The Battle of Seattle

It’s darkly ironic that while Seattleites have easy access to some of the most beautiful landscapes in the country, if not the world, there is precious little green space within the Emerald City itself. The Seattle Times reports that just 12.5 percent of the City is devoted to parks, whereas 21.7 percent of New York City is used for public recreation. Nearly 20 per cent of San Francisco, 19.4 percent of Las Vegas, and 15.2 percent of Phoenix are similarly zoned.

Of Seattle’s 6,414 park acres, only 528 are reserved for public golfers, with just three and a half municipally-owned courses — or, 72 open-to-all holes, including three 18-hole championship courses and nine-holers at Jackson Park and Interbay — available to a population of 750,000 people.

It’s not pushing the boat out terribly far to suggest that Seattle is not a big golf town, but the three 18-holers — Jefferson Park, Jackson Park, and West Seattle — have served the City since 1915, 1930, and 1940, respectively, and are held dear by those who have been playing them for decades.

Regulars got quite a jolt, therefore, in April when reporter Erica C. Barnett revealed on thecisforcrank.com that the City had spent $104,000 on a 131-page study completed by Lund Consulting, Scanlan Consulting and Cocker Fennessy, that looked into the ongoing feasibility of Seattle’s publicly owned golf courses and whether or not the land upon which they sit might be better-suited to other purposes, most notably low-income housing.

As expected, reactions to the Lund Report ran the gamut of opinion.

First came shock and alarm from golfers. Margaret Anthony, a former Parks employee and a member of the West Seattle Women’s Club, organized a “Save Seattle Golf” meeting at Jefferson Park in late May, and was astonished when hundreds of fellow golfers turned out.

A week later, the issue surged to the forefront when Scott Hanson published a story in The Seattle Times under the headline, “Booming Seattle questions future of City courses,” in which Mayor Jenny Durkan was decidedly non-committal, stating that, “It would be a breach of our duty to the people of Seattle not to be really looking at what is the best use of those golf courses, from everything to continuing as golf courses, to finding a way to use part of them as parks, to use part of them for affordable housing.”

Multiple editorials followed — include from those in support of golf, like Chris Daniels at KING-TV and Aaron Levine at Q13 Fox, each of whom aired fierce defenses of the sport on their respective stations; those opposed, like Mike Eliason at The Urbanist, who lashed out at golf’s environmental impact, falling popularity and elitist mindset; and those like Times columnist Danny Westneat, who didn’t so much defend golf as park space in general.

Lost in much of the back-and-forth discussion, though, were the facts. Golf’s opponents claim that the city’s courses are “bleeding money,” and that they are used by a small — and, largely older, white and male — segment of the city’s population, while tens of thousands of largely poor, lower- and middle-class families are squeezed out of the city due to a lack of housing. Turning one or more of those courses into a mix of affordable housing and public park space, they argue, would dramatically alleviate Seattle’s housing crisis, and stop the revenue drain on the Parks department — a winning idea with liberal and conservative thinkers alike.

Are any of those claims true? What is the current financial status of Seattle’s municipal courses? What is the reality of Seattle’s housing situation? And, were the city to decide to move forward with a housing plan, could they even legally tear up golf courses to do it?

Jackson Park Golf Course

According to the Lund/Scanlan/Cocker Fennessy Report (which we will heretofore just call “the Report”), the city’s courses have been used by an average of 238,000 golfers each year since 2009 — indeed, the Report cites a 2017 study by EMC Research that found that “13 percent of Seattle residents used a Seattle public golf course two or more times per year.”

The Report also notes that of the more than 206,000 rounds of golf played on Seattle municipal courses in 2018, more than 47,000 — over one quarter — were free or discounted rounds for juniors, seniors, disabled and military golfers. It also draws attention to the Fir State Golf Club — the nation’s second-oldest African American golf club — and Cascade Golf Club (originally founded in 1954 to increase opportunities for Chinese golfers, and now more ethnically diverse), both headquartered at Jefferson Park. In addition, Bogey Bear and First Tee programs create opportunities for thousands of young golfers each year, with the former specifically serving inner-city youth who may not otherwise have the means to play the game.

