Building-Limits Proposition Works Against Minorities

There has been a lot of talk about how Proposition U, the so-called Reasonable Growth Initiative, would raise the quality of life in Los Angeles. But the truth is that while Proposition U would help some neighborhoods, it would represent a major set-back for others--mainly low-income and minority areas.

Los Angeles is a city defined by its diversity. It is a patchwork of cultures and communities, each rightfully seeking prosperity.

It is incumbent on members of the City Council, as elected policy-makers, to guard the character and economic vitality of all Los Angeles’ communities. This calls for careful judgments: The needs of Pacific Palisades will seldom be the same as those of East Los Angeles. Yet, whatever the difficulty, the obligation to consider the concerns of all residents remains a basic principle of local government.

Proposition U ignores the city’s diversity. The measure presumes that all Angelenos live in affluent, job-rich communities. It overlooks the city’s blighted neighborhoods, which are struggling desperately to obtain the jobs and prosperity that development can bring. Proposition U’s restrictive zoning could have a chilling effect on these communities’ battles to upgrade.

The costs of hampering such efforts are great: With unemployment remaining stubbornly high among minority and low-income groups, what right have we to discourage development that could bring jobs? Minority leaders repeatedly have pointed out that the best form of crime prevention is employment. Communities facing problems of this magnitude need the city’s assistance, not additional obstacles.

Let’s look at how Proposition U would effect some communities.

Crenshaw --After 12 years of effort by community leaders, the Crenshaw District has just celebrated the ground breaking of a new $100-million mall. The mall is seen as the linchpin of the area’s economic revitalization. Local activists worry that the second phase of redevelopment, which has just begun to attract developer interest, would be crippled under the initiative.

Watts --This South-Central community is in a similar situation, with its first shopping center in many years open and making money. But the second round of redevelopment, crucial if the center is to be more than an isolated pocket of profitability, is endangered by Proposition U.

Pacoima --This northeast Valley area, which has a major Latino population, has long been struggling with economic decline. Before his death, First District Councilman Howard Finn fought hard to have it declared an enterprise zone. Now that it has been so designated, a number of developers have expressed interest in the area. But Proposition U, by cutting building density in half, may render it harder for residents to reap the benefits.

Harbor Gateway --This moderate-income community in the Torrance-Gardena area has a large Asian population and is the site of a 270-acre industrial park, about one-third completed. Despite the development’s size, the community has given it full backing because of the jobs it will provide. Had Proposition U been in effect, much of the existing park could not have been built. If the initiative passes, many planned developments will have to be drastically altered or dropped.

Wilmington --This community near the harbor is one of the city’s truly depressed areas. A commercial revitalization program will soon start in Wilmington’s downtown, but attracting developers promises to be a far harder struggle if they must face not only economic problems but also restrictive zoning.

Should Proposition U pass, projects could be stalled for as long as two years, or lost all together. Bringing projects back to life would involve considerable red tape, possibly entailing new environmental impact reports and community plan amendments in addition to rezoning. Few developers are willing to jump those hurdles to build in an economically marginal area.

Proposition U does have its advantages. It would give WestSide and Valley residents needed protection from commercial encroachment. However, this can be achieved more effectively through two ordinances, one of which already has been approved by the City Council, that do not sacrifice any community’s economic hopes. In addition to density, these ordinances attack the problems of tall buildings near single-family dwellings and traffic congestion--issues unaddressed by Proposition U.

Protecting neighborhoods from commercial overdevelopment certainly is a worthwhile goal. But let’s not do it on the backs of our poorer communities.