Build L.A up or slow it's growth down (condo, buying)

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Everyone has known about this guy before measure S

I am not referring to Winestien, but the jerks that wrote that article in favor of a no vote on s.

Bob.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

People complain that luxury development is all that is going up in LA, which makes me wonder what constitutes "luxury" prices in your opinions, considering a huge majority are. actually market rate. Much of the high cost for units in LA is due to the lengthy permitting process that is required, and most developers have to sit on their project sites for 2+ years after the proposal before they can even put shovels in the ground. Makes me wonder why people think adding more regulations to development will help bring prices down.

What happens if you build too much? Then landlords start to offer incentives or lower the prices and everything falls into balance. When are brand new developments ever "affordable" anyway? Luxury development of today is market rate housing 10 years from now.

Yes and since land is so expensive in L.A it makes that's another reason it makes sense for these developers to be developing "luxury" housing .
In reality anything brand new is going to look "luxury" compared to something built in the 1950s or 1960s.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by CALGUY

I am not referring to Winestien, but the jerks that wrote that article in favor of a no vote on s.

Bob.

Most informed people can see measure S will be an economic disaster for the city. If there is an issue, find a reasonable solution but so far, this measure is like lighting yourself on fire just to get rid of the flu.

[Chicano3000X]

So many Yes on S mailers, so much misinformation - LA Times

With election day one week away, voters in Los Angeles are being bombarded with mailers, calls and social media messages about Measure S, a slow-growth, anti-development ballot measure. Political campaigns are often an exercise in exaggeration, but the Yes on S side has crossed the line from run-of-the-mill overstatement to out-and-out falsehood.

Here are some doozies.

One deceptive mailer says Yes on S will “house our vets.” But Measure S does nothing to help homeless veterans. In fact, “S” would make it harder to build housing for homeless vets because it would impose a two-year moratorium on real estate projects that require a zone change, a height increase or an amendment of the city’s General Plan — all fairly common requests in a city with terribly outdated planning rules. For instance, Measure S would block a proposed development in Little Tokyo that includes apartments for homeless veterans and low-income families because the project requires a zone change. That’s why virtually every nonprofit group that works on homelessness and affordable housing opposes Measure S.

Another mailer claims Measure S “will protect existing rent-controlled housing from developers who want to tear down perfectly good affordable units to make room for their luxury housing projects.” Wrong again. An analysis by the Los Angeles Times found that the vast majority — more than 90% — of rent-controlled apartments removed from the market in the last four years did not require zone changes, height increases or General Plan amendments. Therefore they would not have been stopped by Measure S.

Actually, Measure S is likely to increase evictions and the loss of rent-controlled housing. Why? Because the measure would bar the land-use changes needed to convert a parking lot, a defunct public building or a strip mall into housing — all projects that would add housing units without requiring the loss of existing units. If Measure S passes, real estate investors probably would target residential properties that do not need such exemptions, meaning more demolitions of small, often rent-stabilized apartments, more evictions and more displacement. Exactly the opposite of what Measure S proponents promise.

And then there’s the preposterous “eviction notice” that the pro-S campaign sent out last week. The mailer is crafted to look like an eviction notice, with the heading “County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Court Services Division” and the words “THIS COULD BE YOU OR A LOVED ONE.” On the back, the mailer calls on voters to back Measure S. On Friday county attorneys sent a cease and desist letter, warning the campaign that it was using the Sheriff’s Department name “for your own personal purposes in a manner that is misleading to the public.”

Again, Measure S does not address evictions. The word “evictions” does not appear in the initiative. Nor does the initiative mention the Ellis Act, the state law that allows evictions when a property owner is going out of the rental business.

There are other examples of the “Yes” campaign taking quotes out of context to imply support when none is there. The campaign, for instance, sent a mailer with Mayor Eric Garcetti’s face plastered on it and the words “I agree” in quotes. True, Garcetti has agreed with the need to reform the city’s land-use system, but he is a vocal opponent of Measure S.


