.
.
.
LA skyline, squeezed horizontally by about 58%. Just saying that it might be an option!
Chances are good that you, mostly here in OC, neither knew nor cared much about the City of Los Angeles’s Measure S, which was soundly defeated by a paltry number of voters on Tuesday. It was at base a measure to restrict growth — a topic of great interest in OC — and almost all of the political email I received on the issue opposed it. That’s despite my publicly being highly wary of developers, which one might think would get me on at least some mailing list for opponents. As it happens, I didn’t write about Measure S because I was conflicted about it — and was convinced to put aside my instincts to support it (for all the effect that would have had) primarily by the boldfaced portion of following LA Times editorial.
I’m printing it in full because I believe that it falls into a Fair Use exception for criticism and I also don’t think that the exclusivity of this story has continuing financial value to them. Besides, I don’t want to be accused of picking and choosing parts of the editorial — so here’s the whole thing and I hope that you read at least the first eight paragraphs.
Measure S isn’t a solution to L.A.’s housing woes, it’s a childish middle finger to City Hall. Vote no
By the Times Editorial Board
February 11, 2017
The most important decision Los Angeles voters will make on March 7 is whether to support or oppose Measure S, a slow-growth, anti-development ballot measure cloaked in the language of government reform. It may be tempting to vote yes because the measure is superficially appealing and speaks to many real problems facing Los Angeles. But in fact it’s not a solution; it’s just a way for voters to give a big middle finger to the pols at City Hall and the powerful, high-rolling real estate developers who bankroll them. And while that might feel good on election day, it will unleash a series of consequences — intended and unintended — that will hurt Los Angeles in the long run by worsening the city’s housing crisis and stifling economic development.
Measure S is aimed at the many Angelenos who are concerned that L.A. is becoming too tall and too dense and who blame elected officials for ignoring the impacts new development could have on traffic, parks and neighborhood character. In many cases, they worry, the politicians are simply doing the bidding of wealthy developers in return for campaign contributions.
These are legitimate concerns. City leaders have consistently failed to modernize the General Plan, the city’s master planning document that hasn’t been updated in 20 years, and have stalled efforts to update the city’s 35 community plans, which set the goals and rules for development in a neighborhood. Because the plans are too old to reflect what neighborhoods currently want and need, or what the housing market demands, building projects are too often considered on a case-by-case basis, with individual council members dictating what’s appropriate on a particular site and granting zoning changes and General Plan amendments.
If Measure S had simply mandated that the City Council and mayor finally update the General Plan and the community plans, and if it had required regular updates going forward, The Times Editorial Board would have wholeheartedly endorsed it. If the measure had also barred developers from hiring their own consultants to produce traffic studies and environmental impact reports, we’d have said, “Sure, that sounds like a way to ensure unbiased analysis.” If the measure had aimed to put some reasonable constraints on the City Council’s ability to engage in “spot zoning” or to change the land use of a single piece of property at a developer’s request, we would have been open to that, too.
Measure S does all those things. But its proponents were not content to stop there. Instead, they added an unreasonable and irresponsible two-year moratorium on all real estate projects that require a General Plan amendment, zone change or increase in allowable height. In addition, Measure S would enact a permanent ban on General Plan amendments for any property less than 15 acres.
Why is that unreasonable? Because the existing city’s land-use plans are so out of date and so riddled with inconsistencies that it’s not unusual to need a zone change to build a simple apartment building in a row of existing apartment buildings. Of course, updating the plans will help but that will take at least six years and possibly more. In the meantime, Measure S would block the construction of new and much-needed housing — both market rate and affordable.
Los Angeles is in the midst of a severe housing crisis because over decades, housing construction has not kept up with population growth. That’s why the city currently has an apartment vacancy rate of less than 3%, a record low, and why rents have skyrocketed. Roughly one in three renters spends more than half their income on rent, leaving little money for food, healthcare, education or savings. Measure S would worsen the housing shortage.
Some proponents of Measure S have said it will discourage gentrification and protect residents threatened with displacement. But that’s not true. The measure would do nothing to create more affordable housing or to protect existing affordable housing. In fact, Measure S will make it nearly impossible to convert a parking lot, a defunct public building or a strip mall into housing — those are all changes that would require a General Plan amendment, zone change or height increase.
