Regulations always amount to a seizure of property to some extend; the degree depends on how much the value of the property is reduced by the regulations. Owner

Regulations always amount to a seizure of property to some extend; the degree depends on how much the value of the property is reduced by the regulations. Ownership of property consists of the right to decide how that property is used. If the city is telling developers how their property is to be used then the city is exercising rights which belong to the property owner—acting as if they were the property owner. Put another way: If the city tells developers that 10% of their land must be reserved for low-income housing, this is functionally equivalent to the city outright claiming 10% of the developers' land, turning it into low-income housing, and "compensating" the developers with the lower revenues from the rents on the low-income housing rather than the much higher rents which they would have received if the land had been developed normally. There is some compensation, yes, but not just compensation based on the value of the land. The difference is externalized onto the developers, and indirectly onto everyone purchasing or renting property, including (especially) those just above the cutoff to qualify for the low-income housing. The regulation thus amounts to a highly regressive property tax. > Who is supposed to do the less desirable jobs in LA if no one doing those jobs can afford to live there? Either these less-desirable jobs start paying more or they don't get done. If they're actually needed then they will pay enough to ensure that those doing them can afford to live nearby, independent of any minimum wage.