Information from the League of California Cities (5-8-19):
SB 50 (Wiener D) Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives.
For a Summary of Senate Bill 50, please click HERE.
Excerpt from the Summary:
"Senate Bill 50 would authorize a development proponent of a neighborhood multifamily project located on an eligible parcel to submit an application for a streamlined, ministerial approval process that is not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would define a “neighborhood multifamily project” to mean a project to construct a multifamily structure on vacant land, or to convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019."
The League of California Cities' position letter, dated 5-8-19, opposes SB-50 unless amended. The letter is copied below:
Link to the League's letter:
http://blob.capitoltrack.com/19blobs/7ad95c49-df40-473f-b4b6-132af498c785
May 8, 2019
The Honorable Anthony Portantino
Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations
State Capitol Building, Room 2206 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 50 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning. Housing Development Incentives Oppose Unless Amended (as amended 5/1/19)
Dear Senator Portantino:
The League of California Cities must continue to oppose SB 50 unless the measure is amended to address our key concerns. Unfortunately, the amendments taken in the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance do not address our primary objections with SB 50. In fact, these recent amendments raise additional questions and concerns.
SB 50, as amended, creates a new two-tiered process that exempts cities with a population of less than 50,000 that are in a county with a population of less than 600,000, from the most extreme provisions of the measure. It is unclear why these cities should be treated differently than a similar size city in a county with a population over 600,000. Instead of arbitrarily establishing a population metric, it would be much more appropriate to consider the full range of community characteristics when determining which areas of the state SB 50 should apply.
The League of California Cities objects to allowing developers of certain types of housing projects to override locally developed and adopted height limitations, housing densities, parking requirements, and limit design review standards. Specifically, the League has significant concerns with the following:
• Waste of time and money. SB 50 would greatly undermine locally adopted General Plans, Housing Elements (which are certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)), and Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). By allowing developers to override state approved housing plans, SB 50 seriously calls to question the need for cities to develop these community based plans and the justification for spending millions of state and local funds on the planning process. HCD spends a significant amount of money and staff time to review and certify housing elements for 482 cities. In this year alone, HCD will allocate nearly $130 million to local governments to update their housing plans and approval processes. Governor Newsom has proposed to spend an additional $250 million on local plans. Why would the Legislature pass a bill that encourages developers to defy these plans and essentially waste millions of taxpayer dollars?
• Housing developers and transit agencies would have the power to determine housing densities, heights up to 55 feet, parking requirements, and design review standards for “transit-rich housing projects” within one-half mile of a major transit stop. For those “transit-rich housing projects” within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor, developers would be able to determine housing density, and parking requirements above .5 spots per unit.
• What is the full scope of SB 50? As presently drafted, it is very difficult to determine what constitutes a “jobs-rich area” since the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research are largely tasked with making that determination. It is hard to understand why the Legislature would want the Executive Branch to define essential terms that have broad implications for how SB 50 would be implemented. Additionally, by not defining “jobs-rich area” in statute, there is no way of knowing if SB 50 will actually accomplish its stated goal.
• Greater density but no public transit? SB 50 would require cities to allow greater density in communities that are high opportunity and jobs rich, but may lack access to public transit. This seems at odds with many state policies that encourage and incentivize more dense housing near transit so that individuals may become less dependent on automobiles.
• Community-led planning? SB 50 allows some communities to be exempt if they develop their own plan that is consistent with the objectives of the bill. Why not all communities? Shouldn’t all jurisdictions have the ability to have a community-led planning process that takes into account local needs and input as long as state objectives are still met?
For these reasons, the League of California Cities opposes SB 50 unless it is amended to address the above concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (916) 658-8264.
Sincerely,
Jason Rhine
Assistant Legislative Director
cc. Senator Scott Wiener
Members, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Mark McKenzie, Chief Consultant, Senate Committee on Appropriations Ryan Eisberg, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
SB 50 (Wiener D) Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives.
Would authorize a development proponent of a neighborhood multifamily project located on an eligible parcel to submit an application for a streamlined, ministerial approval process that is not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would define a “neighborhood multifamily project” to mean a project to construct a multifamily structure on vacant land, or to convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019.
