ZERO OPPOSITION ANTICIPATED.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE TAKEN THE STRATEGY WHERE IF THE MUNICIPALITIES FIND THAT IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO THEM TO FILE A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR MAKE A CALL, REACH OUT TO THEIR MEMBERS, THAT'S, THAT'S A GREAT STARTING POINT.
BUT WE WERE NOT ASKING FOR THOUSANDS OF LETTERS.
UH, BECAUSE IF THERE'S GREAT SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, FOR FEAR OF ANNOYING SOME OF THE MEMBERS WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE GONNA VOTE FOR ANYWAY, TO GET IT THROUGH A POLICY COMMITTEE.
IF, IF THE BILL ENDED UP IN SOME TROUBLE, THEN WE, WE MIGHT CHANGE THE STRATEGY.
BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES TO LEAD THE SUPPORT EFFORT.
AND WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THE LETTER, I MEAN, I GUESS MY, MY TAKE WITH WHAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WAS THAT WE COULD PUT MORE, WE, WE COULD FILE IT OR, OR MAKE A, A CRAFT A LETTER IN IN THE FUTURE THAT PROVIDES EVEN MORE HEFT TO IT, THAT EXPLAINS EVEN FURTHER.
I MEAN, THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE, BUT, UM, I KNOW WE WERE SORT OF ON TWO TRACKS.
ONE WAS TO REACH OUT TO THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS TEAM AND SEE WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT BE DONE PRIOR TO THIS POTENTIAL MOVE BY THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AND THEN SECOND, HOPEFULLY THIS JUST TAKES EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE THAT IS ALREADY IN THE BILL AND THEN MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE GOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY LEGISLATION, THIS IS GOING TO THE STATE LEGISLATION, LEGISLATION.
ALL THEY CARE ABOUT ARE THEIR VOTERS.
OKAY, WELL LET THE VOTERS BE HEARD.
AND I'M TELLING YOU, IF YOU CAN SAY THERE'S 30,000 GOLFERS OR HALF A MILLION IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, AND IF EACH MUNICIPALITY DID THAT TO SHOW THE, THE LEGISLATORS THAT NEED THEIR NEED, OUR VOTES, THAT THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS.
I MEAN, CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THE WORST RUN STATES IN THE COUNTRY.
OKAY? AND THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO THEM IS THE VOTERS.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED A LETTER FROM EACH GOLFER.
BUT SOME STRONG WORDS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS AND MEMBERS CAN'T GET A TEE TIME AND IT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED CRIMINALLY.
I YEAH, NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE, WE, WE CERTAINLY KNOW HOW MANY GOLFERS THERE ARE IN THE STATE.
SO, AND, AND WHAT PERCENTAGE PLAY ON MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSES? THE, THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE GAME.
SO WE WILL, UH, HOW MANY GOLFERS IN THE STATE? IT'S ABOUT NINE ISH PERCENT OF THE STATE PLAY GOLF.
AND WE CONSIDER A GOLFER SOMEONE WHO PLAYS AT LEAST, LEAST ONE.
HOW MANY PEOPLE IS THAT? DON'T TALK INTO PROCEDURES.
IF THAT'S THE 9%, THEN MAKE THIS LETTER FROM 3.5 MILLION GOLFERS ONLY, WHATEVER IT IS FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH.
THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD BE, THAT 3.9 MILLION WOULD BE THAT HAVE INDEXES? NO, THAT, I MEAN, WE CAN, IT DEPENDS WE CONSIDER A GOLFER, BUT A GOLFER WOULD BEING SOMEBODY THAT PLAYS AT LEAST ONE ROUND PER YEAR.
AND THERE ARE SOME THAT PLAY LESS, THAT STILL PLAY, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, GOLF DEBATE US.
MY FEELING IS THAT GETTING NO BIG DEBATE ABOUT IT, THE, THE CITIES AND THE MUNICIPALITIES OR WHOEVER'S OWNS THESE GOLF COURSES, THEY'RE THE ONES BEING DAMAGED.
REALLY? THE MARKET BEARS PEOPLE PAYING OVERPAYING THIRD PARTY PEOPLE TO PLAY GOLF.
