LA considering law that would basically ban development

Micawber said:
Well since there isn't a square foot not undeveloped already.... That shithole looks like a fusion bombed was dropped. Thank God for Camp Pendleton separating us,.
Click to expand...

Somehow bro, in the racist one for wanting more development.
 
cawacko said:
So there is a housing affordability issue, not to mention displacement, and the recommendation is to prevent all development? This is insane progressive thinking.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/los-an...n-real-estate-development-1487264305?mod=e2tw
Click to expand...
Can't get past WSJ paywall, and other sites link back to same.

What I'm reading is that most development has been for upper echelon tenants/homeowners, and not for affordable housing. In fact, even WSJ cites corrupt developers paying off corrupt politicians.

This article might be less biased

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/los-angeles-city-planning-battle-measure-s-vote-results
 
cawacko said:
My bad, didn't realize it was behind a firewall.


Los Angeles Looks to Ban Major Real-Estate Developments

Supporters of a ballot measure say it will give residents more say in planning; opponents counter it will worsen affordability problems



Voters in the second-largest U.S. city are considering a measure that could effectively halt major real-estate projects, the most extreme example yet of a revolt against development that is breaking out across the country.

A boom in luxury development over the last five years has transformed urban America, bringing young people, restaurants, retailers and jobs back to city centers.

But construction activity has tilted toward the high end. Many longtime residents have become resentful of new towers that cast shadows over their neighborhoods of single-family homes and push up rents. Average apartment rents nationwide have surged 26% since 2010, according to MPF Research, due in large part to strong demand after the housing crash.

Now some activists are pushing back with actions that threaten to grind housing production in some cities to a crawl.

The moves threaten to further constrict a tight supply of housing. Housing starts dropped 2.6% in January, the Commerce Department said Thursday. The number of single-family and multifamily starts per 1,000 households last month was about 36% below the 50-year average, according to Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia.

In Los Angeles, residents in early March are set to vote on a ballot initiative that, if passed, would suspend for two years any development that requires a modification to the city’s existing planning rules. Currently, such modifications are routine for new developments.

Proponents of the measure say it would affect only about 5% of projects in the city.

“People feel the system is rigged,” said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has poured some $3.7 million into promoting the measure. “It’s all about billionaires getting what they want.”


Many of the patients served by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are struggling with rising housing prices, he said.

New barriers to development are rising in major cities, either through new regulations—such as requirements that developments include affordable housing—or through increased community resistance.

San Francisco in June passed a ballot initiative that puts a 25% on-site affordable-housing requirement on most new residential buildings, which developers say will make many projects economically untenable. An independent analysis by the city’s Controller’s Office has recommended the requirement be reduced, based on the results of a soon-to-be-released feasibility study.

In Oregon, the Portland City Council in December unanimously passed a similar ordinance requiring buildings with 20 units or more to set aside 20% of units for affordable housing, although it also provides some concessions to developers like tax waivers.

In Boston, a plan by Mayor Marty Walsh to sell a city-owned parking garage to a developer to build one of the tallest residential buildings in the city is running up against stiff community opposition. Mr. Walsh said the sale would provide the city with a $153 million revenue boost, but opponents said the tower would violate a local ordinance by blocking sunlight over the Boston Common and Public Garden.

Despite complaints in Los Angeles about a deluge of development, housing construction now is at only a fraction of the rate of the mid-20th century, before strict zoning rules were put in place. From 1950 through 1959, about 250,000 units of new housing were added in the city of Los Angeles, according to an analysis of census data by advocacy group Abundant Housing LA. From 2010 to 2015, the figure was 25,000, though the city issued permits for about 50,000 units in roughly the same period.

Permits tend to lag behind completed units by a couple of years, and not all permitted units end up getting built.

In the middle of the last century, zoning regulations were such that there was enough capacity in the city to build housing for 10 million residents, according to David Waite, a local planning lawyer.

The adoption of “community plans” in the 1970s and a ballot initiative in the mid-1980s knocked that down to 4.5 million people, meaning Los Angeles is now almost at full capacity.

Thirty-five community plans, each covering a separate neighborhood, govern how much development can occur in each. Updating community plans requires determining the anticipated growth for a neighborhood over two decades, writing new land-use policies, getting community consensus for the changes and conducting an environmental-impact report.

The proposed rule up for vote in March, called the “Neighborhood Integrity Initiative” and referred to as Measure S, would require the city to update all community plans.

The full implications of Measure S are open to some interpretation. Some officials and developers say that, if passed, no development will be permitted until all the plans are updated, which they say could take a decade. Others say the moratorium will run for two years or until the plans are updated.