League Position: Oppose Unless Amend
Primary Lobbyist: Rhine, Jason
Policy Committee : HCED
League Position Letter(s) & City Sample Letter(s):
SB 50 (Wiener) Oppose unless Amended, Sen. Approps., 5-8-19
SB 50 (Wiener) Oppose Unless Amended Letter 4-17-19
SB 50 (Wiener) Sample Oppose Unless Amended Letter Senate Gov and Finance
SB 50 (Wiener) Oppose Unless Amended Letter 3-27-19
Finally, Happy News from City Hall: Council Motions Oppose Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 50
DICK PLATKIN 14 MARCH 2019
PLATKIN ON PLANNING-In 2018, Los Angeles, like most California cities, formally opposed SB 827, the YIMBY California/Senator Scott Wiener bill to upzone (i.e., unplanned unappealable increases in the height, size, and density of privately-owned parcels). Because their opposition to SB 827 was carefully supported by detailed studies, the bill went down to quick defeat.
As reported previously in CityWatchLA, YIMBY California, again working through Senator Wiener, has resurrected SB 827, but with a new name, SB 50, along with cosmetic changes that camouflage the bill’s even more threatening impacts on California cities.
City Hall’s response is not yet clear, but hat’s off to Councilman Paul Koretz for his Dec. 12, 2018, City Council motion directing the Department of City Planning to determine the impacts of SB 50 on Los Angeles, and his follow-up February 27, 2019, Resolution calling on the City of Los Angles to formally lobby against SB 50 in Sacramento.
So far, there is no evidence that City Planning has yet analyzed the impact of SB 50, although the City’s Legislative Analyst (CLA) submitted a two-page report to the Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUM) on March 7, 2019. This report concluded: “Opposition to SB 50 is consistent with the City’s policy to oppose legislation that constrains its local control.”
What remains, however, is a final action by the City Council on Councilman Koretz original motion and resolution. Furthermore, the December 12 motion identifies five specific research questions that may, or may not, be eventually answered by the Department of City Planning. These questions about SB 50 impacts on Los Angeles include the following:
LA’s land use regulatory process and zoning?
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones?
Affordable housing incentive programs, such as Transit Oriented Communities (TOC)?
Community Plan Updates?
Proposed concepts of major transit stops and job-rich areas?
There is no reason to dawdle in answering these questions, especially because the bill is quickly worming its way through the State Senate, supported by a sophisticated public relations campaign. This is why other cities – unlike Los Angeles -- are moving quickly to analyze and oppose SB 50: in particular San Francisco and Palo Alto.
Real estate scams, large and small: More importantly, the answers to Councilman Koretz’s questions also apply to the local versions of SB 50, in particular the Transit Neighborhood Plans that City Planning is now preparing, with support from Council Offices, including Paul Koretz’s Council District 5. These mini-SB 50s are based on the same free market logic of SB 50. They will, therefore, have similar, unintended impacts on Los Angeles neighborhoods: unplanned, over-height, over-sized “Wienervilles.” Like SB 50, these real estate projects will be disconnected from City Council-adopted planning goals and policies, including their basis in carefully documented demographic trends, large amounts of existing untapped zoning capacity, and nearly tapped out public services and infrastructure.
If the City Council adopts Councilman Koretz’s motion and resolution – which is likely -- it will place itself in the awkward position of simultaneously opposing and supporting legislation that awards the owners of private parcels highly valuable and untaxed up-zones for their commercial lots, without even a head fake to the legally required planning or monitoring process.
The bottom line is that SB 50 and its local counterparts, like Transit Neighborhood Plans, are fancy real estate scams based on the same spurious free market assumptions and the same beneficiaries: commercial property owners and real estate developers. Furthermore, if adopted, both SB 50 and its local counterparts will fuel gentrification, without ever meeting its three politically-concocted goals:
- Increasing transit ridership.
- Increasing affordable housing.
- Reducing Green House Gases.
