The crime of our times is getting all riled up about someone’s opinion on something while not bothering to look into the source to understand their opinion.
His opinion on the game of golf is a lot less important than actual point that country clubs in LA enjoy artificially low tax benefits on debatable qualifications for those benefits, at a time when the state is strained for tax revenues.
The lowest membership fee in this article (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/las-power-golf-clubs-hollywood-205072) is $45,000 a year; the highest $250,000. The point is not that all golf clubs are this expensive, but that all of these golf clubs pay property taxes that are frozen at 1978 levels, rather than at their current valuation.
What does that mean? Gladwell’s point is that the benefits golf clubs receive mean they pay ~$200,000 a year in property taxes instead of up to $90 million a year.
$90 mil seems a bit much (lot of primo land in the heart of the city though) but wouldn’t you agree the amount of tax dollars those clubs can afford and should contribute is somewhere north of $200,000? Do you have an opinion on that?
If you are a taxpayer and a voter, you pay into the common pot and you participate in the collective social contract. Your opinion on how the tax system serves the collective is valid, and important.
On the other hand, you could just get inflamed about Gladwell’s opinion about the game of golf.