logo
L.A. touts success at blocking tee time brokers from city golf courses

L.A. touts success at blocking tee time brokers from city golf courses

For years, it was an open secret: Brokers scooped up tee times at public golf courses across Los Angeles and sold prime slots online, profiting from taxpayer-owned recreation.
Golfers complained about the extreme difficulty, bordering on impossibility, of playing on pristine and affordable municipal courses like those in Griffith Park and Rancho Park.
The problem burst into public view last spring when evidence of the brokering hit social media. The Times interviewed two brokers who shared how they sold coveted tee times.
Amid the uproar, L.A.'s Department of Recreation and Parks introduced a pilot program to curb the profiteers. Golfers have to pay $10 per person to reserve a tee time, which is forfeited if a reservation is canceled.
Nearly 10 months later, the fee — initially met with skepticism and annoyance — has proved a success, according to golfers and parks officials as well as reservation data shared with The Times.
'I didn't think charging a $10 fee would make a difference, but it certainly did,' said Reggie Kenner, 77, of Manhattan Beach, who also golfs on Los Angeles County's network of courses, which instituted a similar fee shortly after the city. 'Now, you can occasionally get on at a decent time on courses you could never book before.'
'It's still hard, but that's natural because a lot of players like golfing on the weekend,' said Jongseo Joseph Lee, president of the SoCal Dream Golf Club, who golfs twice a month on city courses.
Lee, who performed extensive research on brokers and helped submit complaints to parks officials well before the public furor, was a plaintiff in an unsuccessful class-action suit against the city over bureaucrats' alleged failure to stop tee time brokering.
'I can say it's way better than recent years,' he added.
Betty Brix, who plays thrice weekly on city courses and is chair of the Golf Advisory Committee, which provides recommendations and oversight for the Department of Recreation and Parks staffers who manage L.A.'s 12 golf courses, said the situation has 'improved immensely.'
'I'm able to get a tee time every time I attempt to get it,' she said.
The parks department signaled victory in the fight against brokers but stopped short of declaring the practice has been fully eliminated.
'The process used by tee time brokers to book, advertise, resell, and rebook tee times has been drastically reduced,' spokesperson Romondo Locke said in a statement.
Under the previous system, golfers paid nothing to secure a reservation. Each morning at 6 a.m., tee times opened up for nine days ahead. Within seconds, the best times, like 8 a.m. on a Saturday at Rancho Park on the Westside, were gone.
A network of brokers — many of them in the Korean community — gobbled up several prime slots and then peddled them on social media, especially on the Korean app KakaoTalk. They sold the tee times for up to $40 each, according to pricing sheets posted on social media.
After golf professional and social media influencer Dave Fink publicized the tee time black market to his more than 200,000 Instagram followers last March, #FreeTheTee became a rallying cry and a call for public accountability.
One broker, Ted Kim, told The Times that he used several computers to score tee times at L.A. city golf courses and other public courses across Southern California, making a couple thousand dollars a month selling them. But he denied violating any laws, and he did not respond to recent messages seeking comment.
Brokers would book reservations under a golfer's player card, as Kim acknowledged, or they would transfer tee times by doing orchestrated hand-offs: canceling a reservation at an odd hour, then rebooking it under a customer's name.
Kevin Fitzgerald, former chair of the Golf Advisory Committee, said data reviewed by parks officials appeared to confirm the hand-off scheme.
Fitzgerald said cancellations would occur at obscure times, like 2:48 a.m.
'All of a sudden, there would be a rebook in three seconds, which isn't possible without it being coordinated,' he said. 'At the low traffic hours, you'd expect it would take some time to rebook and not disappear in a matter of seconds.'
Under the program instituted in May, golfers pay the $10 fee — essentially a deposit — for each person on a reservation. The individual who reserves the group must be present on the day of play. The $40 deposit for a foursome then applies to the total admission price, or greens fee, at the course, with a cancellation forfeiting the fee. Green fees typically run about $32 to $50 per person but are discounted for seniors and juniors and for less popular times.
From May to October 2024 — the first six months of the pilot program — the number of tee times booked and then canceled dropped by nearly 95% compared with the same period in 2023, from 339,732 to 17,739.
On the reservation platform, nearly 400 golfers had profiles with more than 60 cancellations, which plummeted to 13 golfers after the fee.
'Because there weren't any repercussions in place to tee time cancellations, they were able to hoard all available time slots and sell them through third-party outlets,' said Locke, the Department of Recreation and Parks spokesperson.
Fitzgerald, the former Golf Advisory Committee chair, said that when the pilot program started last spring, he 'got a lot of calls saying, 'This is outrageous and won't help.''
'But within a month, the calls were completely the opposite,' he continued. 'I heard the following: I don't like paying the deposit, but I secured a tee time on the Wilson course at 10:30 on a Saturday for the first time in six years. So something good is happening.''
Golfers also described the downsides of the $10 fee. If something comes up that causes a golfer to miss a tee time, they lose the money. Others say the fee-splitting among golfers is cumbersome. And if the person who reserved the foursome isn't present, the other golfers aren't allowed to play.
'I probably book less tee times now, just because I don't want to be charged,' said Luis León, a golfer and content creator. At first, slots were more available, he said, 'but that didn't seem to last, as it's still nearly impossible to get good times at places like Rancho Park and Griffith Park.'
'It would be unfair to say this is completely smooth and there are no burdens associated with this,' Fitzgerald said.
There is still residual frustration over how the city dealt with the brokering problem.
Lee, who filed the class-action suit, had accused the city of being sluggish in instituting simple reforms that would preserve the integrity of public golf courses. The suit also alleged that a city parks staffer had accepted money from one of the brokers, suggesting that corruption was a factor in the tee time scheme.
In a statement, the Recreation and Parks Department said it 'has no indication or reason to believe that any city employee has engaged in that type of improper activity.' Nevertheless, the parks department acknowledged that it had not launched a 'formal investigation' into tee time brokering — despite promising to do so.
'Given the positive outcome of the pilot program, a formal investigation was not required,' Locke said in the statement.
Brix and Fitzgerald, the current and former chairs of the Golf Advisory Committee, asserted there was no evidence of misconduct by parks staffers.
'That was the most discouraging part of it,' Brix said of the allegations of misconduct, adding that some staffers received death threats over tee time brokering. 'All they are trying to do is provide a good experience for L.A. City golf.'
Time on L.A. city golf courses remains in record demand. In 2024, more than 1 million rounds were played on the city's 12 courses — a 28% increase from 2019. Revenue from golfing subsidizes some other city parks programs.
Recently, the Golf Advisory Committee recommended that the city make the pilot program permanent but adjust its structure to allow reservation fees of 'up to' $10. This would give parks officials more latitude to set lower reservation fees for less desirable time slots, such as 4 p.m.
'I don't think the system is completely fixed, because I don't think anything is ever completely fixed,' Brix said, 'but I think it's well on its way to being as good as can be for the big system we have.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk rages against Steve Bannon after call for drug investigation
Elon Musk rages against Steve Bannon after call for drug investigation