The likely impacts of SB 50 on Los Angeles: Note: As SB 50 changes and more research becomes available, some of these findings may be updated.
Land use regulatory process and zoning? Since most of Los Angeles qualifies as being transit rich or jobs rich, legally adopted land use regulations -- Plan Designations and Zone -- would become irrelevant under SB 50. Furthermore, Los Angeles General Plan Framework’s Goal 3.3, that changes in zoning must be contingent on a demonstration of adequate public services and infrastructure, would be cast aside. This requirement would be jettisoned, and since SB 50 real estate projects are not discretionary, they also would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). They would, therefore, sail through without public notices, environmental assessments, public hearings, debates and votes by the City Planning Commission and City Council, and appeals from the public.
Likewise, existing neighborhoods that are transit and/or jobs rich would be subject to similar de facto upzoning in which developers could waive existing restrictions on height, mass (FAR), and density. This would allow buildings with a height up to 55 feet, Floor Area Ratios as high as 3.25, with density restrictions (i.e. units per acre), and no or minimal parking requirements.
The current discretionary land use processes to allow carefully-vetted deviations from municipal laws regulating the use of land: zone variances, zone changes, and General Plan amendments, have already been compromised by SB 1818 and TOC Guidelines. In the case of SB 50, this process of land use deregulation will advance to the next step. Local parcels will become exempt from most zoning laws, including overlay ordinances, since developers could avoid land use regulations through an unappealable ministerial (administrative) process imposed on all California cities by the California State legislature through SB 50 and kindred “housing” bills.
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs)? SB 50 contains no protection for existing neighborhoods that have HPOZs, Residential Floor Area Districts (RFAs), or one of LA’s 16 new re:Code LA R1 anti-mansionization zones. Unless homeowners go through the laborious process to add their house to the California Register of Historic Resources, they cannot protect their historic neighborhoods from SB 50.
Affordable housing incentive programs, such as Transit Oriented Communities (TOC)? SB 50 expands LA’s two density bonus programs, TOC Guidelines and SB 1818, by increasing the number of by-right bonuses, areas where these programs could be used, and removing any local right of appeal to communities or individuals who oppose SB 50 zoning waivers. Most importantly, however, SB 50 retains the same critical weakness of the two existing programs. It has no required inspection process to assure that pledged affordable units charge low-income rents and house low-income tenants. It is ripe for abuse, especially because landlords do not have easily accessible databases to determine who is eligible to rent their affordable units, and potential renters have no easily accessible database to determine where the SB 50 affordable units are located. Furthermore, low-income tenants who have obtained a Section 8 voucher cannot use their vouchers for affordable housing created through SB 1818, TOC Guidelines, and SB 50.
Another weakness is that SB 50 has no monitoring program to determine if its upzoning schemes create new housing, if the new housing is affordable or reduces the price of market housing, if the pledged affordable units actually exist, if future SB 50 tenants utilize transit, and if SB 50 apartments reduce Green House Levels beyond existing levels. Nevertheless, SB 50’s long list of incentives to private investors will remain intact, regardless of their actual outcomes, which, as I predict, will be increased gentrification, traffic congestion and air pollution, and economic inequality, supplemented by collapsing public infrastructure and services.
Community Plan Updates. The New Community Plans program has been underway since 2005, and to push back against Measure S the City Council mandated that LA’s 35 Community Plans and two District Plans (Port and Airport) be subsequently updated on a six-year cycle.So far, however, this update process is listing badly for several reasons.
First, Community Plans apply citywide General Plan elements to local neighborhoods, and nearly all of LA’s mandatory and optional citywide elements are out of date. The program to update them has ground to a halt, and there is no evidence on City Planning’s website that the Department is updating these relics from the previous century. For example the mandatory Open Space element was adopted in 1973, and recent efforts to update it so far consist of several 2017 private and public meetings.
Second, since 2005 about six Community Plans have been fully updated and 16 are now going through an accelerated and truncated updating process. The deadline for updating the remaining Community Plan is 2024, but there is no public information on the update schedule and work program, assuming it exists.
