Talk about a bogey idea

You may have read in the Daily Pilot this week about the proposal to remove portions of the Mesa Linda golf course that borders Harbor Boulevard and replace it with a youth sports complex with up to 10 utility fields.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve played lots of baseball and softball over the years and love the games. I’ve also coached girls’ fast pitch, and I was even the commissioner for the Bobby Sox league in Irvine.

I’d like nothing better than more baseball, softball and soccer fields in town for the kids to enjoy.

All that being said, however, I have a question for Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor and parks and recreation commission Chairwoman Wendy Leece, who have proposed this idea: Are you both out of your freaking minds?

First, to our mayor, I’ve seen you play the game and can certainly understand why you might want to rid the city of golf courses. But to penalize the rest of us just doesn’t seem fair.

And to our commission chairwoman, remember that your responsibility should also include those youth interested in the game of golf.

But to be on the safe side, let’s review the plan as I understand it.

First, we remove nine holes of one of the two golf courses at Costa Mesa Golf & Country Club and then, as you stated, “redesign it into a modern, and more challenging 18 hole executive course to replace the current 1960s course.”

I think by this statement, you’re both saying that the present course is outdated.

Let’s be clear on a couple of things. Executive golf courses aren’t “more challenging.” The fact is that they’re usually made up of mostly shorter holes ? par threes with a couple of par fours interspersed.

Actually, executive courses are a way for more inexperienced golfers to prepare for bigger, more advanced courses. So, saying it is more challenging is far from correct and, quite frankly, insulting to those people who understand the game.

Secondly, you’ve both obviously never heard of St. Andrews Links in Scotland, where old is translated into not only being good, but also perhaps the best in the world.

A little history lesson. The Old Course pre-dates 1764. Now that’s old.

But in 1764, the Society of St. Andrews Golfers, which later became the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, reduced the existing course from 22 holes to 18.

Why? Quite simply because some of the holes were too short and, yes, less challenging. They did the opposite of what you’re proposing by lengthening the shorter holes and reducing the number of holes.

Perhaps our good mayor and esteemed parks chairwoman should send their ideas to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club so they, too, might have an opportunity to correct their mistakes of the past.

It’s just an idea.

But, we digress.

You say the change in the course size would bring the city an equal amount of revenue, which you said is roughly $800,000 per year in green fees, and also finance the new course and the sports complex.

I would argue that with shorter holes you will get fewer players on the course at a time, resulting in less revenue. Many decent golfers can’t even tee off on an executive course until the hole clears out in front of them. Compare that to now, when you’ll find two to three groups per hole most days.

A shorter course would also require a significant reduction in the green fees charged.

You don’t believe me? Compare Newport Beach Golf Club or David L. Baker Golf Course in Fountain Valley, both executive tracks, and you’ll get the idea.

And don’t forget the local boys’ and girls’ high school teams that compete on the courses. Will many of them lose that opportunity when there is greater demand and less product available?

It certainly has to be a major concern.

And, there’s at least one more argument I have with your Harbor Boulevard location for the ball fields. It’s called traffic.

Do ball fields on one side and stores and fast food on the other, divided by one of the busiest streets in the city, mix with a bunch of energized children?

That doesn’t sound like a well thought out idea to me.

As I said on the front end, I’m for more fields. This is just the wrong place. As redevelopment occurs in the city, require the builders to provide these types of facilities. In the meantime, the city needs to look elsewhere and perhaps partner with the schools to improve the fields that exist.