List of housing projects that will be banned if Measure S passes — 19,000 UNITS AND COUNTING... (Los Angeles: 2014, rental)

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

Exactly.

Like I said many pages ago, invest in fixing the public transit situation for people that are already here instead of investing in construction to add more people to this cluster F. No matter how many buildings are built, people will still have to commute and LA is still spread out like no other metro area. This is not and never will be NYC of SF. If you want to live in a compact city then move to NYC or SF. Most people change jobs every 1-2 years now so living next to work isn't a viable long term solution. A viable long term solution is a way to easily get from the SFV to Westside in 30-40 mins on a train/subway and be able to do that from any point in LA to any other point. And to be able to get from IE or Antelope Valley by high speed rail in an hour or less. These are solutions we need not a bunch of high rises that address the needs of 1% of the people that live here

Why not both? Let the developers build residential buildings to add to the tax base of LA and let the city/county beef up the mass transit. It doest have to be one or the other... "For the people already here" doesn't mean squat because the people are gonna keep coming (like me...been here a year now). NYC did not use to be as built up as it was. There were single family homes on the island before they were bulldozed to make way for the rise in population...

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Why not both? Let the developers build residential buildings to add to the tax base of LA and let the city/county beef up the mass transit. It doest have to be one or the other... "For the people already here" doesn't mean squat because the people are gonna keep coming (like me...been here a year now).

And most people leave after 1-2 years. Talk to me again in 10 years if you're still here

[Social Democrat]

Voting yes on S.
I'm sick of seeing so many people forced out of their apartments when developers buy them up, get a zoning variance, knock down the original building and then put up their high priced rent building.
Many of these people have lived for decades in their apartments, are lower income and cannot afford rent in the new building.
So, want to win a no vote on S from me?
If people are being forced out of an existing building, the developer will house them temporarily elsewhere, then give them the option of moving into the new building at the same rent they were paying previously.
Levy a carbon tax based on new tenants to be used strictly for street improvements and mantainence as well as school improvements - this would apply to all new apartment construction.
Any council member receiving donations of any amount from developers would automatically be recused from voting on zoning variance requests or any new housing construction issues.
Come up with new planning to be reviewed every 5 years with open review by the public.
Too bad if this slows down housing construction. The city council (should be city cronies council) brought this on themselves.
One poster in particular advocates for unfettered development and sounds like a shill for developers. Thank you for reinforcing my decision to vote yes on S.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

W-w-w-wait, let me get this straight... You think NYC is MORE car-dependent than L.A.? The same NYC where over 50% of households don't own a vehicle per a 2012 UMich study? The same NYC that is followed, in that list, in sequence, by DC (+Baltimore), Boston, SF, Philly and Chicago? OK, now I'm really done.

My read, especially given the cities he listed and the previous sentence that LA is not that car dependent, is that he is saying LA is the 7th most car independent city. That's probably true, considering how car dependent most of the US is.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Social Democrat

Voting yes on S.
I'm sick of seeing so many people forced out of their apartments when developers buy them up, get a zoning variance, knock down the original building and then put up their high priced rent building.
Many of these people have lived for decades in their apartments, are lower income and cannot afford rent in the new building.
So, want to win a no vote on S from me?
If people are being forced out of an existing building, the developer will house them temporarily elsewhere, then give them the option of moving into the new building at the same rent they were paying previously.
Levy a carbon tax based on new tenants to be used strictly for street improvements and mantainence as well as school improvements - this would apply to all new apartment construction.
Any council member receiving donations of any amount from developers would automatically be recused from voting on zoning variance requests or any new housing construction issues.
Come up with new planning to be reviewed every 5 years with open review by the public.
Too bad if this slows down housing construction. The city council (should be city cronies council) brought this on themselves.
One poster in particular advocates for unfettered development and sounds like a shill for developers. Thank you for reinforcing my decision to vote yes on S.