ANGERS GOLFERS, BUT GOLFERS AREN'T SO DAMAGED AS THE CITIES AREN'T GETTING THE MONEY THAT THEY SHOULD GET.
AND THAT SHOULD, OR ACTUALLY THEY'RE MAYBE GETTING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT MAYBE THEY SHOULD TAKE SOME OF THAT MARKET SHARE.
THIS IS BEING DRIVEN BY PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO PAY TOO MUCH TO PLAY GOLF.
BECAUSE IF, IF YOU NEED TO PAY 40, $50 IN ADDITION TO THE GREENS FEE TO SECURE A TIME, THEN THE, THE, THE FACILITIES ARE BEING OFFERED AT A LESS AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE, UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LESS AFFORDABLE AND LESS ACCESSIBLE THAN WHAT THE PARKS MISSION IS, IS TRYING TO DELIVER.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, OUR FEAR IS ALWAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THE COST GOES UP, THEN OVERALL PARTICIPATION IS GONNA GO DOWN AND THE POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR USING PARK SPACE FOR A GOLF OFFERING DWINDLES.
AND SO IT'S, IT'S JUST A BAD TRAJECTORY TO BE ON.
WE WANT THE FACILITIES TO BE AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE AND WE WANT THE PARKS DEPARTMENTS TO
[00:25:01]
BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE, THE GAME PER THEIR MISSION.I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT ANGLE.
AND I'M AFFECTED 'CAUSE I DON'T EVER GET A TEE TIME EVER.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY MORNING.
BUT WE CAN'T WRITE THE CITY'S LETTER, BUT WE CAN SUGGEST THAT THEY WRITE ONE.
WHOEVER WOULD BE DRAFTING THAT AND ADD SOME EMPHASIS.
YOU DRAFT THE LETTER, YOU REPRESENT THE GOLFERS OF IN LONG BEACH, I'LL BE HELPING.
UM, IT'LL COME FROM OUR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS TEAM.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HANDLE THAT.
BUT THEY'LL COME TO ME FOR, YOU KNOW, UM, SUPPORT THAT.
WELL YOU'VE GOTTA WRITE A LETTER FOR THEM.
WELL, WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH INVOLVEMENT THEY WANT FROM ME.
WELL, YOU GOTTA TELL 'EM ABOUT ALL THE ANGRY I WILL MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE.
REPRESENTING THE ANGRY GOLFERS.
SO THE NEXT UH, POINT IS SO VOTE.
WE'VE, SO WELL THANK YOU ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? OTHERWISE WE HAD A, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DO WHAT? UM, TO APPROVE THE LETTER TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY DROPPED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR AB 1954, THE PAR ACT.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE, DID WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC, UH, COMMENT THAT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA, CRAIG? YES.
I THINK WE'LL BE REALLY BRIEF.
CRAIG CASTER FOR THE RECORD AGAIN.
SO BY BRINGING FORWARD LAST YEAR STANDARD TIME BILL AND THIS YEAR THAT BILL AND THIS, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THIS BODY BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE PUT GOLF ON THE RADAR SCREEN OF THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH.
SO YOU PREPARED FOR THE FUTURE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER PROACTIVE BILLS, NEGATIVE BILLS THAT TEND TO BE MORE NEGATIVELY POSITIVE.
AND THAT'S THE VALUE OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS IN THE PIPELINE TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT YOU MOVE THESE THINGS ALONG INCREMENTALLY SLOWLY, BUT THEY BUILD UPON EACH OTHER.
IF YOU'VE GOT 9% OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE GOLFERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BREAK THAT DOWN THROUGH TIC FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AND THE POPULATION OF LONG BEACH VERSUS THE STATE AND COME UP WITH SOME HARD NUMBERS.
WE STILL AT THE FLOOR, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK HE COULD DO ALL THE STATE'S GOLF ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF REAL LIVE GOLFERS ARE SIGNERS OF THE COALITION LETTER.
THAT'S THE MAIN LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE BILL IN ADDITION TO THESE MUNICIPAL LETTERS.
ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ANY MEMBERS? OKAY.
WITH THAT AT, UH, DO WE KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS? THREE 30.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.