Be Solomon-Like in Housing vs. Schools

In its frenetic race to erect 85 new schools, the Los Angeles Unified School District is poised to raze 1,200 low-income apartment units and single-family homes, uprooting families from their communities.

Los Angeles already suffers from a profound housing crisis. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet demand. More than 750,000 Angelenos live in housing that is too expensive, inadequate or overcrowded--or they have no housing at all.

The LAUSD is under the gun to begin its new school projects by June to meet a state funding deadline. Any reconsideration to minimize the effect on housing will jeopardize the construction of desperately needed schools, district officials say. Thus, they must fire up their bulldozers without delay.

Sadly, the district is forcing a choice between educating children and putting roofs over their heads.

To mitigate the fallout from the wrecking ball, LAUSD officials engaged housing advocates and community organizers to assist in relocating displaced families. This outreach effort has resulted in a plan that offers displaced families a choice between subsidized federal Section 8 housing and a lump sum cash benefit of up to $25,000. The plan--some of which is to be voted on today--does not ensure any significant replacement of the critically needed affordable housing units to be demolished by the district.

The no-win choice could have been avoided. Before targeting any housing for demolition, the LAUSD, affected cities and community groups should have developed a comprehensive inventory of vacant lots and buildings, uninhabitable properties, sleazy motels and liquor stores. Developing schools, parks and other community assets on these sites could prevent loss of more housing and stimulate redevelopment in blighted areas.

So what do we do now? The LAUSD should abandon its obsession with building big schools on big lots. As the district should have learned from the Belmont fiasco, large school development projects mean environmental, density and infrastructure conflicts that will slow the development process and increase costs. Moreover, large school projects are more likely to displace housing than are neighborhood-friendly small schools.

While the LAUSD seems not to want to reconsider designated school sites, it should postpone the development of a handful of projects if that will save hundreds of low-income housing units. The district also should empower a task force to give communities the opportunity for input in site selection. And the LAUSD should join other cities and school districts to lobby in Sacramento for new legislation and funding for replacing housing that is sacrificed to school construction. There also should be an effort to loosen the state’s restrictions on putting classrooms and kids in existing buildings. Policymakers need Sto realize that the urban core in Los Angeles is built out and the rules governing school construction must change.