Golf: A Good Walk Spoiled [Revisionist History]

Malcolm Gladwell hates golf.

He views golf as a pastime largely engaged in by rich, white men running large companies, played on vast swaths of private land—accessible only to wealthy people—in urban areas that are park-poor. And subsidized by the very people who can’t use the golf courses.

He hates it for socio-economic reasons. In his opinion, we should all hate it.

Gladwell is a runner; one of his runs is around the Brentwood Country Club, “a luxurious private golf and tennis club” in west Los Angeles. He and fellow runners hug a narrow track outside the course, blocked by fencing; he gazes upon the lush green lawns mostly devoid of people.  He gets curious; then riled up.

According to Gladwell, golf isn’t a harmless habit impacting only the player. It has consequences: it’s a sport 1) with the potential to lower company profits, that 2) denies cities desperately needed tax dollars.

Gladwell’s podcast drills in on these issues, fleshing each one out, with political snark tossed in along the way.  It appears to be about golf; but it’s really about equity and fairness.

“Golf. Crack cocaine. For rich white guys.”

Gladwell starts with research done by Lee Biggerstaff, an economist at Miami University, that gathers golfers’ handicap data and matches it to CEO’s of top public companies.  According to Biggerstaff, golfers who are obsessed with golf can spend 5 weeks a year golfing. If they’re leaving the office to golf, they’re not on the job. His study suggests that,

“the more golf a CEO plays, the worse his firm does…and the more likely he is to be fired.”

The most obsessed golfer in the sample is a CEO who plays golf 148 times a year, an amount Gladwell calls an addiction. At that level, Gladwell considers golf a self-destructive habit; something that results in missed work, harms ones’ performance and puts ones’ career in jeopardy.  All while costing a lot to play and usually requiring membership at private golf clubs. From Gladwell’s perspective, it’s a hazardous sport for the individual and the company they oversee.  And yes, he takes a jab at Trump.

Property Taxes: Gift from God #1

Gladwell next hammers on the issue of golf course property taxes in California, using private Los Angeles courses to illustrate.

California generally collects property taxes on properties based on a “highest and best use” concept; if you want to grow corn on a one-acre plot in the heart of urban LA, California is going to tax that land “as if” it has something substantive built on it, something that’s considered the highest and best use of the land.

In 1960, this made golf clubs nervous. They banded together and proposed an amendment to CA’s State Constitution to “permanently exempt them from the highest and best use standard.“

“If you think about it, this is seriously audacious,” Gladwell asserts.  “Private golf courses are these massive, opulent, gated playgrounds and membership is often restricted.”

Despite the fact that, in 1960, a lot of these LA golf courses didn’t let in Jews or Blacks, they “wanted a constitutional exemption to ordinary property taxes, like they were some kind of public amenity.”

To pitch their case, they used Bob Hope, an obsessive golfer and popular entertainer, with a persona as an “everyman.”  He became the face for the Proposition, helping it pass. It was added to Article 13 of California’s Constitution, where it remains. Gladwell points out:

“In order to win a set of privileges for the very wealthy, California’s country clubs turn to a man who symbolizes the common man.”

Property Taxes: Gift from God #2

In 1978, another California Proposition affecting real estate taxation passed and was added to California’s Constitution: Proposition 13.  With that Proposition, property taxes were set at 1% of the value of the property when purchased; annual increases occur, but not based on increases in property value. Reassessment, and new rates, happen only after sale, transfer or construction.  For a sale to trigger reassessment, the ownership change must be greater than 50%.

For the golf courses, this is another gift, especially given the fact that CA property values have skyrocketed. Their property tax increases are kept in check as long as the property doesn’t change hands. Given that most of the LA golf courses were founded before 1978, and ownership is in the hands of the members, most courses benefit from this proposition, especially as there was a presumption that ownership didn’t change.

Until 2010, when a newspaper questions that presumption. They dig and conclude that equity ownership—the membership by the individual owners—has in fact changed hands plenty of times, to the extent that the current ownership is more than 50% different than in 1978. An attempt is made to reassess the value of the golf courses and increase their taxes. It’s put to the city of LA to decide.

In June 2010, LA County’s Tax Court concluded that, while the golf courses have had small slices of individual ownership changes, no single 50% change occurred so the golf courses haven’t changed hands; no reassessment.

What’s the financial impact of these legal decisions? A back of the envelope estimate of the property taxes that would be due by just the private Los Angeles Country Club—based on current market values—is between $60 and $90 million a year. The amount they actually pay? $200,000.  That’s an $89,800,000 tax subsidy.

This conundrum prods Gladwell into exploring ancient philosophy, specifically Theseus’s paradox. Plutarch, in the late first century, wondered: If all the pieces of Theseus’s ship are replaced, is it the same ship?  It’s a 2,000-year-old paradox, with no bright-line answer.

The two arguments that tug in the paradox come to different conclusions:

  1. If the change is gradual and a new form replaces the previous form, an object can maintain its identity: the ship is the same, even if boards needing replacement are replaced, as the form is the same. (Spatiotemporal Continuity Theory)
  2. If you change the parts, one at a time, you change the thing: a ship in a museum is stolen one board at a time, all the stolen boards are moved to a new location, and reassembled into the “original” ship. The ship in the museum is a replica.

