U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-17-2016, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,190 posts, read 13,695,061 times
Reputation: 11379

Advertisements

Are large-scale housing developments good for LA? | 89.3 KPCC

Thought this article above was pretty interesting.

1)The Build Better LA campaign, led by a coalition of labor unions and affordable housing advocates, is pushing to get a question before voters this November that would make developers include a certain amount of below-market rate housing in their buildings, and to pay construction workers union-level wages.

2) Meanwhile, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, spearheaded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, is aiming for a two-year moratorium on large-scale development, which backers say will help traffic and preserve neighborhood character.

Regarding the first measure, I thought that developers of new construction residential already had to include below market rate housing.

In regards to the second I think a two-year moratorium on large-scale development is pretty nuts.

What do you all think of these ballot measures?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2016, 10:08 AM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,354,003 times
Reputation: 5262
The proposed moratorium IS nuts since the motivation behind it is purely selfish. That AIDS group just wants to halt development because they're right next to an area that's about to be developed into a mixed-use shopping center/apartment complex. They're the ultimate NIMBYs, trying to drag the entire city into their stupid campaign without any regard for anyone but themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,190 posts, read 13,695,061 times
Reputation: 11379
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
The proposed moratorium IS nuts since the motivation behind it is purely selfish. That AIDS group just wants to halt development because they're right next to an area that's about to be developed into a mixed-use shopping center/apartment complex. They're the ultimate NIMBYs, trying to drag the entire city into their stupid campaign without any regard for anyone but themselves.
Yes good point. Just because an organization is a 'non profit' or a 'charity' doesn't mean all their actions should be viewed as beneficial for the entire public good. It's crucial to look at the motivations behind these organizations, whether it is a charity or a Fortune 500 corporation.
Also what is really the point of a 2 year moratorium? Of course they thought 2 years would be practical in passing than 10 years or their real preference..forever.
If it does pass watch them promote a new ballot measure saying "Two years wasn't enough...we need more time to preserve our community!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 10:13 AM
 
548 posts, read 310,542 times
Reputation: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
Are large-scale housing developments good for LA? | 89.3 KPCC

Thought this article above was pretty interesting.

1)The Build Better LA campaign, led by a coalition of labor unions and affordable housing advocates, is pushing to get a question before voters this November that would make developers include a certain amount of below-market rate housing in their buildings, and to pay construction workers union-level wages.

2) Meanwhile, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, spearheaded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, is aiming for a two-year moratorium on large-scale development, which backers say will help traffic and preserve neighborhood character.

Regarding the first measure, I thought that developers of new construction residential already had to include below market rate housing.


In regards to the second I think a two-year moratorium on large-scale development is pretty nuts.

What do you all think of these ballot measures?
For rental units (AKA multi family apartments) you can build whatever is allowed in the zoning code. If you want to get any perks from the city, subsidized loans, conditional use permits, fast tracked approvals, etc. then it is all up for negotiation. The CA supreme court recently ruled that developers building sale units in complexes larger than 15 units can be forced to sell some below market rate.

California High Court Says Cities Can Require Low-Income Housing | L.A. Weekly


I think they're both terrible measures and if I lived in LA city I would definitely vote no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 10:24 AM
 
Location: South Bay
7,091 posts, read 18,425,652 times
Reputation: 3323
The nerve some people have to limit progress is quite infuriating to me. Sure traffic sucks and it's getting more crowded in LA, but couldn't the same have been said when these people moved to LA from where ever they came from. LA's progress and growth has given these people opportunities and wealth (if they own their homes) that can only be matched by a small handful of cities elsewhere in the world. Sure limiting growth will prop up property values and help mitigate traffic to a certain extent, but it will also put up a road block to progress. LA's economic competition stretches well beyond state and national borders these days. Impediments such as this will only make things more difficult in the long run. I'm not saying we're track to becoming the next Detroit, but with enough resistance things could start to head in that direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,190 posts, read 13,695,061 times
Reputation: 11379
The reality is we will never have enough affordable housing in the most desirable parts of L.A at this point.
I know these affordable housing measures or projects sound great. But, it's all being subsidized by someone.
If someone builds a huge building and 2 of the units are "below market" Two people are going to get lucky and get a deal, but how many people are there that want those spots? 1000 or more?
Really the best thing to bring prices down would be to allow more development. Then there would be more supply and the market would work in favor of the renter or homeowner more than it does today with very restricted development.

If an employer or charity wants to build their own affordable housing I say they should have the freedom to do so. But we shouldn't be forcing private companies or landlords to be subsidizing others. It kind of dilutes the meaning of 'private property'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
24,190 posts, read 13,695,061 times
Reputation: 11379
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
The nerve some people have to limit progress is quite infuriating to me. Sure traffic sucks and it's getting more crowded in LA, but couldn't the same have been said when these people moved to LA from where ever they came from. LA's progress and growth has given these people opportunities and wealth (if they own their homes) that can only be matched by a small handful of cities elsewhere in the world. Sure limiting growth will prop up property values and help mitigate traffic to a certain extent, but it will also put up a road block to progress. LA's economic competition stretches well beyond state and national borders these days. Impediments such as this will only make things more difficult in the long run. I'm not saying we're track to becoming the next Detroit, but with enough resistance things could start to head in that direction.
Yes I agree. I used to live in West L.A and would attend some neighborhood council/homeowners association meetings with my family. The basic attitude seemed to be to be against any new development. What usually seemed to happen is the development would get stalled and then massively downscaled. I remember there was a project planned years and years ago for the Pico /Sepulveda area that would have a Target store. We thought this was great as it was store we went to often and had to drive relatively far to the nearest one. Looks like that development never happened.
I do believe too many people have the attitude of "I got mine...now I want to keep MY neighborhood the same as it was decades ago when I moved here"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
3,441 posts, read 2,141,638 times
Reputation: 6949
Were out of water for the people in new construction and the Democrats refuse to build dams to catch the water runoff from the mountains when it rains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 11:59 AM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,354,003 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
The nerve some people have to limit progress is quite infuriating to me. Sure traffic sucks and it's getting more crowded in LA, but couldn't the same have been said when these people moved to LA from where ever they came from. LA's progress and growth has given these people opportunities and wealth (if they own their homes) that can only be matched by a small handful of cities elsewhere in the world. Sure limiting growth will prop up property values and help mitigate traffic to a certain extent, but it will also put up a road block to progress. LA's economic competition stretches well beyond state and national borders these days. Impediments such as this will only make things more difficult in the long run. I'm not saying we're track to becoming the next Detroit, but with enough resistance things could start to head in that direction.
Blocking new development won't do anything to improve traffic and additional housing won't do anything to make it worse unless they build 1,000,000 new units overnight and fill them overnight with new arrivals. The AIDS group behind this moratorium had to produce a fake "study" to make their case regarding traffic after the one they commissioned from actual experts proved them wrong. And keep in mind, they want to block new roadway and transportation projects as well, which goes against their stated goals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 12:53 PM
 
548 posts, read 310,542 times
Reputation: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
Were out of water for the people in new construction and the Democrats refuse to build dams to catch the water runoff from the mountains when it rains.
Does anyone else get the feeling of millions of brain cells committing suicide inside their heads after reading V8's posts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top