Building on underused sites is the best way to create more housing without displacing existing residents. One analysis of General Plan amendments proposed in 2015 found that the projects would create 6,000 units of housing while displacing just six existing units. Without the ability to seek land-use changes, real estate investors will likely turn to existing residential properties. That means small, often rent-stabilized apartments could be converted to condominiums (a trend that led to thousands of evictions a decade ago) or could be demolished to make way for larger projects. That means more displacement. Not less.
In addition, Measure S would make it harder to address homelessness. Just three months ago, L.A. voters passed Measure HHH to build 10,000 units of low-income and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. But the city’s first plans under the bond measure — to build several hundred units of housing on the sites of old fire stations, an animal shelter and other city-owned properties — would be blocked by Measure S because the projects would require General Plan amendments. Future proposals would no doubt face similar obstacles.
Measure S would also stifle economic development in communities that want the investment. In the Exposition Park neighborhood, for instance, residents were promised that the old Bethune Library site would be turned into an affordable housing complex with a grocery store. The city began looking for a new partner to develop the land last year, but the project would be blocked by Measure S because it requires a General Plan amendment.
In Panorama City, community leaders want to revitalize their commercial corridor, but the Measure S moratorium would block efforts to convert vast surface parking lots into shops and apartments. And an ambitious plan to turn the struggling Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza into an “urban village” with new shops, condominiums, apartments, offices and a hotel could be stalled by the moratorium because the project needs a zone change.
To their credit, the proponents of Measure S have already forced the City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti to get serious about reforming the city’s broken land-use process. Last week, the council voted to develop an ordinance mandating community plan updates every six years. That’s stricter than Measure S, which calls for a review every five years along with “possible updating” of the community plans.
Many residents are understandably anxious about increasing urbanization, about gentrification and displacement, about the crisis of homelessness, about development and livability and traffic — and what it will be like to live in Los Angeles 25 or 50 years from now. These are challenges that can’t be fixed by ballot box planning. It will take work on the part of residents, builders, businesses and the city’s elected leaders to develop and implement a plan for how to add more housing while preserving neighborhood character, including ethnic and income diversity.
Don’t be swayed by the misleading promises of Measure S. Don’t hold hostage badly needed housing with this overly broad ballot measure.
Just as one might argue that the “Deep State” in DC is out to squash Donald Trump over his ties to Russia, this is the prime indication that the “Deep City” in LA was out to squash Measure S. That makes me a little nervous, but I guess I’m fine with it if they were right — as I think that they were. But there’s an implication in the boldfaced section that I want to highlight:
If Measure S had simply mandated that the City Council and mayor finally update the General Plan and the community plans, and if it had required regular updates going forward, The Times Editorial Board would have wholeheartedly endorsed it. If the measure had also barred developers from hiring their own consultants to produce traffic studies and environmental impact reports, we’d have said, “Sure, that sounds like a way to ensure unbiased analysis.” If the measure had aimed to put some reasonable constraints on the City Council’s ability to engage in “spot zoning” or to change the land use of a single piece of property at a developer’s request, we would have been open to that, too.
Measure S does all those things. But its proponents were not content to stop there. Instead, they added an unreasonable and irresponsible two-year moratorium on all real estate projects that require a General Plan amendment, zone change or increase in allowable height. In addition, Measure S would enact a permanent ban on General Plan amendments for any property less than 15 acres.
OK, fine. One of the groups opposing S was, after all, entitled “Goes Too Far” — and this piece explains how, where, and why that arguably happened. But what this piece also tells me is that there was agreement between the LA Times and the Measure S proponents that Los Angeles should:
- mandate that the City Council and mayor finally update the General Plan
- mandate that the City Council and mayor finally update community plans
- require regular updates to these plans going forward
- bar developers from hiring their own consultants to produce traffic studies and environmental impact reports
- put reasonable constraints on the City Council’s ability to engage in “spot zoning” (and, more specifically)
- put reasonable constraints on the City Council’s ability to change the land use of a single piece of property at a developer’s request
Great! Some progress (it’s unclear how much) has been made on items 1-3. Let’s see Los Angeles nail those in and also enact items 4-6. Put a referendum on the ballot for the next election — ready, set, go!
