Existing Policy Could Solve the Housing Crisis
The term “affordable housing” has become an oxymoron in Los Angeles. Experts and commentators agree that truly affordable housing may not be habitable or near where residents work, and habitable housing near employment is often unaffordable to the average family.
The Los Angeles County market needs 100,000 new units to meet existing demand. Unfortunately, Los Angeles ranks at the bottom of every major city in the country in the number of units permitted last year.
As an experienced developer, I would suggest that this is not a crisis that can be solved only though government subsidies but a planning challenge that could be met if Los Angeles allowed builders to implement existing city policy.
Agreement is near universal on key elements of the issue: First, there is a shortage of affordable housing; second, the city ought to encourage building more affordable housing; third, given the scarcity of vacant land, building any new housing in quantity will require redevelopment of existing underutilized properties.
Infill development is the term for this activity, and it is supported by planners, architects, elected officials, developers and environmentalists. It is preferred city policy and it means that progress occurs when, say, 50 aging units are replaced with 75 modern ones, of which some are reserved as affordable housing, all on the same property. L.A. officials promote the policy and builders accept it so the ingredients are present for a meaningful assault on the problem.
That’s the theory. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always translate into practice. Consider my firm’s experience in trying to develop infill housing in Sherman Oaks.
Our Chase Knolls proposal is a textbook case of good infill design. The plan calls for replacing 260 aging apartments--which don’t meet building and safety standards--with 362 modern, market-rate apartments and 40 one-bedroom low-income units for seniors.
The new complex, which would increase the housing on this property by 56%, would exceed all city design requirements, and current senior tenants would have first choice on the new affordable units.
Existing zoning permits 309 units of market-rate housing without requiring the affordable component to be built. We could just do it, as they say, with no site plan review or additional city approvals. Instead, my firm, Legacy Partners, decided to go the extra mile--to build something more inclusive and, we think, more responsive to the city’s policy goals.
These goals rightly include taking care of existing tenants, especially the elderly and those with children. Indeed, the city requires a relocation payment of $5,000 to qualifying seniors, the handicapped and families with children; Legacy offered $15,000 to seniors and $10,000 to families with children. All other tenants would receive $2,000 for relocation, and everyone would have access to on-site relocation services.
The plan is simply city policy taken a step further--expanded beyond the “letter” and designed to recognize the needs of existing tenants, many of whom welcomed our relocation offer and the opportunity it provides. Yet because a few have objected, the city has quickly distanced itself from its own policy and has begun erecting roadblocks.
Now the city has discovered something of potential historical interest at Chase Knolls. Until those assertions can be fully investigated, the project is on hold, including the enhanced assistance program, on a case-by-case basis for those who have not moved. This review will go forward despite the fact that many tenants are eager to accept our relocation offer, and that our proposal is not only legal but desirable according to the city’s own standards.
*
Although it appears compassionate to support the minority of tenants who refuse to countenance any inconvenience due to redevelopment, it is really an unwillingness to suffer any short-term discomfort for long-term results. The compassionate course is to build more and better housing--the very thing Legacy seeks to do at Chase Knolls. The process unavoidably causes temporary disruption and inconvenience for tenants, but it requires courage to accept this and stand by city policy.
Walking away from the policy to appease a few disgruntled tenants further exacerbates an already difficult housing problem. Worse, it consigns countless others to life amid housing conditions the city’s infill policy was supposed to correct.
This isn’t good policy or good government. It is merely a shifting of the unpleasantness of change out of immediate sight. Ad hoc “compassion” isn’t the answer to affordable housing; building more market-rate, infill housing with affordable components is.
Legacy Partners and many other developers are more than willing to spend their money doing this. The real question is whether the city can muster the courage to let us.