If all the members who own the golf club have been replaced, is the ownership still the same?  The courts, in Gladwell’s view, voted that, yes, ownership was still the same; identity was maintained.  Which leads to Gladwell discussing aristocracy, inherited rights, privileges, and fairness, and ultimately calling golf “an instrument of medieval privilege” and the golf clubs of LA “aristocratic institutions.”

Los Angeles is short of public parks. It lacks the equivalent of NY’s Central Park or San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park.  Yet there are these vast parklands that exist: the private golf courses of LA, played on by the rich, closed to the general public, yet subsidized by that public.  Given those subsidies, Gladwell pleads with the golf courses to give something back to the communities.  St. Andrews in Scotland, he argues, is open to the general public on Sundays, and private courses in Canada allow public access at identified times.

“Take down your barbed wire,” he cajoles, and open up the land to the people.

Random golf trivia from the podcast:

  1. “A typical golf course is 200 acres, give or take.”
  2. “When a fancy golf course rebuilds its bunkers, it typically takes 389 truckloads of sand.”
  3. “A good, private course can handle no more than 72 golfers at once; that’s one golfer per 120,833 square feet.“  If basketball had the same population density requirements, a basketball court would be 30 acres.


Revisionist History podcast “is Malcolm Gladwell’s journey through the overlooked and the misunderstood. Every episode re-examines something from the past—an event, a person, an idea, even a song—and asks whether we got it right the first time. From Panoply Media. Because sometimes the past deserves a second chance.”

More Information:

  1. 1 Surprising Activity That Bad CEOs Do the Most, Erik Sherman, , 8/9/16
  2. Why You Should Care About Your CFO’s Golf Game, Michal Addady, Fortune, 12/21/15
  3. We Should Raise Taxes on These 3 Things to Pay for Healthcare and Parks, Hillel Aron, LA Weekly, 7/5/17
  4. Some Golf Clubs May be Reappraised for the First Time Since Prop. 13 Passed, Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times, 1/16/10
  5. CA Proposition 6: Assessment of Golf Courses—Constitutional Amendment, 1960
  6. CA Proposition 13: Tax Limitation—Initiative Constitutional Amendment, 1978
  7. California Constitution, Article XIII Taxation, Sec. 10: taxation of nonprofit golf courses, 10 or more acres.

4 thoughts on “Golf: A Good Walk Spoiled [Revisionist History]

  1. Dan Hare

    Since this is the only place I’ve found that i can comment on this podcast, here is my take…
    I love RH on the whole, but this one is uncharacteristically snarky.

    What MG should say is “I hate PRIVATE golf CLUBS WITH NO PUBLIC ACCESS”.
    WIth this I concur – it’s unreasonable for an organisation to control access to scarce open space in a built up area without allowing public access, either via “pay and play” or public rights of way.

    Golf itself is a great pastime, in urban settings a way for increasingly hemmed in humans to enjoy several hours in pleasurable competition with like minded folk away from modern life’s intrusions in an idealised version of countryside, similar to an English landscaped park.
    In rural settings golf allows one to experience natural beauty and healthy sporting activity.

    I am from the UK with its tradition of public access to land, so the vast majority of courses are open to the public at least part of the time, and have public rights of way across them.
    Where they don’t they should.

    Every British Open venue is open to men and women to pay and play – it is undoubtedly expensive in British terms (Muirfield is ~$300 for a game, for example), but one has the opportunity to play at the most famous venues in the UK and be a member for the day.
    This is equivalent to being able to play soccer at Wembley, tennis at Wimbledon, cricket at Lord’s, basketball at MSG, baseball at Yankee Stadium, football at Soldier Field etc, which of course one can’t.
    Most of the US Open venues are entirely private, and those that are public in populated areas are hideously expensive (Pebble Beach) or inconvenient (Bethpage).

    Open the gates to let more people grow to love golf.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I love your contribution to the topic. In particular because this blog rarely gets comments and yours are thoughtful.

    Now I’m trying to figure out a way to get your comments to Malcolm Gladwell. It may be via twitter. Stay tuned….


  3. Scott Arens

    Interesting and funny podcast but a few points of contention.

    First, golf courses are usually attractive. That in itself provides a benefit to people who live and work nearby. Is Central Park beautiful only for those walking in it? Same question with the beach/ocean. Lots of folks love the ocean and never get sand on their shoes. That you like running there, as opposed to down some alley between high rises, suggest you agree.

    Second, highest and best use relates to what is legally permissible. Let’s say you buy a home and then purchase a lot next door to use as your vegetable garden. If you go to the city and say “I want to restrict the use of this site as a vegetable garden forever” that site is now worth something less. If 20 years later people are buying lots in that neighborhood for $1.0 million does that mean yours is worth $1.0? No, it means it would have been worth $1.0 million if you had not restricted its use.

    Third, if you deem golf such a frivolous waste of time, what about running? Both are simply pastimes that people choose to do while not working. Why is your activity “good” and the one you don’t do “bad?”

    Finally, you paint the members of the country club as “rich white guys” when in fact all country clubs in the US have members that are woman and non-whites. This might be an economic class thing, but it’s not a race/gender thing.


    1. I hope you know I’m a fellow podcast listener sharing observations about podcasts I’ve found interesting. Much of my post is a summary of what Malcolm Gladwell says in his podcast, not my personal sentiments. You have valid points; as does Gladwell. I’d say his podcast, my post, and your comments are all part of a worthwhile conversation. Apologies for not replying sooner, but this blog is largely dormant these days. Thanks for reading and commenting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s