Third, updated Community Plans are implemented through public improvements, called the Capital Improvement Program and appended land use ordinances (e.g. zoning). But, no capital improvement program are attached to any Community Plan, old or “new”, and adopted zoning laws are routinely by-passed through many real estate schemes, such as re:code LA, Transit Neighborhood Plans, density bonus ordinances, and SB 50, all independent of any local analysis or adopted Community Plan policies, goals, or land use designations.
The conclusion is unmistakable. If adopted, SB 50 will hammer the final nail into the coffin of LA’s faltering Community Plan update process. At that point, land use, as legally established through (General) plan designations and zones, will be permanently severed from a careful analysis of under-utilized existing zoning, population and transportation trends, infrastructure capacity, and the California Environmental Quality Act. Turbulent market forces will then become the de facto criteria determining the use of land in Los Angeles. Short-term business decisions will undermine zoning laws, and these actions, in turn, will supplant the General Plan elements and processes required by City of Los Angeles Charter Sections 554-558, and the State of California’s planning laws.
While some investors will undoubtedly make out like bandits, the quality of life in Los Angeles will plummet even more.
Proposed concepts of major transit stops and job-rich areas. While we soon expect new maps identifying neighborhoods in Los Angeles that are jobs and transit rich (i.e., within a half mile of light rail, heavy rail, and frequent bus lines) maps prepared for SB 827 indicate that most of Los Angeles would be subject to the provisions of SB 50, including the historic core, East LA, South LA, and most of the Westside. In the case of the San Fernando Valley all major transit corridors would include at least half of its neighborhoods, with more folded once Senator Wiener identifies “jobs rich areas.” When this happens, many other Los Angeles neighborhoods will also pop up on SB 50 impact maps. Few Los Angeles communities will remain intact, only governed by General Plan Elements, Community Plans, and City Council-adopted zoning ordinances.
What comes next?
First, this legislation is rapidly moving through the State Legislature, buoyed by a well funded, carefully crafted lobbying campaign. Angelinos and their City Council do not have the luxury to wait for the Department of City Planning to eventually draft a report on the legislation’s impact. Instead, community groups and Council offices should undertake their own independent reviews, and I offer this column as a starting point. Please extend my analysis and make whatever corrections are warranted. This is the best way to determine what will happen in Los Angeles if the California State Legislature adopts SB 50.
Second, City Hall hypocrisy of opposing SB 50, while supporting its local equivalents, like the Purple Line Transit Neighborhood Plan, needs to go. In case anybody is still not clear on their similarity, let me spell it out. They both contend that existing plans and zones block increased transit ridership and the supply of affordable housing. Their solution is deregulation that circumvents adopted plans and zones with up-zoning schemes that increase the value of underlying properties, resulting in new market apartments whose upscale residents will miraculously ditch their cars and switch to buses and subways for most of their trips. Furthermore, both SB 50 and its local equivalents assume that the price, quality, and accessibility of mass transit is irrelevant, while supporting public services and infrastructure are so elastic that examining and monitoring them is unnecessary.
Third, both programs hide behind the same deception. Incentives to developers will “unleash” private investors, whose pursuit of profits will fix serious problems of low transit ridership and over-priced housing through a transit-adjacent building boom. Since this is self-evident to these density hawks, neither proposal contains any inspection and monitoring requirements. As a result, their up-zones would exist in perpetuity, regardless of their actual, as opposed to imagined, impacts.
(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning controversies for City Watch. Please send any comments or corrections to rhplatkin@gmail.com. Previous articles are available at the City Watch LA archives.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
Los Angeles Leader Koretz Slams SB 50 as Devastating to LA
Tall buildings towering over homes until they are squeezed out!
Slamming Senate Bill 50 by Scott Wiener, which aims to wipe out thousands of single-family neighborhoods and strong rental stock statewide, Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz today urged the L.A. City Council to oppose SB 50.
SB 50 is far, far more devastating to California’s cities and counties than SB 827, Wiener’s highly controversial gentrification law that died in committee in 2018.