“People should come out to a municipal golf course and see for themselves,” says Dan Wartelle, Executive Director of The First Tee of Greater Seattle, which has taught golf and life lessons to over 100,000 Seattle-area youth since 2004. “Roughly half the kids in Seattle’s First Tee program are non-Caucasian, 35 percent are girls, and over 70 percent of our players receive financial aid to participate.”

Wartelle says plowing under municipal golf courses in Seattle would be a huge blow to programs like The First Tee.

“Depriving youngsters of the chance to learn the game and essential life skills like honesty, integrity, responsibility and perseverance would be disastrous,” he says. “We should be adding park space, not taking it away. The City must be living in a bizarro world if it thinks removing open green space is good for Seattle.”

The Report further notes that while the courses have technically been running a net loss, it’s not for a lack of profit — in fact, profits from Seattle’s golf courses are being used to fund other Parks programs throughout the city.

According to the Report, since 2006, the City has “sought to achieve a 103.5-105 percent revenue cost recovery from the municipal golf courses.” Furthermore, City courses are required to divert five percent of their profits each year to the Parks Fund, to help pay for less profitable programs. In layman’s terms, that means that City golf courses were not only required to cover their own costs in the City’s annual budget, but to bring in an additional 3.5-5 percent in revenue each year. (This, the Report added, was not true of other City recreation programs — aquatics must only recoup 50 percent of its costs, swimming pools 77 percent, and community centers 15 percent.) And, in fact, the golf courses have turned a profit every year — since 2006, the Report states, the Golf Program has contributed $3.7 million to the Parks Fund, well above its operating and capital expenses. It’s only when debt service payments, and the additional five percent to the Parks Fund are subtracted, that net income dips into the red.

The Report also cites the recent investment in driving range facilities at Jefferson Park and Jackson Park as making significant contributions to the golf courses’ bottom line, and notes $35.6 million in currently unfunded maintenance and improvements, with various ways to address those needs, including bonds that would result in further debt service.

And, it’s here where critics chime in — if the City is going to take on debt, why do it to support golf courses instead of affordable housing?

“According to the Census Bureau, Seattle was the fastest-growing city in the nation, the population increasing by almost 19 percent over the past 10 years,” said Kelsey Nyland, communications assistant to Mayor Jenny Durkan, in response to our request for a comment from the Mayor. “Affordable housing development, coupled with rising rents in the private market, has not kept pace with the need. As the number of affordable units continue to decrease, the cost of housing continues to skyrocket; over the past six years, rents have increased 57 percent.”

A recent study found that 47 percent of households that rent in the Seattle metro area are “housing-cost burdened,” which means they spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. In 2017, the Seattle Housing Authority opened its lottery for the Housing Choice Voucher program, which helps low-income families, individuals, seniors and people with disabilities pay their monthly rent in privately owned apartments or houses. More than 21,500 applications were received, for just 3,500 available spots.

It’s clear from this data — and, frankly, from simply driving around Seattle and noting the steadily increasing homeless population, and the high costs of homes and apartments within city limits — that affordable housing is a legitimate and important issue for the City to resolve. In his Times editorial, however, Westneat notes that it’s one the City is, in fact, already addressing.

“We need more housing (which we’re rapidly building),” he notes. “But the cause has become so strident it’s making Seattle lose its mind — to the point we’re now actually considering paving over prime parkland, in the mistaken belief that we’re running out of land for housing. We are not.”

According to an April 2019 Citywide Permit Report, 30,000 housing units have been built in Seattle since 2016, with 19,000 more currently under construction.

“That means the city’s goal of building 50,000 units in ten years, launched in 2016, has effectively been achieved — years early,” Westneat writes, adding that despite this boom, there is still room for an additional 200,000 units — enough to accommodate thousands of families, and help control housing costs, all without taking away any existing park space.

But, let’s say the City looked at all of this data, and decided to move forward with a plan to turn municipal golf courses into housing. How quickly could that happen? And, what would it cost?

The answer to the first question is: not anytime soon. The second? Well, let’s just say the City had better get a lot of bang for its buck from those houses.

Both questions relate back to an initiative — Initiative 42 — passed in 1997, which states that park space “shall be preserved for such use; and no such land or facility shall be sold, transferred, or changed from park use to another usage.”

