Fantasy and Reality

Posted on December 21, 2016 by cmaddren

Last week a friend of mine called to tell me he’d just seen La La Land. The movie knocked him out, and he urged me to see it. I didn’t need too much urging, since I’d already heard good stuff about it. So last night I went down to the Arclight to see what all the fuss was about.

I loved the movie. I was hooked from the opening sequence, a massive dance number in the middle of a freeway traffic jam. In fact, it started off so well I was afraid the makers wouldn’t be able to sustain that level of energy and creativity throughout. But I didn’t need to worry. Writer/director Damien Chazelle shows amazing skill and style. I was completely swept up in this archetypal Hollywood romance, and pulled into the lives of the struggling actress and the stubborn musician.

I was so completely involved that I was totally bummed when the film stopped abruptly and the theatre’s fire alarm started sounding. But we all got up and went outside. The courtyard was packed and it was freezing cold while we waited to see what would happen. Fortunately, the fire department showed up right away and resolved the problem quickly. (I never found out what triggered the alarm.) We were back inside within twenty minutes.

La La Land is a lovely fantasy about Los Angeles. While no one would mistake it for a realistic picture of this crazy town, it was good to see a movie that focussed on the positive rather than the negative. There’s plenty to hate in LA, but also plenty to love. Chazelle celebrates the city’s beauty and history without sliding into maudlin sentimentality. And while La La Land certainly doesn’t show the ugliest or scariest aspects of life in LA, it spends a fair amount of time delving into the downside. The two main characters are both struggling to get a break, and the film doesn’t shy away from their disappointment, frustration and bitterness. And while the movie features plenty of the shallow, superficial types that are often associated with LA, I liked the fact that it focussed on two people who are passionate about their art. Those people live here, too, even though we don’t see them on the screen too often.

I felt elated when I walked out of the theatre. The reality we’re living these days is so damn scary, it was good to see a movie that showed how joyous life can be. But going back home I passed through the real Hollywood. Walking down those streets on a cold December night it was clear that the divide between success and failure, wealth and poverty, is much wider, much more stark, than anything we see on the big screen. It’s great when you can settle down in a dark theatre and escape into a movie. But when the movie’s over, the world is still waiting for you outside.

Waiting for Help, While Demolition Draws Nearer

Posted on December 5, 2016 by cmaddren

Squatters have taken over a house in Valley Village.

Six months ago I’d never heard of The Hermitage. Because I follow development issues, I’d been copied on a few e-mails that described an urban farm in Valley Village that was threatened by a proposed residential project. But there are so many communities getting hammered by reckless development, I didn’t pay much attention. Until November, when I finally decided to check it out.

First, let me show you a few photos of what The Hermitage used to look like.

A garden in front of The Hermitage.

Chickens roaming freely.

Open space inside The Hermitage.

A cat checking out the garden.

Ducks by the pool.

Another one of the residents of The Hermitage.

As you can see, it used to be a lovely place, a small collection of rustic buildings that served as a home to chickens, ducks, dogs, cats and bees. A unique urban farm in the middle of the San Fernando Valley. Now let me show you what it looked like when I visited.

This is what the garden out front looks like now.

A car left sitting on the property by squatters.

A view of the open space within The Hermitage.

Quite a change. You’re probably asking, “What happened?” Well, a lot of things. The story is so complicated, so twisted, and so disturbing on so many levels, I’m not sure if I can tell it properly. But this story needs to be told, so I’ll do my best.

Let’s start with the former manager, who still resides on the property, though she’s facing eviction. Because of her current situation (which will become clear as you read on), she was nervous about having her name appear in print, so I’ll call her the caretaker. The caretaker has been living at The Hermitage for over 20 years, and has truly taken care of the place. In addition to renting and maintaining the units, she also planted gardens, cared for the animals, and invited groups from the surrounding community to come and learn about nature.

But last year the caretaker’s lawyer informed her that developer Urban Blox was planning to buy the property. She was surprised, since she had an agreement with the owners that gave her the option to purchase The Hermitage if they ever decided to sell.

