Comments
OPPOSING SB79 - The legislature of the State of California has in the last decade enacted a number of statutes restricting the right of private landowners. One example is SB 79, a policy that allows four to five story apartments to be built within a half mile of public transit stops.
Under SB 79, building will be allowed by right, and no development within a half mile radius can be stopped. We don’t need to ruin the neighborhoods we have to get the affordable housing we need.
A relentless push for more high-density housing in single-family residential neighborhoods has become the mainstream goal of radical populists in City Hall.
We should laud our councilmembers, led by the courageous Traci Park, for voting on a resolution to oppose SB 79.
Bills like SB 79 are a blatant attack on the rights of property owners. One of our most ancient rights in a free society is the privilege of using and disposing of our private property in whatever manner we deem appropriate.
Those who voted against ‘forced housing’, like Councilmember Traci Park, consider the right of decision in private property a liberty essential to the preservation of Los Angeles.
It’s certainly true that we need more affordable housing. But housing equality cannot safely be achieved at the expense of still another basic right.
Indeed, Angelenos are awakening at last to the threat of forced housing laws that shatter the cherished human right of private property ownership, despite the emotional appeals of many well-meaning but unthinking people.
For many Angelenos, owning a home is a way to acquire capital, build generational wealth, and become a stakeholder in a neighborhood’s future.
One of the best means of providing historic neighborhoods protection from adverse influences is through the medium of appropriate and well drawn zoning ordinances. To the contrary, SB 79 eliminates zoning and attacks the housing crisis with a sledgehammer.
We wouldn’t oppose a housing bill tailored to preserve the history of our neighborhoods. If the provisions of an ordinance have been well worded and drawn from a thorough knowledge of existing and probable future conditions in the city, and if the ordinance receives the backing of public approval, then by all means it should become law.
But if an ordinance has been drawn with little or no real understanding of its purpose, or without a desire to promote an orderly city growth, or if it lacks public approval, the chances are that it will destroy the character of our neighborhoods.
We already have a system in place for building housing based around local control. This procedure ensures that all the people of a community will have a voice in a decision which may lead to large expenditures of local governmental funds for increased public services and to lower tax revenues. It gives Los Angeles homeowners a voice in decisions that will affect the future development of their own community.
SB 79 will lead to narrow streets, excessive lot coverage, inadequate light and air, and poor circulation within the neighborhood area, as well as a general absence of architectural attractiveness in dwellings. The bill means that newcomers with no stake in a community’s future will be allowed to live in historic neighborhoods, where they will surely act with disdain for the long-time residents of the community.
If a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties should continue to be occupied by people who value the neighborhood’s history. A change generally contributes to instability and a decline in property values. SB 79 allows greedy developers displace longtime community members and gentrify neighborhoods where families have fought for generations to build equity.
Sacramento politicos should realize that the need for protection is greater in an undeveloped or partially developed area than in any other type of neighborhood. Thus, communities that have retained historic status should be prioritized for protection against SB 79.
Adequate and properly enforced zoning regulations provide the surest protection against undesirable encroachment and inharmonious use of property. Carefully compiled and fully enforced zoning regulations are effective because they not only exercise control over the subject property, but also over the surrounding area.
Therefore, we should reaffirm our commitment to the principal tenets of zoning before bills like SB 79, written by greedy developers in shady Sacramento backrooms, become law. At their core, zoning ordinances exist to uphold the following standards:
- Allocation of definite areas for specific uses such as single or two-family houses, apartments, and business structures
- The placement of buildings so they will have adequate light and air
- Prohibition on the resubdivision of lots
- Prohibition on the erection of more than one dwelling per lot
- Control of the design of all buildings by requiring their approval by a qualified committee, with restrictions such as minimum square foot ground floor areas
In the end, SB 79 isn’t just about housing supply. It’s about who gets to decide the future of Los Angeles neighborhoods. For generations, zoning laws and preservation ordinances have allowed communities to maintain stability, protect property values, and ensure that growth occurs in a thoughtful and orderly way. By stripping away local control, SB 79 threatens to dismantle this balance in favor of one-size-fits-all mandates crafted in Sacramento.
(The author, writing under the pseudonym Seth Carasolias is a Los Angeles real estate professional concerned with preserving neighborhood character and local control.)