The soft-spoken Koretz led Los Angeles in opposing SB 827 in 2018, calling it “Utterly insane, the worst bill I have seen in the history of California.”
Wiener is back with something more horrible. SB 50 aims to stamp out single-family neighborhoods near bus or transit lines, and areas near “good public schools with above-median incomes” to make way for 6-story to 8-story apartments, clearing out stable communities in big cities, distant suburbs and small towns alike.
Perversely, his bill forces low-income communities to adopt his dystopian plan for luxury housing towers by 2025 – or Wiener will dramatically “upzone” their communities for them, destroying their vibrant diverse neighborhoods.
SB 50 will unleash a land-buying craze among luxury housing investors so intense that Wiener has begun claiming his bill protects renters from the profound displacement and homelessness his plan will set off. Under Scott Wiener’s impossible scheme, cities would protect the working-class from luxury housing developers by tracking the current and past addresses of their renter populations — something only a handful of cities are capable of.
We at Coalition to Preserve LA urge the Los Angeles City Council to educate itself now, by reading the analysis link below and reviewing the two-slide PowerPoint linked to here.
Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Planning Department earned a black eye in 2018 when it issued a late, vague analysis of SB 827 that was useless in fighting Wiener. Luckily, analyses of Wiener’s SB 827 were published in a timely manner in early 2018 by civic groups, the City of San Francisco, and others.
SB 50 is a Russian Nesting Egg that the media have not yet unpeeled. We thank the civic groups, attorneys, and city planning commissioners from around California who helped create the two documents we link to in this press release.
Here’s today’s statement against SB 50 by Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz:
COUNCILMEMBER KORETZ FORMALLY OPPOSES SENATE BILL SB 50
February 28, 2019 – Los Angeles, CA – Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz (CD5), introduced a resolution yesterday in formal opposition of California State Senate Bill 50 (Wiener) that ostensibly seeks to require upzoning in cities throughout California to increase affordable housing and density along transit corridors regardless of local jurisdiction’s zoning laws.
The resolution points out that SB 50 would allow construction of higher density multi-family housing developments near major transit stops that are out-of-compliance with local land use regulations and procedures and requests that the City of Los Angeles oppose the bill in its 2019-20 State Legislative Program, unless the bill is amended to exclude the City of Los Angeles from its provisions. Los Angeles already has its own increased density mechanisms that are being tailored to better fit the city’s many unique neighborhoods.
“While we all agree that we need to build more affordable housing, particularly near transit, SB 50 focuses mainly on the creation of market-rate housing and takes away planning oversight from local jurisdictions,” said Councilmember Paul Koretz. “Furthermore, Los Angeles is more progressive than many California cities in that it already incentivizes multifamily development through Measure JJJ and the Transit Oriented Community program – both of which could be set back if SB 50 becomes law. State control of local zoning undermines not only the integrity of cities and counties, but strips residents of their ability to engage in a meaningful planning and community building process.”
SB 50 is a new iteration of Wiener's earlier controversial SB 827 that was killed in its first committee hearing. The earlier bill would have allowed the construction of apartment buildings up to five stories tall near every high-frequency mass transit stop in the state regardless of local residential preservation zoning law. It was opposed by many California cities including Los Angeles.
Councilmember Koretz has been a constant critic of both bills pointing out that “the passage of SB 50 would still threaten single-family neighborhoods in CD5 and elsewhere, where we could look forward to seeing tall narrow 4 to 5 story buildings towering over single-family homes until they are squeezed out and many analysts have interpreted the vague language of the bill to mean that those heights are minimum requirements and that the buildings could end up being built much taller.”
“I applaud Councilmember Koretz for once again leading the City’s opposition against Wiener’s dystopian version of the growth of California’s cities,” said Jill Stewart, Executive Director of the Coalition to Preserve LA. “As was the case with SB 827, Wiener’s newer bill seeks to end the world of yards, single-family homes, tree-lined streets and places for children to thrive. The media does not seem to understand that SB 50 is a Russian Nesting Egg whose undeniable but purposely obscured outcomes are far, far worse than SB 827. SB 50 openly threatens the "sensitive communities" of Los Angeles, requiring them to upzone their own starter-home neighborhoods out of existence by 2025 It's a direct attack on Latino and black home ownership, on families with children, and on our crucial environmental need for trees and places to breathe.”
