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.
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
Lists can be deceiving. Having grown up in Boston and lived in DC I would say both have good but not great public transit but both are still pretty car dependent. When you are talking about Boston and DC you are talking about areas that spread way out into the burbs. Most people that work in DC live in VA or MD and commute. There are good commuter rail options but when I lived there it made more sense to drive other then sitting in traffic. Boston is similar but I believe the trains stop running at 1am which meant a lot of drinking and driving for some people. And Boston is also a city where a very tiny percentage of population actually lives in the city where there is subway access. NYC is really the only city in the US where you can get everywhere you need to get via subways.
Clearly you have zero knowledge about multifamily real estate.
Buddy, all the developer has to do is just raise the rent to a billion dollars a month and then all of the tenants will self vacate. And then the developer gets the building condemned, razes it, and builds his luxury condo just like he initially wanted to.
Except now he just lose a whole bunch of TMV and so will have to price the condos higher to maintain his IRR due to all of your b.s. regulations. Well done!
A genuinely moronic response. As other thoughtful posters pointed out, the Ellis Act does provide protection for tenants for the type of abuse you claim developers can use. If they could do as you claim, they would.
While the state legislature has to make changes regarding the Ellis Act, local city councils can enact the following:
These are just three recent examples. Since 2001, property owners have taken nearly 19,000 rent-controlled units across the city off the market using the Ellis Act, according to the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department.
Why building moratoriums won't solve San Francisco's housing crisis
The goal of the housing and investment agency is to promote, develop and preserve "decent, safe, affordable housing." Yet it has been able to finance the construction of fewer than 10,000 affordable units through bonds and the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund since 2001. It's clear that building our way out of the affordable-housing crisis is not a viable option. We must place the same priority on preserving existing affordable housing that we do on producing new ones.
The Ellis Act was a response to a state Supreme Court ruling that rejected a landlord's claim that property owners have a constitutional right to evict tenants and exit the rental housing business. The Ellis Act ensured landlords that right.
The Ellis Act is now frequently abused by speculators and developers whose main purpose is to acquire property ... and replace them with high-priced luxury housing.
Originally seen as protection for small mom-and-pop landlords who were unable to maintain their property, the Ellis Act is now frequently abused by speculators and developers whose main purpose is to acquire property, evict the tenants, demolish the rent-controlled units and replace them with high-priced luxury housing.
The recent eviction of 17 households at two properties in the Beverly Grove and Fairfax neighborhoods is one of the most egregious examples of this problem. The landlord of the properties is developer Matthew Jacobs, who is also chairman of the California Housing Finance Agency. What many find outrageous is that Jacobs heads the board of this state agency whose stated mission is to provide financing and programs that "create safe, decent and affordable-housing opportunities for low to moderate income Californians."
As is the case with Jacobs, numerous analyses have found that most of the Ellis evictions come from landlords who have owned the property for less than a year.
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2014 that, "of the Los Angeles properties where owners filed to remove rent-controlled units under Ellis in 2013, at least 51% had been purchased within the previous year, according to an analysis of city data and property records tracked by real estate firm DataQuick."
And though the Ellis Act has stripped local governments' power to prohibit evictions, the statute clearly states that the Legislature's intent was not to "interfere with local governmental authority over land use, including regulations on the conversion of existing housing to condominiums … or the demolition and redevelopment of residential property."
The mayor and City Council could enact an ordinance that monitors existing affordable housing and sets an annual limit on the number of demolitions of rent-controlled units. The city could require new construction plans for rent-controlled properties to be approved before demolition permits are issued.
The city could also expand on AB 2222, the 2014 law that requires projects that get a "density bonus" to replace preexisting affordable units one-for-one. (These are projects in which a developer agrees to build a certain number of low-cost housing units in exchange for the opportunity to build more units than would otherwise be allowed.) The city could enact a regulation that applies this concept to projects seeking zone changes, removal of rent-controlled units or that receive government subsidies.
This is from an LA Times article. While this type of change wouldn't stop Ellis Act evictions altogether but woud at least make certain the problem isn't ignored. Please note too thst a developer is head of the CA Housing Finance Agency....
Thank you gain for such an idiotic post, good for a laugh!
I think the worry is that S will force more evictions. While right nkw developers are. Mostly building on empty parking lots.
No problem with building on empty parking lots etc. Evicting tenants from affordable housing to build
alledged affordable housing with rents the evicted tenants can't afford is no cure for the affordable housing issue.
I know people are looking at the bigger issue of providing housing for a burgeoning population but allowing developer abuse should not be a part of the solution.
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.
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.
I appreciate your well reasoned response. I'm familiar with the Ellis Act as someone I know is faced with eviction as a result. While financial assistance is required it will not offset the cost of the new much higher rent if she chose to move into the new building.
My bigger issue is with developers that flaunt the law with little or no repercussions. Last month Wiseman Properties demolished an apartment building at 1332 Formosa Avenue even though they had been specifically denied permission to do so. They were being investigated for illegally evicting the tenants at this location and the investigation was still open!
