Rent control versus condo conversions
Re “L.A.’s vanishing vacancies,” Current, April 8
As an observer on the sidelines of the rent control and condo conversion debates, I have two questions. First, isn’t the only path to homeownership in Los Angeles for renters the purchase of a condominium because most houses are well beyond their affordability? If so, restricting the number of condominiums ultimately undermines the intent of a responsible leadership to promote homeownership. And second, why must homeowners subsidize an entire class of people through rent control?
It is an aberration when a government shirks its responsibility to its citizens and demands that a segment of its constituency pay the penalty for decades of poor city planning. The only solution is the construction of tens of thousands of units of affordable housing. Until this is achieved, the quick fixes of rent control and conversion restrictions will mean nothing but more ill will and missed opportunities.
STEPHEN WALLIS
Los Angeles
*
As a tenant evicted from a rent-controlled apartment for a condo project, I appreciate Marc B. Haefele’s Op-Ed article. However, I continue to be frustrated by statistics about condo conversions and demolitions for condo construction being blurred under the rubric of “condo conversions.”
Rent-controlled apartments are rarely “converted.” Instead, they are demolished. One reason is rent-controlled apartment buildings do not meet the city’s onerous parking requirements. Another reason is widespread, inappropriate zoning that provides an incentive to build density that is inconsistent with prevailing scale.
JOHN A. MOZZER
Valley Village
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