I think the worry is that S will force more evictions. While right nkw developers are. Mostly building on empty parking lots.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by Social Democrat

Voting yes on S.
I'm sick of seeing so many people forced out of their apartments when developers buy them up, get a zoning variance, knock down the original building and then put up their high priced rent building.
Many of these people have lived for decades in their apartments, are lower income and cannot afford rent in the new building.
So, want to win a no vote on S from me?
If people are being forced out of an existing building, the developer will house them temporarily elsewhere, then give them the option of moving into the new building at the same rent they were paying previously.
Levy a carbon tax based on new tenants to be used strictly for street improvements and mantainence as well as school improvements - this would apply to all new apartment construction.
Any council member receiving donations of any amount from developers would automatically be recused from voting on zoning variance requests or any new housing construction issues.
Come up with new planning to be reviewed every 5 years with open review by the public.
Too bad if this slows down housing construction. The city council (should be city cronies council) brought this on themselves.
One poster in particular advocates for unfettered development and sounds like a shill for developers. Thank you for reinforcing my decision to vote yes on S.

This editorial argues that if zoning variances aren't granted (as would be the case if Measure S passes), that more affordable housing is likely to be torn down for construction of new condos.

Measure S isn't a solution to L.A.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here are the two most important paragraphs :

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.

It sounds like your complaint is with the state Ellis Act, something measure S doesn't address and will likely exacerbate. But my understanding is the Ellis Act and rent control laws already say that if a rental building is renovated/replaced with a new rental building the owner has to pay relocation expenses and the tenants get first rights to move into the new building. If the building is Ellis Acted and converted into condos, then the tenants get a large payment.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

And most people leave after 1-2 years. Talk to me again in 10 years if you're still here

Oh I will buddy. I hope to be in a house in the basin by that time if my job keeps moving me up

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

Exactly.

Like I said many pages ago, invest in fixing the public transit situation for people that are already here instead of investing in construction to add more people to this cluster F. No matter how many buildings are built, people will still have to commute and LA is still spread out like no other metro area. This is not and never will be NYC of SF. If you want to live in a compact city then move to NYC or SF. Most people change jobs every 1-2 years now so living next to work isn't a viable long term solution. A viable long term solution is a way to easily get from the SFV to Westside in 30-40 mins on a train/subway and be able to do that from any point in LA to any other point. And to be able to get from IE or Antelope Valley by high speed rail in an hour or less. These are solutions we need not a bunch of high rises that address the needs of 1% of the people that live here

LA is investing in transit and just passed a $120 billion measure to add several new lines. But I don't see why development and transit are mutually exclusive. Especially since one is tax payers money and the other affects mostly the private sector. Housing and transit expansion SHOULD go hand in hand if we want to think ahead and ensure that we have the density required around transit stops (many new stations go through lower density areas).

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by Social Democrat

Any council member receiving donations of any amount from developers would automatically be recused from voting on zoning variance requests or any new housing construction issues.
Come up with new planning to be reviewed every 5 years with open review by the public.

The first thing you mentioned is a good idea, and I think it would be a way better regulation than implying a 2-year moratorium (Although it would be better worded to say that any developer looking for a zone variance would be barred from making donations). LA planners JUST announced the other day that Community plans will be updated every 6-years AND Environmental Impact Reports will now be required to be conducted by consultants specifically picked by city hall. These are two things that Measure S was trying to do that are now part of law regardless.

Also, the rent control argument is mostly a myth. Measure S will ensure that LA sticks to its 70 year old zoning codes and the result will be much less housing built to meet demand, higher rates of displacement, homelessness, rent hikes, etc. if you truly felt the way you do, voting No would be your best bet.

[Western Urbanite]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

W-w-w-wait, let me get this straight... You think NYC is MORE car-dependent than L.A.? The same NYC where over 50% of households don't own a vehicle per a 2012 UMich study? The same NYC that is followed, in that list, in sequence, by DC (+Baltimore), Boston, SF, Philly and Chicago? OK, now I'm really done.

No. I think NYC is the least car dependent city, and LA is the seventh least car dependent city. In my opinion, the top 10 LEAST car dependent cities are, in order:
1.NYC
2. DC
3. Chicago
4. San Francisco
5. Boston
6. Philadelphia
7. Los Angeles
8. Seattle
9. Portland
10. San Diego