|
Affordable Housing Deals for Builders have to Stop |
|
|
Affordable Housing LA Can't Afford-Part II
By Ken Marsh (See Part I-Affordable Housing LA Can’t Afford)
Amazingly, twenty-one years passed before the City of Los Angeles finally incorporated the complete Ellis Act tenant and rent control system protections into its laws.
Part of this delay can be attributed to the fact that tenant advocates, themselves, failed to fight for them.
In September '06, the City Council acted on LAMC 151.21 - 151.27. However, the requirement addressed in LAMC 151.28 that a new apartment building arising out of the ashes of an Ellised building be rent controlled, was stalled for eight months in the name of environmental review by Councilman Garcetti, in a move undeniably beneficial to speculators.
Just which potential environmental issue(s) was Garcetti thinking about that could possibly be impacted by rent control vs. market rate?
Ironically, the same concern for environmental review was lacking in February '08, when the Council (with Garcetti in the majority) passed the SB 1818 implementation ordinance. In both cases, the Council was implementing state law for which environmental review is appropriate.
Is the LAMC 151.28 exemption, created by Garcetti and Gruel, with its work-around rent control something speculators had a hand in?
The net result is a license for a speculator to demolish all affordable rent controlled units, rebuild them anew, possibly add some units under SB 1818's density bonus program, replace only 20% of the original number, and be left with 80% of his/her units free of rent control and priced for the open market in perpetuity.
This would not occur if the City Council had the courage and the character to declare as a matter of policy that no discretionary projects are to be approved unless they add to the stock of affordable housing, rather than deplete today's and into the future.
Regarding SB 1818, it rewards developers with increased density and a way around certain restrictions in exchange for a smattering of affordable units in new projects. Combining LAMC 151.28 with SB 1818 is one huge nail driven into the coffin of the city's rent controlled affordable housing and possibly rental housing affordability, in general.
The combining of SB 1818 and LAMC 151.28 undermines both meaningful affordable housing goals and Ellis Act tenant protections. Demolition of rent-controlled apartments is effectively incentivized and speculation in land-use entitlement rights is encouraged.
Further, it potentializes the worst of all possible worlds -- speculator blight -- where there is no development at all and we are left with swaths of fallow properties throughout the city. Lincoln Place in Venice and the numerous failed projects in Councilmember Greuel's Valley district are some of its monuments.
To retain and expand affordable housing, we need to stop speculation from driving up the price of real estate, making affordable projects impossible. The fact is we need more affordable housing than what we started with, but see little effort in City Hall to make that happen.
Withdrawing the exemption in LAMC 151.28 would be a good start in discouraging speculators like Gary Schaffel, who is marketing a 1.43 acre lot in Valley Village that he acquired for $5 million, for $13 million. The property once housed tenants in a rent-controlled garden apartment complex that now stands empty.
Recent reports indicate that the burst housing bubble has proved to be a nest-egg buster for homeowners. For those who believe housing is a basic necessity and not a commodity for free market speculation, the idea of regulating its market with moratoria and vacancy-rate triggers on demolitions is a humane and cost-effective approach to providing for the middle class and low-income renters. It also serves to preserve affordable housing, some of which is historically valuable, as well.
On the positive, pro-active front, Los Angeles needs to preserve its neighborhoods and maintain housing for its diverse population by doing things like TOPA -- Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act -- and to create other policies that encourage preservation of the middle class as owners, as well as renters.
This must also include allowing for rent increases as and when needed for upkeep of existing buildings. This, too, would help discourage the downgrading of properties by speculators who profit off of the backs of the community by treating housing as their cash machine and assuming no responsibility for tenants, neighborhood and city.
What is sorely lacking and criminal, in the face of having the resources of the 90-plus neighborhood councils on the streets of the city, is a citywide discussion on all these issues before they are acted upon. Our leaders have passed-up two opportunities to initiate a citywide effort to formulate a housing policy, once when doing the SB 1818 implementing ordinance and, again, with the Housing Element. Though these things take time, what's the rush?
Is all this unintended consequences of poorly-examined actions by an overworked City Council or are our electeds doing this on purpose?
(Ken Marsh is a long-time community activist and a Mar Vista Community Council stakeholder. March is a CityWatch contributor.) ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 74
Pub: Sept 12, 2008
|