The Department for City Planning been trying for five years to update the community plan for Hollywood alone, but thus far has faced backlash from residents and a lawsuit.

Developers and city officials said Measure S would effectively impose a moratorium on everything from apartment development along transit corridors to office space for a flourishing tech community and even homeless shelters.

“This housing ban would drive investment out of L.A., kill jobs and stymie our efforts to move people off our streets,” Mayor Eric Garcetti said.

Both supporters and opponents said Measure S has a good chance of passing.

Updating the community plans will give citizens an opportunity to have input into the planning process, said Mr. Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Because the existing zoning rules make it difficult to build projects along major corridors, city officials often change rules for particular parcels.

For now, developers say the proposal is already having a chilling effect on new projects.

“L.A. has been redlined from an investment standpoint in housing until this uncertainty is known,” said Sean Burton, chief executive of CityView, a Los Angeles-based developer. He said the firm isn’t planning any new projects until after the vote.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
See bolded above.

NYC is demanding that development in high end areas include units for low income. Developers are complying, and we saw ridiculous arguments over 'poor doors'.

It makes no sense to compare recent development stats to the past half century that included booms. Those are just meaningless numbers meant to cloud the debate.


If your worry is truly affordable housing, how do you feel about developers including a specific number of units for low income people?
 
Althea said:
Thanks.
See bolded above.

NYC is demanding that development in high end areas include units for low income. Developers are complying, and we saw ridiculous arguments over 'poor doors'.

It makes no sense to compare recent development stats to the past half century that included booms. Those are just meaningless numbers meant to cloud the debate.


If your worry is truly affordable housing, how do you feel about developers including a specific number of units for low income people?
Click to expand...

We, as a community where I live, stopped a low income housing development from coming into the area. We had no desire for such a development to potentially lower our property values.

If you have so much concern for low income people, how do you feel about doing something in order that they no longer are low income?
 
cawacko said:
My bad, didn't realize it was behind a firewall.


Los Angeles Looks to Ban Major Real-Estate Developments

Supporters of a ballot measure say it will give residents more say in planning; opponents counter it will worsen affordability problems



Voters in the second-largest U.S. city are considering a measure that could effectively halt major real-estate projects, the most extreme example yet of a revolt against development that is breaking out across the country.

A boom in luxury development over the last five years has transformed urban America, bringing young people, restaurants, retailers and jobs back to city centers.

But construction activity has tilted toward the high end. Many longtime residents have become resentful of new towers that cast shadows over their neighborhoods of single-family homes and push up rents. Average apartment rents nationwide have surged 26% since 2010, according to MPF Research, due in large part to strong demand after the housing crash.

Now some activists are pushing back with actions that threaten to grind housing production in some cities to a crawl.

The moves threaten to further constrict a tight supply of housing. Housing starts dropped 2.6% in January, the Commerce Department said Thursday. The number of single-family and multifamily starts per 1,000 households last month was about 36% below the 50-year average, according to Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia.

In Los Angeles, residents in early March are set to vote on a ballot initiative that, if passed, would suspend for two years any development that requires a modification to the city’s existing planning rules. Currently, such modifications are routine for new developments.

Proponents of the measure say it would affect only about 5% of projects in the city.

“People feel the system is rigged,” said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has poured some $3.7 million into promoting the measure. “It’s all about billionaires getting what they want.”


Many of the patients served by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are struggling with rising housing prices, he said.

New barriers to development are rising in major cities, either through new regulations—such as requirements that developments include affordable housing—or through increased community resistance.

San Francisco in June passed a ballot initiative that puts a 25% on-site affordable-housing requirement on most new residential buildings, which developers say will make many projects economically untenable. An independent analysis by the city’s Controller’s Office has recommended the requirement be reduced, based on the results of a soon-to-be-released feasibility study.

In Oregon, the Portland City Council in December unanimously passed a similar ordinance requiring buildings with 20 units or more to set aside 20% of units for affordable housing, although it also provides some concessions to developers like tax waivers.

In Boston, a plan by Mayor Marty Walsh to sell a city-owned parking garage to a developer to build one of the tallest residential buildings in the city is running up against stiff community opposition. Mr. Walsh said the sale would provide the city with a $153 million revenue boost, but opponents said the tower would violate a local ordinance by blocking sunlight over the Boston Common and Public Garden.

Despite complaints in Los Angeles about a deluge of development, housing construction now is at only a fraction of the rate of the mid-20th century, before strict zoning rules were put in place. From 1950 through 1959, about 250,000 units of new housing were added in the city of Los Angeles, according to an analysis of census data by advocacy group Abundant Housing LA. From 2010 to 2015, the figure was 25,000, though the city issued permits for about 50,000 units in roughly the same period.

