(This article was written for The Planning Report, the inside’rs guide to managed growth that is published by David Abel and edited by James Brasuell)
In cities like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, the phrase
“affordable housing” is on its face an oxymoron–there’s nothing
affordable in housing in cities where large numbers of people want to
live.
It’s as simple as the law of supply and demand, the greater
the demand, the higher the price. So there’s a lot more profit to be
made building new housing at market prices for the affluent than
low-priced units for the poor.
But that hasn’t stopped everyone from President Obama on down
to states and local governments from trying to find a way to create
houses and apartments that cost less than a third of the income of
people with little money: the poor, students, the elderly on fixed
incomes.
The latest effort of Los Angeles City Hall involves
implementation of a 2002 law, AB 1866,
which required cities to develop rules for “accessory dwelling units”
(ADUs)–granny flats in separate backyard units, garage conversions, and
interior apartments all qualify as ADUs.
Spurred on by City Council President Eric Garcetti and Westside
councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz, among others, the Planning
Department has quietly developed a new ordinance that would open up
most of the city’s neighborhoods to ADUs by right of the property owner
with only administrative approval required. No hearings would be
required even though ADUs would dramatically alter the character R1
neighborhoods.
“The current housing crisis is exacerbated by the turmoil in
the mortgage lending industry where foreclosures have increased and
many other homeowners are on the brink. This situation impacts all
segments of the housing market, but is particularly dire for those with
low incomes, those with special needs and the homeless,” the council
members wrote in an Oct. 20 motion.
(http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-2589_MOT_10-20-09.pdf)
“The number of low income households and the pervasiveness of
poverty in Los Angeles are markedly higher than in other urban areas.
These factors further speak to the need for more affordable housing in
Los Angeles, but creating this housing will require greater subsidies
than in other areas as well.”
“In the past decade, the median price of homes in Los Angeles
has tripled while the average rent for a two bedroom apartment has
doubled. Meanwhile, the median family income has increased only 18%.
The number of low income households and the pervasiveness of poverty in
Los Angeles are markedly higher than in other urban areas.”
Their answer is to encourage development of ADUs, legalize
thousands of illegal units that already exist, and find more money for
subsidies.
There was only one problem: As word spread through the
Internet’s word-of-mouth machinery of blogs, websites, and emails to
Neighborhood Council members, homeowner groups, and other community
activists, the uproar was deafening. They saw what city planners were
proposing as a threat to the quality of life in their neighborhoods
even greater than the one posed SB 1818′s affordable housing density
bonuses for new developments, something that already is tied up in the
courts.
Nothing insdious about what the Planning Department is doing. It is simply a brain dead department under Gail Goldberg that no longer knows what it is doing.
Thank you Mr. Density for the Billboards and High-rises. Long after your terms are expired and you are double-dipping with the 3rd term financial benefits from your time in office (not counting the payola), the remaining locals will have to leave with this train wreck you created.
You have bought into the BS argument brought on by developers that you are being green when in reality you are trashing both the environment and quality of life in what was once a nice city.
Has anybody else noticed that exactly the same “affordable housing” language is used over and over again over the last 15 years to justify this kind of change in land planning? If we look at the language adopted by city council, what we see is wording that talks about property values tripling since 2000. Ahhh, I don’t know about others, but that certainly isn’t the case in my neighborhood in 2009.
And, what are the results? Less affordable housing. I seem to notice that the kind of mantra-affordable housing, more density, etc, etc–is taught at urban planning at both UCLA and USC. Isn’t it time somebody examine the premise?
There is nothing new in planning other than the old tired cliches being shod into new monikers. So “mixed use” which is supposed to balance jobs-housing usually ends up being a 400 unit building with 2,000 sq.ft of retail-a coffee shop or vacant space, while applauded by everyone as a solution to our traffic woes, and to be a greenlighted project over community oppostion.
“Green” buildings, or “sustainable” technology the latest planning whore, is no more than low-flush toilets and LED lighting in most of these high rises, that passes for green in LA, and that is required anyway by the latest State regulations, that is enough to fly the Mayor all the way to Copenhagen to tout the city as the greenest in America. Once again, at the local level, to be approved over community opposition over its ungreen traffic.
To complete this nightmare is the Planning Commission, that gives away free gifts to developers of no parking without ever resolving where people will park, or how to manage in LA without parking.
The truly “green” in LA, are the single-family dwellings whose lawns are brown and homes cold in winter and warm in summer because they can’t afford the water & power bills. That folks is called “sustainable” living, and don’t let anyone fool you otherwise.
It’s a ruse. All this is about is yet another way for Council to fill those empty coffers.
Perhaps if they really had the ability and interest to study the issue they would finally admit that adding more people everywhere isn’t going to fix the City’s problems.
Look it, no one wants to see more homeless people, but stuffing them into single family neighborhoods isn’t the solution.
Since the politically correct card has been called (poverty), we must never forget that our City leadership has already demonstrated it can’t even fix the outstanding problems (i.e., infrastructure, marijuana dispensaries, etc.). Not to mention they can’t follow the advice of their own attorney (Trutanich).
Put the pressure and requirements for truly affordable housing on all of the developers who want to tear down all of the now-affordable one and two story apartment buildings that once were the norm.
Bottom line – we need a sensible land use policy. Not a policy that is reactionary but proactive. One supported by sound economic principles. Not developer-driven. And one supported by those who pay the Council’s salaries.
What grade of pot is Council smoking? This is an outrageous proposal. There are already second units in my neighborhood and I KNOW that all they do is cause congestion of traffic and park up all the streets.
If the Council wants to build a Hong Kong or Sao Paulo, this is a great first street. Will the last person out, please turn off the lights? Who in the middle class of Los Angeles is going to want to stay?
We need something drastic. Anyone notice how much better the smaller cities adjacent to Los Angeles are to live in? Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, South Pasadena,Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach? Smaller cities are better in developing and maintaining quality of life issues.
Perhaps its time to rip up the City Charter and complete the secession movement. But this time, let’s break up the entire city into about 5 or 6 separate cities. The DWP, Airports and Harbors can be municipally owned by a joint powers authority with representatives from the various new cities.
Planning and Land Use Mangement Committee (PLUM) is chaired by Mr. “density” (in neighborhoods other than his) “screwball” Ed Reyes, and President Garcetti who has no idea about planning other than to densify every neighborhood. Koretz is mystifying. He represents one of the most densified community with the most pot shops and billboards in the city. Yet he seems to do everything contrary to what majority of his constituents want. Payback? for almost beating him at the polls. CD5 is a smart community & will find a way to oust this jerk next time.
Meanwhile, we have to deal with the dumb proposals that come out of Planning & a cheering Council mob. Maybe we need to set up a permanent lawsuit fund to fight this idiot City Hall.
Accessory Dwelling Units are already allowed in Los Angeles because of a State law. The Planning Department wanted to modify the law to make it work for LA a little better … they cannot make it any easier than what the state has approved. It’s not a difficult thing to understand people. If the city does nothing then we must abide by the state’s lax standards.
You people are idiots for trashing the Planning Department on this one and now that they’ve given up writing anything you have shot yourself in the foot. Morons.
Such hysteria about ADU’s. Really? Allowing a homeowner to add an ADU is hardly going to destroy any neighborboods. I want to build one to supplement my income in my old age. What is wrong with that? I’m sure any tenant would appreciate the below market rent I might charge.