We Need to Red-Light Those Red Tags on Repairable Buildings : Quake aftermath: To protect affordable housing, caution is essential. The non-profit sector has a proven track record in rehabilitating low-income units.

Throughout Los Angeles, buildings are being “red-tagged” as uninhabitable. We seem to assume that demolition is a given, a matter of post-earthquake fact. But these red-tagged structures are not just buildings, they are the heart and soul of neighborhoods. And in most of those neighborhoods, they are the only source of affordable housing stock.

We must find every conceivable way to save these buildings. Prudent economic policy demands it. If landlords tear down these buildings and get the financing to rebuild, the new codes demand, among other things, that a specific number of parking spaces be provided on the property; for efficient use of space, this usually means parking spaces within the building, which adds at least 30% to the cost. This makes new construction, at approximately $60 per square foot, almost twice the typical cost of rehabilitation. Landlords have no choice but to translate those costs directly into higher rents, which most of the displaced tenants will be unable to afford. That leads to the worst possible outcome of this disaster: Besides destroying communities, we may too easily create the next contingent of homeless.

Even before Jan. 17, Los Angeles was seriously deficient in affordable housing. A recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington found that more people pay a higher percentage of their income for rent in Los Angeles than in any other city in the nation. And that stark assessment did not fully account for the thousands of “pirate homes” in Los Angeles--garages and shacks and truncated houses and apartments--that are grossly inadequate as housing but very expensive, relative to their tenants’ income.

Surely, we don’t want to add to this problem by razing affordable apartments. There is an economical, efficient alternative: Renovate those buildings that remain structurally sound.

First, we must be certain that the red tag really means that the building is structurally beyond repair. In the time and pressure crunch after the earthquake, too few inspectors were forced to make too many judgments too quickly.

In one week, for example, we went from the virtual certainty that the Los Angeles Coliseum would have to be destroyed to the likelihood that rehabilitation construction efforts will save that venerable landmark. We must be sure that every red-tagged building in the city gets the same respect that the Coliseum received. We must be certain that the only alternative left to landlords is demolition.

Once this assessment is made, it may be that for many of the severely damaged but structurally repairable buildings, renovation is not feasible for the owner. This is where the public sector comes in, alongside the public interest: Make the property available to nonprofit developers. Many of us have an excellent record, despite limited funding and limited government support in the past.

Two dramatic advantages flow from the work of nonprofit developers. We can create financing packages that exchange a commitment to long-term, affordable housing for more attractive terms, so the cost is lower. And we are not seeking quick profits; our longer-term financing compels us to invest in the structural integrity of our properties, so they serve the community long and well.

At a time when we need to move quickly to provide shelter for those who need it, the repairable red-tagged buildings offer the speediest solution. A typical rehab requires less than one year to complete. On the fastest possible track--that is, without a single zoning hearing or planning commission review or neighborhood dispute--new construction projects take at least 1 1/2 to 2 years.

For those of us who will rehabilitate the neighborhoods, government must become our ally and make the process more efficient. Resources from the federal Housing and Urban Development agency must be channeled into a one-stop clearinghouse. Ordinarily, we go through many layers of financing to achieve housing contracts. That won’t do in this emergency.

The Los Angeles Housing Department and the Community Redevelopment Agency also have responsibility to help ease the process. They must join their immense resources to HUD’s.

The private sector can help as well. Financial institutions should participate to the greatest extent possible. It would be ideal if, at last, they create for Los Angeles a true coordinating council for affordable housing, a public/private oversight body that can assess housing need and supply, coordinate finance and development efforts and pressure other financial institutions to pitch in.

All of us must recognize that a citywide effort to preserve the affordable housing stock would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more. The alternative, however, would be far more costly. Tearing down red-tagged apartments does not ensure that they will be rebuilt, and we cannot afford to risk their permanent loss. Displacing the people who called these buildings home will fragment a city that is already despairingly Balkanized and bring us another kind of disaster from which there is no recovery.