Letters to the Editor: Yes, Los Angeles needs more housing, but SB 79 ‘is not a thoughtful solution’
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
To the editor: While Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) may be a bright fellow with expertise on a lot of other important issues, sensible city planning is seemingly not one of them (“Slow growth is so 1990s. New housing law affirms drive to build,” Sept. 17). Good city planning certainly isn’t about abandoning/overriding all the zoning and historic preservation laws that have evolved over years to develop and preserve the character of our city and what remains of its quality of life, as he proposes.
Yes, we have a shortage of affordable housing. But most of the housing going up is anything but “affordable.” We need more thoughtful solutions to sensitively increase density together with adding the necessary infrastructure to support it — not simply peanut-buttering high-rises virtually throughout the city. Wiener’s promise that people will suddenly take to public transit is naïve and raises the specter of further increasing Los Angeles’ already nightmarish commute times.
SB 79 as written is not a thoughtful solution. It is a foolish and destructive measure that needs to go back to the drawing board.
Roger Leib, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: As the Los Angeles Times reports, the L.A. City Council, Mayor Karen Bass and a broad coalition of community groups oppose SB 79, which would add massive density across the city — far more than needed to meet state mandates. All without requiring any affordable housing.
SB 79 overrides local authority; fails to require upgrades to infrastructure, open space and trees; disregards the development potential of commercial corridors; and promises huge disruption to thriving communities.
Supporters predict that most new buildings will come in well under the new nine-story limit. So, we are asked to believe that developers inclined to maximize market potential will opt for something more modest.
Imagine your freewheeling cousin asks for a $20,000 advance against future income but promises to use just a fraction of the funds. Would you go for it? I don’t think so.
The measure is a bonanza for developers, a civic disaster and an insult to our intelligence.
Shelley Wagers, Los Angeles
