3 ms·

> If L.A. is worried about housing affordability, the real solution is to build more housing And that's precisely what the city is doing. Housing permits are

by danhak 10y ago

> If L.A. is worried about housing affordability, the real solution is to build more housing And that's precisely what the city is doing. Housing permits are up around 40% YOY, about 70% of which are for multi-family units. But that's not directly related to the purpose of rent control, which is not to keep housing throughout the city affordable, but to keep longtime residents--especially older individuals--from swiftly getting priced out of their particular community. At any rate, I'm not sure how construction of new housing in Los Angeles has been "made illegal" as you suggest.

fuzzywalrus 10y ago
In addition to the comment above, I'd view this as an update to zoning laws and renter's rights. As we become increasingly a nation of renters instead of owners, these sort of issues need to be addressed.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Great point. But not only are we becoming a nation of renters but we have also become a world of urban dwellers. Additionally as wealth becomes more concentrated more residential real estate purchases are not primary residences but income properties and in many cases a means of hiding money. The majority of new construction in many large cities appear to be "Luxury Condos", glass and steel structures designed to attract "hot money" inflows and not targeting the working or middle classes. I encourage you to read the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign-wealth-flows-to-time-warner-condos.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/nyregion/more-apartments-are-empty-yet-rented-or-owned-census-finds.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/nyregion/more-apartments-a... These are in now way restricted to New York either. This is happening in Shanghai, London, San Francisco etc.
mturmon 10y ago
Thank you for making an accurate reply. It is worth noting that the situation in LA is very different than in SF -- people may be using the state of affairs in SF as a comparative, and it's just not the same: there is now and has been much more intensive housing development in LA. Certainly there are many NIMBYs in LA, but the regulations in LA are not tilted as strongly against development as they are in SF. In the past years, there has been a lot of infill development in Hollywood (especially), mid-Wilshire, and around downtown. It has been encouraged by changes in zoning regulations that lift some parking and density rules, especially along transit corridors. These changes have been supported by two mayors now, and by most of the City Council. (One of the sued parties in the OP had units in mid-Wilshire, and another in Hollywood; the other two were in Venice.) Here's a very selective overview of some new Hollywood projects: http://urbanize.la/post/hollywood-construction-binge-revisited http://urbanize.la/post/hollywood-construction-binge-revisit... -- but the story is similar in many other neighborhoods. The resulting density increases have caused considerable gnashing of teeth among older residents, who think of LA as a city of single family residences. There is going to be a proposition on the ballot soon, seeking restrictions on this development, and it's not clear where things will shake out (http://la.curbed.com/2016/1/21/10844688/los-angeles-anti-development-ballot-measure-neighborhood-integrity http://la.curbed.com/2016/1/21/10844688/los-angeles-anti-dev...). I don't see it passing, but it's too early to be sure. It's also worth saying that it's often poor renters who are forced out by these changes -- their little three-story apartment building is torn down and replaced by a 6-story mixed-use building. That's the message the City Attorney is trying to get across to landlords.
- mindslight 10y ago
  > ... who think of LA as a city of single family residences I don't know that the word "think" really applies to such a blatant contradiction.
malandrew 10y ago
"from [ever] getting priced out of their particular community." FTFY. Rent control is a bogus solution. Rents rise when demand exceeds supply. It shouldn't be that hard to get a reasonable realtime measurement of demand and make sure that you're publishing the data showing that change in demand while simultaneously making sure that you're approving new housing projects at an equivalent rate. Doing so would have the same impact of rent control via market dynamics.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- colanderman 10y ago
  You say that like housing is fungible. It is not, neither for low-income residents who have formed a community around a location, nor for wealthy people looking to move into a trending neighborhood.
- mindslight 10y ago
  Rent control has some economic merit - it quickens price feedback to those with the least inertia. Market inefficiency is a thing, and if someone has been in an apartment for a decade it's going to take a much greater increase to make them consider moving compared to simply dissuading someone who is thinking about moving to an area.

by danhak 10y ago

fuzzywalrus 10y ago

In addition to the comment above, I'd view this as an update to zoning laws and renter's rights. As we become increasingly a nation of renters instead of owners, these sort of issues need to be addressed.

bogomipz 10y ago
Great point. But not only are we becoming a nation of renters but we have also become a world of urban dwellers. Additionally as wealth becomes more concentrated more residential real estate purchases are not primary residences but income properties and in many cases a means of hiding money. The majority of new construction in many large cities appear to be "Luxury Condos", glass and steel structures designed to attract "hot money" inflows and not targeting the working or middle classes. I encourage you to read the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign-wealth-flows-to-time-warner-condos.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/nyregion/more-apartments-are-empty-yet-rented-or-owned-census-finds.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/nyregion/more-apartments-a... These are in now way restricted to New York either. This is happening in Shanghai, London, San Francisco etc.

mturmon 10y ago

Thank you for making an accurate reply. It is worth noting that the situation in LA is very different than in SF -- people may be using the state of affairs in SF as a comparative, and it's just not the same: there is now and has been much more intensive housing development in LA. Certainly there are many NIMBYs in LA, but the regulations in LA are not tilted as strongly against development as they are in SF. In the past years, there has been a lot of infill development in Hollywood (especially), mid-Wilshire, and around downtown. It has been encouraged by changes in zoning regulations that lift some parking and density rules, especially along transit corridors. These changes have been supported by two mayors now, and by most of the City Council. (One of the sued parties in the OP had units in mid-Wilshire, and another in Hollywood; the other two were in Venice.) Here's a very selective overview of some new Hollywood projects: http://urbanize.la/post/hollywood-construction-binge-revisited http://urbanize.la/post/hollywood-construction-binge-revisit... -- but the story is similar in many other neighborhoods. The resulting density increases have caused considerable gnashing of teeth among older residents, who think of LA as a city of single family residences. There is going to be a proposition on the ballot soon, seeking restrictions on this development, and it's not clear where things will shake out (http://la.curbed.com/2016/1/21/10844688/los-angeles-anti-development-ballot-measure-neighborhood-integrity http://la.curbed.com/2016/1/21/10844688/los-angeles-anti-dev...). I don't see it passing, but it's too early to be sure. It's also worth saying that it's often poor renters who are forced out by these changes -- their little three-story apartment building is torn down and replaced by a 6-story mixed-use building. That's the message the City Attorney is trying to get across to landlords.

mindslight 10y ago
> ... who think of LA as a city of single family residences I don't know that the word "think" really applies to such a blatant contradiction.

malandrew 10y ago

"from [ever] getting priced out of their particular community." FTFY. Rent control is a bogus solution. Rents rise when demand exceeds supply. It shouldn't be that hard to get a reasonable realtime measurement of demand and make sure that you're publishing the data showing that change in demand while simultaneously making sure that you're approving new housing projects at an equivalent rate. Doing so would have the same impact of rent control via market dynamics.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
colanderman 10y ago
You say that like housing is fungible. It is not, neither for low-income residents who have formed a community around a location, nor for wealthy people looking to move into a trending neighborhood.
mindslight 10y ago
Rent control has some economic merit - it quickens price feedback to those with the least inertia. Market inefficiency is a thing, and if someone has been in an apartment for a decade it's going to take a much greater increase to make them consider moving compared to simply dissuading someone who is thinking about moving to an area.