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk rages against Steve Bannon after call for drug investigation

Elon Musk's feud with Steve Bannon intensified Tuesday after Bannon suggested President Donald Trump rethink government contracts with Musk's company and appoint a special counsel to investigate the mercurial billionaire's alleged drug use. 'Bannon is such a r——d liar,' Musk raged on his social media platform in the very early morning hours, using a slur for people with intellectual disabilities. 'Dumber than a doorstop.' Musk was replying to comments Bannon made on the debut episode of the 'Sunday Night With Chuck Todd' streaming series. The clip that appeared to get under his skin showed Bannon suggesting Musk has government contracts to thank for adding as much as $150 billion to his net worth and suggested, therefore, U.S. taxpayers should own a share of his SpaceX company. Musk's rant took issue with Bannon's math, but moreso his reasoning. 'If Bannon's dumb as f–k reasoning made any sense, then anyone who bought products from any company would automatically own that company,' he posted before again insulting Bannon's mental capacity. According to Bannon, if any other CEO threatened to decommission one of the rockets his company uses in its work with the government after a personal spat with a U.S. president — as Musk did last week — that executive would be fired. Bannon also told Todd that President Trump should further look into a recent bombshell New York Times story hinting Musk's alleged drug use could be problematic, which Musk flatly denied. 'I think the best way to do it is as a special counsel that can kind of oversee everything,' Bannon said. 'Pull his security clearance for the drugs, temporarily, investigate the whole drug situation.' The Times reported May 30 that Musk was 'using drugs far more intensely than previously known' while campaigning for Trump. His substance use reportedly included ketamine, ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and pills that appeared to be the ADHD stimulant Adderall. Bannon, who served in Trump's first administration, has a history of butting heads with Musk, who headed the Department of Government Efficiency in Trump's second administration. Tensions escalated last week when Musk posted a message online suggesting Justice Department records show that Trump's friendship with disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein would present problems for the president. Musk later deleted that post. __________

Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do
Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do