We’d then likely find out that one of two things is true: either the Times really meant and is willing to stand behind what it wrote — OR, the Times just crafted that logical and reasonable analysis for the temporary purpose of spiking Measure S … and that tool is no longer needed.
I hope that the Los Angeles City Council will pass a program to do what the Times said it would find acceptable. Otherwise, I’d have to conclude that the Times was lying to me — in which event I regret not writing in support of Measure S.
This is your Weekend Open Thread. Talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of discretion and decorum.
LA Election Results: Voters approve Measure H to fight homelessness. … With all685 precincts reporting, 67.44 percent of the voters – or 379,005 – said yes to Measure H, and 182,969 – or 32.56 percent – said no. Measures calling for taxes need two-thirds —— or 66.66 percent — of the vote to pass.3 days ago
LA Election Results: Voters approve Measure H to fight homelessness
http://www.dailynews.com/…/la-election-results-voters-approve-measure-h-to-fight-homelessn...
=================================*How cool is this?
Meanwhile, attended the Senator Pat Bates and Assemblymember Bill Brough
Senior Conference in Mission Viejo yesterday. We will be launching a new
Homeless Support Web Site entitled: GemmeShelter.com. This will be the
central gathering place for Homeless resource support issues, since it seems there
is a vacuum in this regard – presently. (1) Kudos to the folks in LA that understand
how terrible and how growing the homeless issue has become. In the end, it will
take Federal, State and County Resources to finally come together. In addition
to GemmeShelter.com we will be adding HelpTheHomelessNetwork.com to create
a National Data Base of Resources for Major Cities and States. The format will be
based on a Wikipedia concept, with folks being able to log in and assist in creating
authenticated support pages. This is a 501-C3 Concept and our labor of love to attempt to give back to the most susceptible and needy in our society. The feedback we got yesterday was very positive and included the CHP, UCI, The Auto Club and
others who showed great interest. We will keep you informed as the launch is created and we invite you to start thinking of those that want to help participate in this endeavor.
Do you really mean to spell it “Gemme” Shelter?
*Absolutely…..it is a hook…..much like “Wikipedia”…..who could have thought
that would ever be popular? “Give Me Shelter”…..is Victimizing….”Gemme Shelter” is empowering…..get it? Or maybe you never really liked the Rolling Stones? We want Mick Jagger for one of our Spokespersons!
That’s what I thought you were getting at. For the record, it’s “Gimme.”
Matt Cunningham left a note (that I stumbled upon while looking for something else) claiming that in something I wrote somewhere here I falsely claimed to be an Anaheim resident. I left a reply, but as I’m on “moderation” and sometimes my comments are not approved (although he’s better about that than Chumley) I’ll repost that reply here, where I supposedly made the false claim. (The first sentence refers to my asking whether he agreed that anonymous commenters have less credibility and so the fact that Dr. Moreno’s supporters in blogs used their own names while most of his detractors used pseudonyms might have helped Moreno bear Brandman. Matt simply dismissed this as “silly,” because conclusions are easy and reasoning is hard.)
I think that I’ve said this at times before, but I like telling the story — because it’s my way of thanking God for bringing me into the workings of a city where I could really help to make a difference in its governance.
See, to start with (bless your heart) I would omit that third paragraph. There is no good faith with the people who are trashing you. I will probably find several other paragraphs that should also not be necessary .. once you realize that you’re dealing with professional poisoners.
“professional poisoners”
Yeah, true. Jerbal is PAID to come to my neighborhood to stir up trouble among the manipulable immigrant mothers at Palm Lane Elementary; and then the angry Trump-voter assholes on Palais Road – a few hundred feet away.
The irony is that the victim mothers in Part A are also the culpable worthless mothers in Part B. An irony lost on almost everybody who pays attention to Jerbal – admittedly, very few. But that doesn’t dissipate the stench of this turd.
So… what a weenie. It turns out you wrote somewhere, “Anaheim residents Brian Neil Chuchua, Cynthia Ward, and me.”