Permits tend to lag behind completed units by a couple of years, and not all permitted units end up getting built.

In the middle of the last century, zoning regulations were such that there was enough capacity in the city to build housing for 10 million residents, according to David Waite, a local planning lawyer.

The adoption of “community plans” in the 1970s and a ballot initiative in the mid-1980s knocked that down to 4.5 million people, meaning Los Angeles is now almost at full capacity.

Thirty-five community plans, each covering a separate neighborhood, govern how much development can occur in each. Updating community plans requires determining the anticipated growth for a neighborhood over two decades, writing new land-use policies, getting community consensus for the changes and conducting an environmental-impact report.

The proposed rule up for vote in March, called the “Neighborhood Integrity Initiative” and referred to as Measure S, would require the city to update all community plans.

The full implications of Measure S are open to some interpretation. Some officials and developers say that, if passed, no development will be permitted until all the plans are updated, which they say could take a decade. Others say the moratorium will run for two years or until the plans are updated.

The Department for City Planning been trying for five years to update the community plan for Hollywood alone, but thus far has faced backlash from residents and a lawsuit.

Developers and city officials said Measure S would effectively impose a moratorium on everything from apartment development along transit corridors to office space for a flourishing tech community and even homeless shelters.

“This housing ban would drive investment out of L.A., kill jobs and stymie our efforts to move people off our streets,” Mayor Eric Garcetti said.

Both supporters and opponents said Measure S has a good chance of passing.

Updating the community plans will give citizens an opportunity to have input into the planning process, said Mr. Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Because the existing zoning rules make it difficult to build projects along major corridors, city officials often change rules for particular parcels.

For now, developers say the proposal is already having a chilling effect on new projects.

“L.A. has been redlined from an investment standpoint in housing until this uncertainty is known,” said Sean Burton, chief executive of CityView, a Los Angeles-based developer. He said the firm isn’t planning any new projects until after the vote.
Click to expand...
I see so as a conservative your for local control unless it impacts deep pocketed developers? Are you saying that communities do not have a right of local control in development, even at significant economic cost, to preserve quality of life issues such as affordable housing, traffic, mitigating corruption, displacing residents, environmental sustainability, population density, community character, etc? So are bottom line considerations the only consideration to be factored and developers the only stake holders to be considered when determining local control of development?

Would you be saying the same if local developers wanted to construct a large shopping mall in your neighborhood? It would bring substantial economic development. How about a petroleum refinery? Would you be ok with objecting to local control over permitting a petroleum refinery in your neighborhood? It would certainly bring tons of economic development into your community. How about local control preventing the development of sex related businesses in your neighborhood? Why your community could become the next "Walking Street", why think of the untold millions that your community can make from sex tourism!

The WSJ article is a slip shod one dimensional article using the simple minded "Milo Minderbinder Philosophy" of what is good for economic development is what is good for everyone without considering that there are other important factors and stake holders that cannot be measured by the almighty dollar alone when it comes to development.
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
Thanks.
See bolded above.

NYC is demanding that development in high end areas include units for low income. Developers are complying, and we saw ridiculous arguments over 'poor doors'.

It makes no sense to compare recent development stats to the past half century that included booms. Those are just meaningless numbers meant to cloud the debate.


If your worry is truly affordable housing, how do you feel about developers including a specific number of units for low income people?
Click to expand...

The issue isn't "affordable" units it's the lack of development. And the main reason high end housing gets built is fees to build in the state are so high that high end housing is what pencils out
 
cawacko said:
With alldue respect did you not read the article about blacks and other minorities leaving the state? I work in the real estate industry. I can't help you if you choose not to recognize how markets work. In a true capitalist society builders would build to meet housing demand. We don't do that in California so housing prices go up. The irony is its the white home owners that benefit the most. Not sure why you support that.

You live in the IE. How many people moved there because they were priced out of LA?
Click to expand...
Ahh so you admit your bias and vested interest.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I see so as a conservative your for local control unless it impacts deep pocketed developers? Are you saying that communities do not have a right of local control in development, even at significant economic cost, to preserve quality of life issues such as affordable housing, traffic, mitigating corruption, displacing residents, environmental sustainability, population density, community character, etc? So are bottom line considerations the only consideration to be factored and developers the only stake holders to be considered when determining local control of development?