Yesterday, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband announced a new 'golden age' of nuclear energy. But with the wrong technology, unfit regulation and no real delivery plan, his golden age already looks tarnished. He's pinning his hopes on an already out-dated large-scale nuclear technology that has been plagued by construction problems in Finland, France and the UK and whose developer EDF is already moving on to a newer version. And while his commitment to small modular reactors (SMRs) is commendable, they are at best a decade away with no examples in existence in the West. While it is tempting to think you could simply hoist a submarine reactor onto a dock and call it a power station, this is unrealistic. Military reactors are designed for stealth, speed and war, not for civilian safety, grid connectivity or cost-efficiency. So Rolls Royce has had to develop an entirely new concept. In fact the current market leaders in Western SMR-design are GE-Hitachi whose small boiling water reactors recently began construction in Canada. However, given the imminent retirement of all but one of our existing large nuclear reactors, bigger is better for the nuclear ambition, and in this, Miliband's plan is woefully inadequate. Luckily, there is a solution ready and waiting: the Korean APR1400 design which has been successfully completed in both South Korea and UAE with eight units now in operation, built in an average of 8.5 years, at an average cost of $5-6 billion. Far cheaper than the £40 billion some analysts expect Sizewell C to cost. Around £6 billion is thought to have been spent already. The Korean design has been approved by both US and European regulators and should be a no-brainer for the UK: build what works. But to do this we need to take an axe to our overgrown thicket of nuclear regulation. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) bizarrely reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, not the Energy Secretary, and sits beyond any meaningful strategic oversight. This well-intentioned separation has resulted in a regulatory regime akin to requiring 57 seat belts in your car – technically thorough, but practically unhinged. One requirement is that each new reactor design must expose workers to even less radiation than its predecessor. That might sound like progress, until you realise that radiation levels inside a modern nuclear plant are already so low they're hard to detect at all. The plant manager at one of our old Advanced Gas Cooled reactors (AGRs) once told me that the only time his radiation detector registered anything other than zero was when he left it on his desk and the sun shone on it. Nuclear workers are typically exposed to more radiation on the street than inside the plant. At this point, further exposure reductions offer no safety benefit. They just add cost, complexity and delay. The environmental regulators are as bad. The Sizewell C design is exactly the same as Hinkley Point C and the site is almost identical to Sizewell A and B. So why on earth were 40,000 pages of environmental statements required? This regulatory excess is expensive and draws out the process of approving new reactors beyond what is remotely reasonable. Britain risks running out of electricity. We had a near miss blackout event in January that was likely a factor in the renewal of the controversial biomass subsidies. We are also likely to see further small extensions to our ageing AGRs which are nearing the ends of their lives. But with a third of our fleet of gas power stations dating back to the 1990s and expected to retire in the next five years, Britain can ill afford delays to new nuclear plants. Particularly not the sort of avoidable delays our overzealous regulators have created. If Miliband is serious both about his golden age of nuclear, and more particularly, keeping the lights on in a decarbonised world, he needs to be far more ambitious. A truly serious plan would involve a programme of 5-6 large-scale reactors, and since the Koreans have the best track record, we should sign them up. He needs to get tough on the regulators. Abolishing ONR altogether and creating a new regulator, as part of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, with staff who are experts in risk management as well as nuclear safety, and severely curtailing the power of environmental regulators. One of the biggest benefits of nuclear power is its high energy density: it uses very little land to create a lot of energy. That should be taken into account, with regulators forced to look at the national picture rather than taking a strictly site by site approach. And he needs to stop wasting time with incentives for investors. They are not interested in the risk of our shambolic regulatory landscape. He should face this reality, and commit public money for the construction of the first two new reactors, re-financing once construction is completed. This would be a profitable strategy: the Government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector, the Korean design (with suitable regulatory restraint) can be built faster than the Hinkley design, meaning lower financing costs, and nuclear reactors are very profitable to run so investors will be very interested once the risky construction phase is over. He could even offer shares to the public in a 21st Century version of 'Just tell Sid' which remains the most successful public share subscription in UK history, and would perfectly align with Chancellor Rachel Reeves' ambition for UK savers to deploy their capital in the interests of national infrastructure. We need more than romantic notions of golden ages if we're to keep the lights on. It's time for hard-headed decisions, and a concrete, realistic and funded plan for success. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

San Francisco Chronicle​

time5 hours ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. On Tuesday, Newsom filed an emergency motion in federal court to block the troops from assisting with immigration raids in Los Angeles. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. More than 100 people have been arrested over the past several days of protests. The vast majority of arrests were for failing to disperse, while a few others were for assault with a deadly weapon, looting, vandalism and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store