##
Editor's Note: This is a story from 2018 but it demonstrates the danger of housing laws like SB50. Housing must be approved by law no matter the impacts to the community or capacity of the infrastructure. This is the nightmare scenario that we want to avoid.
Posted: 11:29 PM, Jun 19, 2018
Updated: 11:32 PM, Jun 19, 2018
By: Rachel Bianco
ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) -- Wednesday night, the city council is expected to vote on its proposed high density housing list; roughly 20 parcels of land that the City wants rezoned for higher density.
People living on Lake and Birmingham Drives in Cardiff by the Sea are hoping to keep a vacant lot in their neighborhood off that list.
Allison Wylot lives across the street from the five acre lot.
"This is a very small street, it's a dead end, it's all residential going south, there's no mixed use here, it's just homes, single family homes," said Wylot.
According to Wylot, when Encinitas based Zephyr initially purchased the property, the company had plans to build 4 custom homes. Then, a permit sign went up notifying residents that the plan is to build nine homes. Now, the company wants to be added to the high density housing list. If that happens, the zoning change would allow for the possibility of 30 dwellings per acre - or 150 units.
No one from Zephyr was available after hours on Tuesday night to comment.
"We just don't think this property is suitable for that," said Wylot.
Councilman Tony Kranz said the residents' concerns may be premature.
"I don't know that there is an appetite to add anything to the list," said Councilman Kranz.
The final list of lots would have to be approved by voters in November. A similar housing initiative was rejected in 2016. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Encinitas over its lack of affordable housing. State law requires the city to provide more than a thousand low income units.
"The reality is we're in a housing crisis here in the state, and it's in part because people are not too excited about having the impacts of higher density and more people," said Kranz.
Wylot said she understands the need for more housing, but she thinks it should be built in an area closer the freeway or public transit.
"Everyone is feeding into Santa Fe and Birmingham to get to the freeway. It just can't handle it, it's one way in and one way out," said Wylot.
https://www.10news.com/news/making-it-in-san-diego/making-it-in-san-diego-neighbors-protest-high-density-housing-plan
DICK PLATKIN 13 DECEMBER 2018
PLATKIN ON PLANNING-The old Urban Renewal. Urban renewal was the grand strategy of the Federal Government in the post-WWII war era to reconstruct large sections of American cities through local agencies, such as California’s Community Redevelopment Agencies.
The critical laws adopted by Congress were the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954, the Highway Act of 1956, and the New Communities Act of 1968. Through Federal subsidies, entire neighborhoods were acquired through each city’s power of eminent domain. Then came the evictions of local residents, followed by the bulldozers and wrecking balls.
After the local agencies assembled many small parcels into larger ones, large real estate investors were invited in, again with government subsidies, to rebuild these older neighborhoods for upscale commercial tenants and occasional high-rise apartments with subsidized rents that are now expiring.
In Los Angeles, a famous historic area, Bunker Hill, totally disappeared. Your only recourse to see what once thrived there are film noir movies, such as Cross Cross (1949). The City replaced this neighborhood with the Harbor Freeway and the new financial district, office and bank buildings, and high-end hotels on Figueroa and Flower Street.
Urban renewal’s primary rationale was the elimination of “blighted” neighborhoods, and these programs were successful in leveling these older, poorer neighborhoods, at least in locations where investors could take advantage of their ideal location, such as Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles.
But urban renewal had two critical blind spots. First, by removing the residents from these neighborhoods, it simply pushed low-income people out to other neighborhoods. This is why, especially in cities like New York, writer James Baldwin called urban renewal Negro Removal. By shoving the poor to other neighborhoods, urban renewal did not address the root causes of blight, which was racism and economic inequality. In fact, it led to massive displacement and impoverishment, one of the factors responsible for the frequent ghetto rebellions in the United States between 1964-1969, including Los Angeles in 1965.