Would you be saying the same if local developers wanted to construct a large shopping mall in your neighborhood? It would bring substantial economic development. How about a petroleum refinery? Would you be ok with objecting to local control over permitting a petroleum refinery in your neighborhood? It would certainly bring tons of economic development into your community. How about local control preventing the development of sex related businesses in your neighborhood? Why your community could become the next "Walking Street", why think of the untold millions that your community can make from sex tourism!

The WSJ article is a slip shod one dimensional article using the simple minded "Milo Minderbinder Philosophy" of what is good for economic development is what is good for everyone without considering that there are other important factors and stake holders that cannot be measured by the almighty dollar alone when it comes to development.
Click to expand...

You're going all over the place here Mott. We're talking about building housing, not gas refinery's. And we have the most expensive housing in the country in large part due to the lack of development. Good ole supply and demand at work. Yes people move into a neighborhood and then once there say they like their neighborhood as it currently exists and thus don't want any more building. Well when you have neighborhood after neighborhood with that same attitude it becomes a problem. And when you have cities that allow a couple million sq.ft. of office development to be built but no new housing where do all those workers live? The same people that claim to care about the environment have no problem with not building new housing and forcing people to make hour plus commutes each way every day.

The WSJ article was spot on regarding this ballot measure and its repercussions.
 
cawacko said:
You're going all over the place here Mott. We're talking about building housing, not gas refinery's. And we have the most expensive housing in the country in large part due to the lack of development. Good ole supply and demand at work. Yes people move into a neighborhood and then once there say they like their neighborhood as it currently exists and thus don't want any more building. Well when you have neighborhood after neighborhood with that same attitude it becomes a problem. And when you have cities that allow a couple million sq.ft. of office development to be built but no new housing where do all those workers live? The same people that claim to care about the environment have no problem with not building new housing and forcing people to make hour plus commutes each way every day.

The WSJ article was spot on regarding this ballot measure and its repercussions.
Click to expand...
Nice evasion Wacko you didn't answer a single question I asked you so I'll assume you answer is "Yes, local control only counts when it does not affect monied interests I care about." Your slip is showing.

It's lame to say your monied interest counts (real estate) and that it's a completely different story when it's others economic interest. They are all forms of economic development. It is your argument that is inconsistent which I pointed out and you are refusing to address.

The WSJ might be correct about the economic consequences but as I pointed out and what you are completely ignoring is that economic consequences are only part of the story and there are many more consequences than economic consequences and far, far more stakeholders involved than just developers that the WSJ utterly ignores which is why the article, as I have factually pointed out, is slip shod and one dimensional but hey...what's good for developers is what's good for everyone, right?
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Nice evasion Wacko you didn't answer a single question I asked you so I'll assume you answer is "Yes, local control only counts when it does not affect monied interests I care about." Your slip is showing.

It's lame to say your monied interest counts (real estate) and that it's a completely different story when it's others economic interest. They are all forms of economic development. It is your argument that is inconsistent which I pointed out and you are refusing to address.

The WSJ might be correct about the economic consequences but as I pointed out and what you are completely ignoring is that economic consequences are only part of the story and there are many more consequences than economic consequences and far, far more stakeholders involved than just developers that the WSJ utterly ignores which is why the article, as I have factually pointed out, is slip shod and one dimensional but hey...what's good for developers is what's good for everyone, right?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are even talking about. This isn't about developers. The monied interest are homeowners who don't want new development which would bring down home prices.
 
cawacko said:
I have no idea what you are even talking about. This isn't about developers. The monied interest are homeowners who don't want new development which would bring down home prices.
Click to expand...
Dude...you might want to read more about this then one WSJ article. Probably from an objective source. There are legitimate issues in regard to local development, particularly in regards to corruption, environmental sustainability, population density, increased traffic, community character, displacement of current residents, etc that are legitimate and important issues relevant to this ballot issue that the WSJ either ignores or glosses over. Which is what I am pointing out to you.

I've also heard these arguments that more development will bring down housing costs as if you could possibly know that.

I heard similar arguments when I lived in the Lake Norman area north of metro Charlotte, NC.

Originally it was undeveloped area that middle and working class families and family farmers developed into a very nice place to live. Then developers came in and used big money and political influence to change zoning ordinances and local tax assessments and the people who developed nothing into something were forced out of their homes and farms so big money developers could build their high end condos and McMansions with having to slum it living next to middle class home owners who originally developed the area. They got paid but they were forced out of homes they didn't want to leave.

My point being is there is no way you can know that more devepment, particularly of the vertical variety which the LA ballot issue is in part against, will lower local housing cost.

From what I've read a very substantial concern that this ballot issue addresses is the very real issue of local corruption in the permitting process that the residents of LA county are trying to address and eliminate something the WSJ article doesn't even address.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top