Heed the ‘Have-Nots’ on the Slow-Growth Issue

Like no other Los Angeles political issue in the last 15 years, the slow-growth movement has captured the imagination of ordinary citizens and politicians alike.

However, the movement’s success--symbolized most recently by the overwhelming election victory of Ruth Galanter to the City Council--potentially contains within it the seeds of failure. The slow-growth movement has addressed the quality-of-life issues of most concern to its members, but it has failed to deal with the economic consequences of the movement’s success: Limits on growth mean limits on economic development as well. And the perceived effect of the movement on economically disadvantaged minorities could polarize the city, putting the last 20 years of relatively harmonious racial relations at risk.

To date, arguments against slow growth have been left largely to representatives of the business and development communities. Slow-growth advocates have dismissed those arguments as complaints of monied interests seeking to increase their wealth at the expense of the community. But less easy to ignore is the view of minority politicians and community leaders who sincerely feel that the continued success of the slow-growth movement will adversely affect their communities.

Buttressing that opinion is a recent Los Angeles Times poll, which found that close to two-thirds of the city’s blacks and Latinos support faster growth, while 60% of the white community wants slower growth. Given that division, the issue now is whether the slow-growth movement is willing and able to embrace the different ethnic and economic communities in Los Angeles.

Some slow-growth advocates answer minority concerns in three ways:

--They argue that minorities do support slow growth, citing the passage of Proposition U last year or pointing to the unique circumstances of the Lancer project.

--They say that minority politicians who are expressing concerns about slow growth are responding to developer contributions rather than to widespread constituent concern over the adverse economic consequences of slow growth.

--Finally, slow-growth advocates say that they are concerned with overdevelopment only in areas already affected by crushing density, generally on the affluent Westside or in the southern San Fernando Valley, and that they do not oppose growth in economically disadvantaged areas.

These responses, while appealing on the surface, do not survive careful analysis. Proposition U passed throughout the city for two reasons: widespread support in affluent communities from voters who feared rampant future growth, and the lack of any organized campaign against it.

The slow-growth movement will not be so lucky the next time that a citywide limitation on growth makes it to the ballot. A number of minority politicians already are staking out a position of “pro-growth.” And leaders in minority communities are rejecting the contention of slow-growth advocates who say that they want to limit construction in areas that are already affected by overcrowding, while permitting growth in depressed areas.

It’s true that South-Central and East Los Angeles, along with portions of the San Fernando Valley, have been left out of the building boom because most developers are unwilling to risk capital in those areas. Nevertheless, minorities properly perceive that they benefit from the positive job-producing effects of development in other parts of town. Either shutting down or slowing development in the rest of the city would mean that jobs and economic development will move away from Los Angeles and into more hospitable suburban areas.

How then can we reconcile the legitimate but conflicting concerns of both the slow-growth advocates and the minority community?

The slow-growth movement should in the future avoid “city-wide” solutions to all local problems, and instead should focus attention on community and neighborhood planning and controls. Citywide solutions, even in the name of reform, are often insensitive to community problems. Mini-malls may be perceived positively in some communities, while viewed as blight in others. Meat-ax approaches that stop all development or that do not permit individual community planning would simply further the polarization process.

In order to gain minority support for the movement, growth must be not only permitted but also encouraged in certain areas of the city. Since large-scale development is opposed on the Westside and in the San Fernando Valley, the primary remaining high-demand land is in or near downtown Los Angeles. Thus a great deal of the future growth of Los Angeles should be channeled downtown, where comprehensive planning efforts and a well-crafted transportation infrastructure could ease commuter access.

Finally, something must be done about stimulating growth in the economically depressed areas of the city. It is tragic that some areas flourish while others do not. A system of incentives can be developed that permits downtown development and at the same time encourages building in decaying areas. A new transfer-of-density ordinance worked out between the Community Redevelopment Agency and the planning department, for example, allows for developer contributions to housing trust funds and other public benefits in exchange for bonus density. Perhaps this technique can be applied to depressed areas as well. Using the city’s major asset--its ability to grant variances and to change zoning--to accomplish this goal would be an important step in addressing some of our most pressing social and economic needs.

The slow-growth movement, responsibly led, can help generate a true renaissance in Los Angeles. But it also could trigger conflict between haves and have-nots. The demographics of the city indicate that, over time, the majority of votes will lie with the ethnic minorities. Given this trend, the success of the slow-growth movement may be short-lived unless it acknowledges the legitimate economic aspirations of those communities.