If my recollection is correct, didn't gca.com favorite Rustic Canyon serve as a barrier to fires in Simi Valley some 10 years ago saving a neighborhood?
To slightly update famed philosopher Leonard Nemoy : "the needs of the many outweigh the
privileges of the few".
The golf participation rate of the U.S. is around 8%; less than 3% are considered "avid" golfers. Housing has been suppressed in SoCal for as long as I can remember, vastly inflating the price of existing stock well beyond the ability of the average resident to afford it.
Back around 2007-8, an article in the Orange County Register noted that the median price house in its area cost more than 10 times the median income. At that time, the benchmark for underwriting was around 2.5x, i.e. $100k in gross income would prudently allow a buyer to pay $250k for a home. With lower interest rates this multiple went up a little, but what allowed residents to buy was the bending of the lending standards, new mortgage products, outright fraud (e.g. liar loans), renting rooms, etc. Of course, this all came home to roost when the mortgage crisis hit circa 2007.
So, if a city owns usable land and there are no other ways to develop "affordable" housing, what is more important, committing resources to a use that is not essential and enjoyed by a very small percentage of its residents or alleviating a severe humanitarian problem? It seems to me that if a government entity can make a decision to build and own golf courses, it is also empowered to do something else with its property in light of more emergent needs.
Of course not only could it happen here, it already has. No doubt that LA County courses serve an important purpose and receive an inordinate amount of play. But it is not whether government has plenty of money to meet all of its obligations. It is a matter more of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
My biggest issue is with eminent domain and the ability of developers in cahoots with local governments to condemn private property and redevelop it under the guise of higher uses for the community and a larger tax base for the politicians. The regrettable SC Kelo decision has resulted in many states taking measures to protect private property, but as the link below notes, not sufficiently.
https://reason.com/2020/06/23/the-15th-anniversary-of-kelo-v-city-of-new-londonFor those who have a subscription to the WSJ, there is an interesting article on the attempt to condemn Deepdale Golf Club. To the best of my knowledge, the club was able to fend off the city's mayor, but not many clubs have such a well-connected, powerful membership.
As private property rights are increasingly compromised in the US as they have been in much of the Western world, the fate of golf courses, publicly or privately owned, are more at the mercy of the political winds than the written law or right or wrong. Cuba, Venezuela, and China have all closed golf courses in the name of higher collective uses. The Coul Links decision in the Scottish Highlands and Dos Pueblos near Santa Barbara are of the same vein.