If you read that law and think that it says that the City can’t turn park space into housing — you’re right. There is one exception, however — the City can convert park space to another usage, so long as it is replaced by “land of equivalent or better size, value, location and usefulness in the vicinity.”

In other words, the only way the city can convert its municipal golf courses into housing is to buy up an equivalent amount of land — 528 acres, to be exact — “in the vicinity” of each course, and convert that to park space instead.

The estimated cost of that much land within city limits — assuming it could even be found? Approximately $3.39 billion to $12.78 billion. As Westneat noted in a follow-up column on June 19 addressing Initiative 42, even converting just a portion of one golf course — in his example, 50 acres of Jackson Park — “would cost [the city] $300 million to more than $1 billion, “according to the parks department’s own estimates.”

Jefferson Park Golf Course

While the City has only engaged so far in speculation, Levine is suspicious.

“Although no decisions have been made yet, and though the mayor insists she is looking at all the options, I don’t believe anyone spends more than $100K on a study without having an agenda or ulterior motive,” he says.

The anti-golf sentiment is strong in progressive cities like Seattle. Here, that time-tested and commonly-held view of golf and golfers as restrictive, exclusionary, and privileged holds firm. And, though the players on Seattle’s municipal courses likely share similar liberal-minded opinions as the majority of city residents, the fact that they indulge in this undemocratic sport sets them apart in the eyes of many.

It’s hardly surprising, then, that those that despise golf saw the publishing of the “Strategic Business Plan for the Future of City of Seattle Owned Municipal Golf Courses” as an opportunity to list their grievances.

Golf courses take up a lot of space, use up natural resources, and go unused by large swaths of the population. Golf skeptics have plenty of ammunition with which to influence City Hall.

The facts, though, remain staunchly on the side of golf. A significant number of city residents — including large numbers of women, minorities and seniors — use Seattle’s municipal courses, which provide low-cost and discounted access to the game for tens of thousands of golfers who might otherwise be barred from participation for financial reasons. Furthermore, Seattle’s public courses — especially Jefferson Park — have a long and storied tradition of ethnic diversity, while providing vital resources for the youth of the city to learn character and life skills each year. The courses more than cover their own expenses, and even help fund other Parks department programs as well.

While Seattle certainly needs more housing, plowing under Seattle’s parks and municipal golf courses isn’t necessary to meet that need — nor, under current laws, is it even possible, without the City incurring significant expenses that would create a much bigger problem than already exists.

Anthony, who has led the charge for Save Seattle Golf, thinks Seattle can have it both ways.

“We are a huge city,” she adds. “There is no reason why Seattle can’t support four golf courses.”

A BOLD VISION For Seattle’s Golf Future

Aerial view of Seattle's Discovery Park

The final paragraph of the Lund/Scanlan/Cocker Fennessy report makes this assertion: “The City’s municipal courses are an historic legacy that require on-going investment to preserve and maintain them for the next 100 years. The City needs to align its policy priorities to balance the objectives of public access, outdoor recreational opportunities, racial equity and social justice, environmental and habitat protection, open space, and financial management.”

There follow 35 “Recommendations,” of which the first reads: “Commit to golf as a recreational program offered by the City on par with other recreational offerings.”

We don’t know whether “on par” was an intentional pun or not, but we were heartened by the report appearing to give golf its blessing — and, we have a possibly audacious suggestion for how the City could significantly enhance its commitment to the sport. This idea will likely shock some, who will laugh it off before even giving it a second thought. But, hear us out. It’s not without precedent and could, we believe, become a huge earner for the City. That is — what if we built a golf course at Discovery Park? A nine-hole course existed at Fort Lawton in the 1940s, and in 1974, a group of local golfers calling itself the West Point Golf Alliance made a serious attempt to put an 18-hole golf course on 120 acres of the southern end of Discovery Park. That effort made it all the way to the City ballot, before voters decided open park space was too important, and the golf course would be too expensive.

But, as the chart on page 43 illustrates, Seattle currently has fewer golf courses per capita than nearly every other major city in the Western United States. What if you were to take just 125-150 of Discovery Park’s 534 acres and build a world-class, accessible-to-all golf course capable of hosting big-time tournaments and turning a healthy profit? What if the PGA or LPGA Tour were to visit Discovery Park every year, or the Presidents Cup, U.S. Open or even Ryder Cup were to come to town?