The other blind spot was taxation. The redevelopment agencies gobbled up an increasing share of local tax revenues through tax increment financing. The increased value and tax payments for redeveloped neighborhoods went into the coffers of redevelopment agencies, not cities.
For these and other reasons urban renewal was gradually phased out. In California its end finally came in 2011-2012 through the actions of the California State Legislature and Supreme Court.
The new Urban Renewal is targeted upzoning: The official end of urban renewal in California did not, however, end informal and formal support by state and local government aid to investors interested in easy access to desirable locations in older neighborhoods for their grandiose projects. This is where Scott Wiener and his champions, such as YIMBY California, which authored his previous proposal, SB 827, and played a major role in SB 827 2.0, the recently released SB 50.
There are, however, major differences between the old urban renewal and its reincarnation through schemes to up-zone many urban neighborhoods, without any parallel upgrades of supportive municipal services and infrastructure.
The old version depended on legislation from the Federal Government, combined with the power of local government to acquire large blocks of real estate through eminent domain.
The new version also works through government, but only at the state and local level. Instead of creating new agencies employing many architects, designers, civil engineers, and city planners, the new version largely relies on market forces, abetted by the deregulation of zoning and environmental review. It guiding theory is a pipe dream that unregulated market forces can be harnessed to build affordable housing, increase transit ridership, and reduce Green House Gases. If we just let investors maximize their profits through speculation in urban real estate, this rising tide will lift all boats.
While the previous version was based on a grand vision of rebuilding entire neighborhoods, the new version has settled for a chaotic parcel-by-parcel approach.
While the old version also used highways and affordable housing as its pretext for acquiring older parcels and evicting residents, the new version has shifted its rational from highways to mass transit. And, instead of building government operated affordable housing, the new version calls for a small percentage of either mandatory or voluntary affordable housing in expensive market projects -- without any on-site inspections.
The new version also has two other justifications that the older version did not invoke: increasing transit ridership and, therefore, reducing the generation of the Green House Gases responsible for climate change. But, just as the older version used the elimination of blight as a pretext, as it shunted the poor to other neighborhoods, the new version targets neighborhoods that its alleges are not suitable for transit ridership, displacing local residents through evictions instead of eminent domain.
But, like the urban renewal, this is only a cover story for government intervention to speed up the gentrification process. It allows real estate investors to get access to prime locations now occupied by low-income residents. Furthermore, the current rationale is so preposterous that it could never withstand any type of independent assessment to verify its rationales or that it achieves its stated goals.
Whether the new urban renewal proceeds at the local level through real estate scams the like the Purple Line Extension “transit neighborhood plan” or at the state level through Scott Wiener’s SB 827 and his SB 50, there is no evidence that these programs create more than a sliver of short-term affordable housing, or that they reduce the generation of Green House Gases. Any monitoring program would quickly reveal that these are totally bogus claims, which is why the new urban renewal never monitors itself. Once it achieves its real goal, upzoning, the process ends, and these generous gifts to developers are locked into place.
Other deceptions supporting the new urban renewal would also dissolve under scrutiny. It advocates, like its lead torchbearer, Scott Wiener, repeatedly claim that their upzoning schemes will create affordable housing by “supply-and-demand,” conveniently forgetting that this “economic law” only works when investors make high profits. It never works if investors lose their shirts to build and/or rent affordable apartments.
The other unsupported claim by Wiener and his followers is that the expensive housing they lobby hard for will become affordable 25 years from now through filtering. When pressed for examples where this has happened, they can never pin point any locations. For example, they are unable to identify any previously expensive housing that is now affordable in Los Angeles because if does not exist.
As the politicians, the academics, and the media ballyhoo SB 50, each bubble will be easily pierced by a simple request, “Show us the evidence.”
This will lead to the demise of the new urban renewal, so it can join the old renewal on library shelves reserved for failed urban programs.
(Dick Platkin is former Los Angeles city planner, who reports on local planning controversies for CityWatchLA. Please send any comments or correction to rhplatkin@gmail.com.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
