Letters to the Editor: The quaint love of single-family homes is a bad excuse to build new suburbs

To the editor: Joel Kotkin’s and Wendell Cox’s argument that California ought to build entirely new cities in the Central Valley rather than increasing density in urban cores hinges on the notion that many homeowners oppose apartments in their neighborhoods because they think they’ll lower property values.

Multiple studies have proven that apartments do not lower the value of surrounding properties. Why should we spend huge amounts of time and resources on building entirely new cities because wealthy homeowners have chosen to believe something that isn’t true?

In many places, majorities opposed integration because they believed things about people of other races that weren’t true. Should we have given up on integration as well?

It’s worth noting that the restrictive zoning laws making it difficult to build in many California cities were passed by segregationists a few generations ago, imposing artificial limits on our housing supply that continue to disproportionately impact people of color.

Here’s an idea: Instead of building brand-new cities in areas where nobody wants to live, let’s overturn laws written by racists so we can build in the places where the jobs and people already are.

Truman Capps, Studio City

..

To the editor: All this whining about a lack of affordable housing in California seems to totally ignore the number of single-family residences that are rentals.

About 40% of homes in California are rented. The percentage is even higher in cities with greater low-income populations.

Renters have zero financial incentive to keep their homes in good condition; that’s the responsibility of the owners. From what I’ve seen, there are plenty of single-family rentals owned by absentee owners, whether it’s private individuals, banks or investment firms.

The high proportion of renters also affects the feeling of community, as tenants are less tethered to their homes and therefore their neighborhoods. They’re here today, but they could be gone in a few months.

What would happen to the housing market if landlords were required to sell these homes after a certain time? It would certainly be disruptive for property owners, banks and investment firms, but it would free up housing that could be sold as owner-occupied properties.

John Powell, Downey