What Torrey Pines is to San Diego, what Harding Park is to San Francisco — indeed, what Chambers Bay is to Tacoma and University Place — Discovery Park could be to Seattle.

“It’s a big idea, a really strong idea,” says Nick Schaan, a partner in David McLay Kidd’s firm DMK Golf Design, who has recently been remodeling Sand Point Country Club. Schaan has spent a lot of time in that part of town these last few months and has walked the park on several occasions.

“Every time I go, I think about what an amazing course you could build there,” he says. “The views across the Sound are obviously amazing, and it’s just a few miles from downtown. Plus, there’s some good soil and sand down by the South Beach Trail.”

Let’s be clear, Cascade Golfer does not wish to turn all open park space into golf holes. We recognize how vital it is to a healthy, functioning, civilized city to have accessible, nocost places where people can walk dogs, fly a kite, recreate and spend quiet time. In this scenario, the entire acreage of the park would remain public — we propose, simply, that roughly one-fourth of that space would also include world-class golf holes, which fourballs would each pay $75-$200 to play (with lower city-, county- and state-resident rates). Non-golfers would still have access to those acres, too, via walking trails that would wind through the course, just as they do at Chambers Bay and the Old Course at St. Andrews.

The Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Center in the far north of the park would be unaffected. Modern turf designed to be disease- and traffic-tolerant would reduce maintenance requirements and water consumption, aligning the course with the City’s environmental objectives. Ultimately, Discovery Park could be a cultural resource, environmental habitat and public recreation facility all in one — while, potentially, adding significant revenues to the City coffers.

We can save exact figures for another time, but even a rudimentary cost analysis suggests a golf course makes a lot of sense. Sensibly-maintained, lay-of-the-land courses like those en vogue these days cost a good deal less to build and maintain than courses where considerable earth-moving was necessary. Sand Hills in Nebraska, Bandon Dunes in Oregon, and Streamsong Black in Florida are three of the best golf courses built in the last 30 years, yet none of them cost more than $3 million to construct. There’s no doubt an experienced architect like Tom Doak, Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Robert Trent Jones, Jr., or Kidd and Schaan themselves could build a wonderful course at Discovery Park quite inexpensively.

The city already owns the land, so there’s no cost there — a conservative all-in estimate to build, then, including a modest clubhouse and pro shop, would be $10-$12 million, which the City could pay off in a few years.

Something similar happened not too far from Seattle just a few years ago, of course. The land at Chambers Bay in University Place, 45 miles south of Discovery Park, was itself a controversial project that required all the political skill, power, and ingenuity that then-Pierce County Executive, John Ladenburg, could muster. Ladenburg thinks Discovery Park is a fantastic site for a golf course, and is convinced something very special could be built there.

“Chambers Bay held the U.S. Open eight years after opening, and brought $134 million to the area. And, it’s a wonderful community facility as well as a golf course, with play areas and walking trails,” he says. “It’s highly unlikely Seattle would ever go for it — it’s not really the sort of place where this sort of thing happens. But, imagine what it could be.”

A view towards the water at Discovery Park.

Photo by Mason Kelley

There will certainly be plenty who immediately dismiss this notion. But, the more you think about it, the more appealing the idea becomes. Andy Staples, a highly-respected, Scottsdale-based course architect, has made a name for himself in recent years building what he calls “Community Links.” He lists these facility’s characteristics:

• Expand facility benefits to increase use by non-golfers.

• Maximize the efficient use of water, energy and fuel.

• Emphasize new-golfer development programs for the community’s youth, which instill values of healthy living, sportsmanship, integrity and patience (i.e., First Tee).

• Explore possible alternate revenue streams besides greens fees and golf-related activities.

“The key is to program the entire story around an asset for the whole community,” Staples says. “If they do, there is a very real opportunity not only to create multiple revenue streams, but also have a significant impact on the community’s kids, families, seniors and women. Plus, they could change how non-golfers perceive the game.”

A world-class course and major championship venue that’s popular with golfers from around the world … as well as a community asset that benefits Magnolia, Ballard, Fremont and other nearby suburbs.

Now, that’s a game-changer. — Tony Dear