Councilman Pushes Tax on LA Private Golf Courses

Private golf courses are the target here, but the real story is city revenue. Los Angeles Councilmember Adrin Nazarian has started the process for a November 3 ballot measure that would tax large private membership clubs inside the city. The pitch is simple — these properties serve a tiny, wealthy slice of Angelenos while occupying huge amounts of urban land. The city, meanwhile, is short on money for basics like streets, housing and other capital needs. ### What exactly did Nazarian propose? Nazarian introduced a motion on Friday, May 8, to begin the legal and administrative work for a city ballot measure. The measure would create a parcel tax on large, private, membership-based recreational clubs in Los Angeles — the kind of places that include private golf courses and country clubs. Because it is a new local tax, voters would have to approve it. The target date is the Nov. 3 election. (aol.com) ### How big is the tax? The number getting everyone’s attention is $4 per square foot. That is not a tax on profits or membership dues. It is tied to land area, which matters because these clubs sit on enormous parcels in a city where land is scarce and expensive. Nazarian says that rate could generate up to $250 million a year. (aol.com) ### Why golf courses and country clubs? Basically, this is a fairness argument. Private clubs use a lot of land, often in high-value neighborhoods, but they are not housing people and they are not open public parks either. They function as exclusive recreational spaces. Nazarian’s argument is that city taxpayers subsidize the broader system around them — roads, public safety, infrastructure — while these properties contribute less than their footprint suggests they should. (aol.com) ### Why now? Because L.A. needs money, and not just a little. The city has been under pressure to fund routine services and longer-term projects at the same time. That makes unusual revenue ideas suddenly look less fringe. Nazarian has framed the club tax as a way to pay for city services and capital improvements, and some follow-on coverage says he has also tied the idea to housing and infrastructure priorities. (aol.com) ### Is this a tax on nonprofits? In many cases, yes — or at least on nonprofit membership clubs. That is part of why this gets politically tricky. The proposal is not aimed at every golf course or every business with a big parking lot. It is narrowly aimed at private recreational membership clubs, many of which have nonprofit structures. The debate will turn on whether nonprofit status should shield elite clubs from a tax tied to land use rather than charitable activity. (aol.com) ### What has to happen next? The motion does not create the tax by itself. City officials would still need to draft the measure, settle the legal language, and vote to place it on the ballot. Then voters would decide. So the immediate news is not “L.A. taxed golf courses.” It is “a councilmember is trying to make voters choose.” (dnyuz.com) ### What are opponents likely to say? The obvious pushback is that this singles out a narrow class of property owners for a politically juicy reason — rich golfers are easy villains. Opponents will also argue that parcel taxes can be blunt instruments, because they ignore whether a club is cash-rich or land-rich. And if the city starts treating underused land as a tax target, other low-density uses could wonder if they are next. (aol.com) That part is inference, but it follows directly from how parcel taxes work. ### Why does this matter beyond golf? Because this is really a fight about who gets to control valuable city land and who pays for the city around it. Los Angeles has a housing shortage, battered infrastructure and constant budget pressure. A tax on private clubs would not solve all of that, but it would test a bigger idea — whether voters are ready to treat elite recreational land as a luxury worth taxing harder. (aol.com) The bottom line is that Nazarian is trying to turn resentment about exclusive land use into a concrete revenue measure. If the proposal makes the ballot, Angelenos will be deciding something larger than golf — they will be deciding whether exclusivity itself should carry a bigger city tax bill. (aol.com)