"Who Approved That?": Residents in LA Question the Highrises Popping Up in their Backyards (for sale, real estate)

[Chicano3000X]

https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-con...-approved-that

Hears from both sides of the spectrum.

Personally those Dingbats are an eyesore..

[jm1982]

Thanks for posting .

KCET puts out some quality content .

That huge building in Westchester is incredible . It doesn't seem like Councilmembers like Bonin care anymore about their constituents. I guess they could move but then they'd have higher taxes on a new place and might have to pay big taxes on the home they sell .

Seems there should be certain situations for people like this where they are allowed to move without increasing their tax basis . i mean having a 100 unit building next to your home is going to make it less desirable .

There is also just so much developer money and corruption in L.A . Look at Seabreeze project etc .

I'm not anti development but it shouldn't be a quid pro quo type situation with backroom deals etc .

Those Westchester residents have no privacy now in their backyards . Who would really want that .

I don't think these larger scale developments will stop because building bigger is highest and best use for the owner of the land . Build more units on one parcel and price per unit goes down .

I've been reading about health risks of those Apartments right by freeways and I don't think I'd want to live in one of those . Enough air pollution as it is.

I do think it's a shame when some of the actual historical buildings get torn down but I know their are historical zones where they are protected as well .

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I'm having a good day so far on this sacred day known as Winter Solstice, so I don't want to look at the article just yet because I don't want lose my temper right now.

However, I will say that I agree with jm1982's comments regarding developers and the total disregard for what these big developments do to property values for blocks around. Nobody who lives in a SFR wants a behemoth of a building looming over them, and I find it consummately disgusting how the "bundle of rights" that by law run with any bit of real property means nothing to our so-called leaders.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I'm having a good day so far on this sacred day known as Winter Solstice, so I don't want to look at the article just yet because I don't want lose my temper right now.

However, I will say that I agree with jm1982's comments regarding developers and the total disregard for what these big developments do to property values for blocks around. Nobody who lives in a SFR wants a behemoth of a building looming over them, and I find it consummately disgusting how the "bundle of rights" that by law run with any bit of real property means nothing to our so-called leaders.

You are part of the problem. With the exception of maybe the immediate coast, property values are overinflated in Greater LA, and need to be lowered.

I know you will just retort "no, people need to leave"; but as long as someone has a job, there is a need for them in the area, and people need somewhere to live. When the median income resident can only afford 10% of the residences for sale/rent, that is a supply problem

[majoun]

Not surprising at all.

One consequence of overregulation and overcriminalization in L.A. is that the ability to buy one's way out of the law and obtain special favors from pliant officials is greatly magnified. With money changing hands the law is pliable. This erodes rule of law tremendously.

I'm the first person to say zoning is way too strict in L.A. but this is just clear corruption and political favoritism. Cronyism in action.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

You are part of the problem. With the exception of maybe the immediate coast, property values are overinflated in Greater LA, and need to be lowered.

I know you will just retort "no, people need to leave"; but as long as someone has a job, there is a need for them in the area, and people need somewhere to live. When the median income resident can only afford 10% of the residences for sale/rent, that is a supply problem

While there is a major supply problem I don't know if you see the particular issue of corruption here.

This corruption winds up reducing supply in the long run as only a tight circle of the connected are allowed to develop housing.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by majoun

While there is a major supply problem I don't know if you see the particular issue of corruption here.

This corruption winds up reducing supply in the long run as only a tight circle of the connected are allowed to develop housing.

Many don't realize this because it's hardly ever covered in the local news .

Once in a blue moon there will be an article in the LA Times like on the Seabreeze project.. but that's one of thousands of articles .

They don't talk about it on the local news .

Of course the local liberal media and city hall are cozy too .

Yet the media will do 1000 stories on how bad awful and evil Trump is .

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

You are part of the problem. With the exception of maybe the immediate coast, property values are overinflated in Greater LA, and need to be lowered.

How is that my fault?

[Exitus Acta Probat]

BTW, why not make these residential buildings underground? You pro-growth people get your residences, and the SFR people don't have strangers peering into their backyards.

[LuvSouthOC]

Why not build on preserved land too, like in the hills? Build giant towers looming over SFRs on the hills! Progress! Those damn NIMBY coyotes and bunnies don’t deserve the land! Build on it; Real estate prices are too high. Towers, towers, and towers.