That’s like some wife waiting in the wings trying to catch you in a “lie.”
Pretty amazing, isn’t it? “The horror! The horror!” I haven’t checked to see whether he published my reply to that revelation.
And now I’m on moderation. *Sad face emoticon.
Could be worse: I’M on moderation (and effectively banned except by whim) at LibOC, so I have to insert (as it were) my replies to Chumley’s mention of us in his “male masturbation” story here. (And when I say “replies,” I definitely mean “plural”.)
For those who don’t know, a female Texas Legislator introduced a bill (as a way of raising consciousness about anti-abortion bills) by fining male Texans $100 for each ejaculation “outside of a woman’s vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility”, which “will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life.”
Cute idea, ruined only slightly by his imaging that the great Molly Ivins would somehow be his buddy rather than being outraged by a man who uses his bulk to back people into corners and holler at them. But it’s nice that he likes her and unlike that she’ll return to Earth just to settle that sort of score.
The trulyweird part is the ending paragraph, where he continues his obsession with our bodies and sexual behavior, closing the story thusly:
Do you ever get a big grin on your face when you realize that you can legitimately tell anyone who might object to what you’re about to write that “well HE started it”? You may proceed that I am thusly grinning. [Cracking knuckles]
Chumley’s flaccid thrust at us initially confused me — not the part where he derogates those with less money, as that’s normal for him, but because what friends does he imagined that HE has over here? Then I remembered that his new commenter “theloraplayer” (or whatever it calls itself) keeps pretending to be Vern, and has been sucking up to Chumley pretty hard recently in criticizing those of us who manage this joint. So maybe that’s just befuddled him. (What’s the real identity of that commenter? Who knows? One might shrug: “Ask Pulido. Ask Melahat.”)
My first reaction, on noting the “they’re so poor they can’t even pay fines for masturbating” joke, was that Chumley certainly has the better of us there — because that guy can certainly afford $100 a year, and maybe even $200, so he’d be all set for life.
My second reaction was to realize that his arms do look like they might indeed be a bit shorter than they’d need to be for certain gratifying purposes — suddenly I feel a little guilty about the “walrus” thing” — and that we might suddenly have a somewhat sympathetic explanation for his pinched visage and foul demeanor.
My third reaction was that, despite what he thought, we here could probably get by with a little ingenuity: we could officially designate whatever we supplied we wanted to be “health or medical facilities.” And Chumley could do the same for his housepets.
My fourth reaction was that I hoped that he would write a lot more about masturbation because junior is over there and he needs to have something to hold his interest besides the company of noted “health facility” Lieut. Pat. A comment of junior’s rose up almost immediately, where he sneered at the policy by saying that next people would want to outlaw dildoes. I posted a comment reminding him that we hadn’t “outlawed” him, we just banned him, but I don’t know if Chumley will let it see daylight.
One of Chumley’s anonymous commenters went after Paul and then Vern, because I guess that that’s what their contract calls for them to do, and because male masturbation is apparently shameful. It was a little pitiful. Anyway, my suggestion, Vern, is that OJB take the official community position here is that non-vaginally-targeted ejaculation in private or among consenting participants or observers — Chumley totally missed the anti-gay subtext of the proposal, or pretended to, which is not surprising –is not the sort of thing that we condemn. But I don’t want to speak for all of our readers, of course — so perhaps we should put up a poll!
(Ah, that was fun. Sorry for being mean, Sharon, but, you know….)
I knew Molly when I lived in Texas. She woulda seen in a heartbeat what a wanker Chmielewski is.
Well, that’s ironic. What did it take to finally get me banned from the Liberal OC? “Urizen” pointed out that my attacks on Dan are substantive while his attacks on me are personal and nasty. So I responded to Urizen, “Yeah, if I were more like Dan I’d be all “You must still be in a bad mood from your lapband surgery, and by the way how are you still so damn fat?” But I don’t…”
My demonstration of how much nicer I am than Dan because I don’t aim as low as him is what got me banned. I don’t know, that seems kind of ironic. At least enough for an Alanis Morisette song.
Well, now I can’t answer that asshole Vasquez, but at least I’ll have more time on my hands to do real work!