Land Use is Issue #1
By Robyn Ritter Simon
The most pressing topic on the minds of LA residents is the issue of land use. And, you may be surprised to learn what they have to say: the extremes from some homeowner groups suggesting “we should put a moratorium on development indefinitely” to land owners believing “the community is out of touch with the demand for development”.
 Development is a complex issue, there is no doubt! But I believe there
are practical ways to deal with the reality of a growing population and
the demand for infrastructure, and balancing these realities with the
concerns of neighborhoods.
Los Angeles has been growing steadily for tens of decades. At the turn of the century, in 1900, the population of L.A. was estimated at 102,500 according the U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent 2006 population estimate for Los Angeles was 3,849,378. In other words, our city grew by 3.74 million in 100 years. 3.1 million of these residents came into the urbanized areas between 1970 and 1990.
During this period, and not surprisingly, density increased from 5,313 residents per square mile in 1970, to 5,801 per square mile in 1990. In addition to density increases, the sprawl in L.A. redoubled. In a Study of the 100 largest U.S. urbanized areas, Los Angeles ranked 6th at 393.8 square miles of sprawl. Looking at the population increases for the near future, the projections are astounding: six million more people are expected to land in Southern California (many of them settling in L.A.) in the next 20 years alone. It is clear that growth is happening; however, the expected density and sprawl increases are unclear – it will all depend on the City Council’s future planning and development policies. Any future planning must incorporate the desires of the communities that will experience the growth.
A “visioning exercise” was conducted in October 2002, sponsored by USC’s Lusk Center for Real Estate, the Urban Land Institute of Los Angeles, and the Southern California Association of Governments. The organizers called on participants to consider where to locate Southern California’s projected 6 million new residents.
I read through the results of this fascinating study in “Reality Check on Growth: Lessons Learned.” The consensus points of the exercise were very interesting and worth repeating. Here are the highlights (collected from twenty different groups of political, community, and academic leaders): Every group decided that there is no other choice than to use higher housing densities in the face of the growing population.
Nearly every group in the study made a point to stress the necessity of development of new infrastructure, including expanding rapid transit and mass transportation options. A striking consensus point from the exercise: all participants understood that in order to address the reality of growth, listening and working together is a must!
If growth is a necessary reality, then developers will inevitably be building. If developers are building, inevitably community members will be frustrated if they are not part of the process. So how can developers establish healthy relationships with neighborhood groups when the current climate is so hostel?
Some basic ideas: projects proposed for any neighborhood should – obliviously – incorporate the ideals of attractiveness, pedestrian-friendliness, and compactness, with the existing environmental checks, parking accommodation necessities, and traffic mitigation requirements. I would tell developers, in addition, never to propose a project without investing heavily in community outreach (i.e. neighbors who would be effected by any sort of project should not be reading about it in the newspaper first).
Developers must engage the community to ensure successful future growth. Taking meetings with homeowner groups, Neighborhood Council leaders, Business Improvement Districts and Resident Associations is an important component of potential collaboration. Employing creative solutions for empowering community groups in the growth process is mandatory and does not need to be difficult.
Here is an example – stemming from a conversation I had with a committed community leader who is active in Westside homeowners activities – which I think is worth exploring: an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for all new projects in the city and the developing company is obligated to pay for it. The firm producing the report is chosen by the developer, so the perception is that the EIR is somehow not authentic, or produced to be favorable to the project. How about allowing the community members to choose the firm to conduct the EIR? This show of good will would go a long way. The firm would then respond directly to the community group throughout the process, but would still be paid for by the developer. This is just one example, among many, of how to engage the community’s concerns while still planning for responsible growth.
I know it is impossible to please all of the community members all the time when it comes to growth; but we have no alternative but to bring everyone to the table, to listen more carefully, to be pro-active in our approach, and to keep the best interests of all parties in mind when making big development decisions.
(Robyn Ritter Simon is a candidate for the Los Angeles City Council, 5th District. She is a past President of the National Women’s Political Caucus, LA-Westside. Simon began her career as broadcast journalist and political commentator. Robyn can be reached through her website www.RobynRitterSimon.com) ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 68
Pub: August 22, 2008
|