The campaign has also sent out numerous mailers that snip lines from Los Angeles Times editorials criticizing the city’s broken land-use process. But the mailers are misleading because they leave out the fact that The Times has consistently criticized the initiative ever since it was proposed in November 2015. Why has The Times opposed it? Because a moratorium on construction could cause serious harm in a city that has an affordable housing crisis and isn’t building enough units to meet the needs of current and future residents.

We’re not naive about the nature of political campaigns. They can be ugly. The No on Measure S campaign recently sent out a mailer attacking the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is bankrolling Measure S, for abusing taxpayer money with few facts to back the allegation. But the Yes on S campaign has been positively Trumpian in its promises. Be warned: If the initiative is passed, they won’t come true.

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Most informed people can see measure S will be an economic disaster for the city. If there is an issue, find a reasonable solution but so far, this measure is like lighting yourself on fire just to get rid of the flu.

Yes, just like most "informed people" would vote for Hillary. Unfortunately we live in a free country where everyone is free to make their own decisions about how the feel on any given issue. Believe it or not there are thousands of people who can and will make informed decisions that you don't agree with.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

Yes, just like most "informed people" would vote for Hillary. Unfortunately we live in a free country where everyone is free to make their own decisions about how the feel on any given issue. Believe it or not there are thousands of people who can and will make informed decisions that you don't agree with.

Most people felt we had a bad set of choices. Your right though. We lost Bernie. The DNC screwed him. So we ended up with two idiots. IDK who is what's worse for the country. Some emails or Russian ties..

[Western Urbanite]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Most people felt we had a ****ty choice. Your right though. We lost Bernie. The DNC screwed him. So we ended up with two idiots. IDK who is what's worse for the country. Some emails or Russian ties..

Mhmmmmm. Clinton Kaine 2020!!!! But let's get back on topic...

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Western Urbanite

Mhmmmmm. Clinton Kaine 2020!!!! But let's get back on topic...

True.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Most people felt we had a ****ty choice. Your right though. We lost Bernie. The DNC screwed him. So we ended up with two idiots. IDK who is what's worse for the country. Some emails or Russian ties..

I'm more concerned about Garcetti's China ties .. which are a real thing .

LA mayor proud of city's ties to China[1]|chinadaily.com.cn

Travelin' Eric's last day in China - MyNewsLA.com

https://therealdeal.com/la/2016/10/1...ayor-garcetti/

Wanda Group is run by China's richest man . They are buying up tons of film studios in the U.S and now they are looking at buying financial firms here too .

Schumer a dem and anti Trump guy is critical of them too
Schumer calls for scrutiny of Wanda Group and other Chinese investors, noting China's restrictions on U.S. films - LA Times

This company is really controlled by the Chinese government .

"Wanda, which has ties to the Chinese government, has been quickly building its Hollywood portfolio by gobbling up cinema giants like AMC Entertainment and Carmike Cinemas and production companies Legendary Entertainment and Dick Clark Productions. "

I think many in L.A are oblivious to this .

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I'm more concerned about Garcetti's China ties .. which are a real thing .

LA mayor proud of city's ties to China[1]|chinadaily.com.cn

Travelin' Eric's last day in China - MyNewsLA.com

https://therealdeal.com/la/2016/10/1...ayor-garcetti/

Wanda Group is run by China's richest man . They are buying up tons of film studios in the U.S and now they are looking at buying financial firms here too .

Schumer a dem and anti Trump guy is critical of them too
Schumer calls for scrutiny of Wanda Group and other Chinese investors, noting China's restrictions on U.S. films - LA Times

This company is really controlled by the Chinese government .

"Wanda, which has ties to the Chinese government, has been quickly building its Hollywood portfolio by gobbling up cinema giants like AMC Entertainment and Carmike Cinemas and production companies Legendary Entertainment and Dick Clark Productions. "

I think many in L.A are oblivious to this .

While I don't doubt there is corruption. Fighting it by passing a bill that will screw over the entire city is no the way to go. Just remember that the guy behind the measure is not a saint himself.