Additionally, developers have been busted for evicting tenants then renting the apartments on Airbnb and there are more abuses. Then there is the issue of some 600k being donated to local politicians by developers......
I know the city council is acting on planning but it's only because they have their feet to the fire. Too bad the situation has come to this but the city council has brought this on themselves, and everyone else for that matter.
No problem with building on empty parking lots etc. Evicting tenants from affordable housing to build
alledged affordable housing with rents the evicted tenants can't afford is no cure for the affordable housing issue.
I know people are looking at the bigger issue of providing housing for a burgeoning population but allowing developer abuse should not be a part of the solution.
But building housing on parking lots/strip malls requires a general plan amendment. So if Measure S passes, parking lots and strip malls will stay and the areas zoned for SFH will have to bear the brunt of development. This is why this is such a hot issue is because it has many unintended effects that many are ignoring.
By passing S, developers will be even more incentivized to tear down existing housing for denser developments rather than displace NO ONE by converting a parking lot.
But building housing on parking lots/strip malls requires a general plan amendment. So if Measure S passes, parking lots and strip malls will stay and the areas zoned for SFH will have to bear the brunt of development. This is why this is such a hot issue is because it has many unintended effects that many are ignoring.
By passing S, developers will be even more incentivized to tear down existing housing for denser developments rather than displace NO ONE by converting a parking lot.
Good post, but one correction. It's not the area zoned for SFH that will bear the brunt. There may be more granny flats built as those are allowed by a new state law on R1 properties. Still, the big change if S passes will be on properties that are already zoned denser than what is built there, like those old SFH that are zoned for apts and surrounded by apts, as well as older rent-controlled garden apts that could have 3 or 5 story buildings based on the zoning. As you said, if condo developers can't get plan amendments to build on parking lots or old strip malls, the properties that will be available for development will be limited to these underdeveloped properties. Expect Ellis Act evictions to go up and more teardowns of older rent control properties, as that will be all that is still available to build on.
I appreciate your well reasoned response. I'm familiar with the Ellis Act as someone I know is faced with eviction as a result. While financial assistance is required it will not offset the cost of the new much higher rent if she chose to move into the new building.
My bigger issue is with developers that flaunt the law with little or no repercussions. Last month Wiseman Properties demolished an apartment building at 1332 Formosa Avenue even though they had been specifically denied permission to do so. They were being investigated for illegally evicting the tenants at this location and the investigation was still open!
Additionally, developers have been busted for evicting tenants then renting the apartments on Airbnb and there are more abuses. Then there is the issue of some 600k being donated to local politicians by developers......
I know the city council is acting on planning but it's only because they have their feet to the fire. Too bad the situation has come to this but the city council has brought this on themselves, and everyone else for that matter.
I'm aware there are bad owners out there that violate the law, but Measure S doesn’t address that issue at all. If anything, it further incentivizes bad behavior by limiting supply and increasing the rewards for owners violating the law.
This measure has nothing to do with affordable housing (except for limiting its supply), but it's main backers are trying to convince voters that it will limit teardowns of rent controlled units, when in reality it will do the opposite.
Fundamentally, Measure S is about 2 views of the future of the city, each of which have their benefits and drawbacks. The backers tend to be older and want the city to go back to some golden age in the past where it was more suburban. There were less people and less traffic, but the city was less walkable and had not as vibrant street scenes. The new residents have already moved here and continue to move here. That Golden Age, as they see it, is already gone now.
The opponents of S are more pragmatic and realize the city is growing and the only way to accommodate that growth is to get denser and to build transit while we are growing. I don't want LA to look like Manhattan, and I don't want to get rid of SFH neighborhoods, unless a supermajority of the residents of a neighborhood wanted to change the zoning. But I do think there is room for building taller buildings along major Blvds/Avenues to accommodate growth (Not skyscrapers, just 4-6 stories to replace the 1-2 stories that currently line most of our major thoroughfares). The zoning codes are going to get updated (one thing we can thank Measure S for), but I expect there will be a lot of battles from these same 2 sides as that process moves forward.
Fundamentally, Measure S is about 2 views of the future of the city, each of which have their benefits and drawbacks. The backers tend to be older and want the city to go back to some golden age in the past where it was more suburban. There were less people and less traffic, but the city was less walkable and had not as vibrant street scenes. The new residents have already moved here and continue to move here. That Golden Age, as they see it, is already gone now.
Lists can be deceiving. Having grown up in Boston and lived in DC I would say both have good but not great public transit but both are still pretty car dependent. When you are talking about Boston and DC you are talking about areas that spread way out into the burbs. Most people that work in DC live in VA or MD and commute. There are good commuter rail options but when I lived there it made more sense to drive other then sitting in traffic. Boston is similar but I believe the trains stop running at 1am which meant a lot of drinking and driving for some people. And Boston is also a city where a very tiny percentage of population actually lives in the city where there is subway access. NYC is really the only city in the US where you can get everywhere you need to get via subways.
That reminds be of this very cool graph I saw a while back. It shows how LA has the least amount of land occupied by low density housing, and how Boston and Philadelphia have the most, but they also have a little tiny bit of extreme density in the center that LA doesn't:
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.
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.