And this is where it starts getting complicated. Urban Blox did sign an agreement to purchase the property, but it’s not clear whether the owners, two elderly women, signed or not. While their signatures appear to be on a contract for the sale of the property, both women stated in subsequent depositions that they had no recollection of signing the agreement. It may be that a relative arranged the deal without their permission. In October 2014, the grandson of one of the owner’s showed up at the caretaker’s door to deliver a letter stating that she was no longer the manager. But in spite of his claim to be acting on the owners’ authority, their signatures were nowhere to be found on the letter. And in the same depositions referenced above, the owners say they never retained the grandson to represent them.

The caretaker made numerous attempts to contact the owners, without success. After months of uncertainty, having heard nothing from the owners and fearing that they were ready to sell to Urban Blox, the caretaker sued them to enforce her right to buy The Hermitage. In fall of this year, the LLC set up by Urban Blox to develop the property filed a suit against the owners, then amended the complaint to include the caretaker, then dropped the owners from the suit. Both cases are still pending

But that’s just one part of the story. By summer of this year, all the former residents of The Hermitage were gone. And while the legal power plays were unfolding, squatters began moving in to one of the vacant buildings on the property. The first one arrived in early summer, and by September a number of others had moved in. Since the squatters’ arrival, the caretaker reports numerous acts of theft and vandalism. Tools have been stolen from her workshop. Trees have been cut down and plants have been ripped out of the ground. She doesn’t feel safe when she’s at home, but she’s also afraid to leave, for fear of what might happen when she’s gone. And she’s kept a detailed log recounting numerous incidents.

But it’s not just the caretaker who’s been affected. Neighbors started getting nervous when they noticed strange chemical smells emanating from the house occupied by the squatters, and they were more than nervous when they saw visitors coming and going at all hours of the night. And there’s more. One of the squatters has been seen by neighbors walking down the sidewalk with a rifle in hand. This has also been documented in photographs. Since the squatters showed up the neighborhood has seen a rise in burglaries and car break-ins.

I talked to a couple of people who live in the community. The first woman I asked about the squatters told me she was frightened for the caretaker and frightened for the neighborhood. She also asked me to withhold her name for fear of reprisals. She did share her suspicions about the squatters running a drug lab, and told me that one of them had been shot recently. She didn’t feel safe, and wondered why the police weren’t doing more to protect residents. The second woman I spoke to was more angry than frightened, and she didn’t mind giving her name. Fiona Manning confirmed what the first neighbor had reported, and added a few more details. She has seen the squatters sitting out in the open drinking and smoking dope. She’s heard gunshots at night. She recounted an incident where a neighbor asked the squatters to turn down their music, and they responded with threats. Fiona also described an encounter she had with one of the squatters. As she was walking down the street, a young man reeking of pot started following her, and calling out, “I know you, I know you. Are you a friend of my grandmother’s?”

I had a brief exchange with one of the squatters on my first visit to The Hermitage. I don’t claim to be a substance abuse expert, but having lived in Hollywood for 20 years, I’ve gotten pretty good at recognizing meth addicts. This glassy-eyed, jacked-up, paranoid kid seemed to show all the signs.

What makes this even weirder is that the caretaker and her neighbors have called the North Hollywood Division of the LAPD on numerous occasions, and while the police have come by about a dozen times, they’ve taken no action to rein in the squatters. The caretaker and Fiona both report that they’ve been told by officers not to call any more. Apparently the North Hollywood Division has decided the problems have arisen from a landlord/tenant dispute, but that doesn’t begin to explain the numerous issues involved. Whatever’s happening with the property itself, the fact that the neighbors have seen one of the squatters carrying a gun, have heard gunshots, and reported burglaries and car break-ins seems to indicate there’s a little more going on than a tiff between a landlord and a tenant. I was surprised to hear about the North Hollywood Division’s apparent reluctance to take action. The few times I’ve called the LAPD they’ve usually been quick to respond and ready to help. I can’t understand why they haven’t tried harder to address this situation, especially since it seems that some of the squatters are on probation.

Once it became clear that the police weren’t going to take action, Fiona and others tried calling Councilmember Paul Krekorian’s office. Though there were numerous conversations with one of his staffers, and promises of help, nothing ever materialized. Actually, this doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve been in touch with a number of people who live in Krekorian’s district who’ve reported the same thing. His staffers are friendly, they’re always willing to listen, but the conversations never produce any results. A number of Krekorian’s constituents seem to feel that time spent talking to his staff is time wasted. You’d think that a councilmember might be moved to take action if constituents complained they were living in fear because of a group of squatters. Apparently Krekorian doesn’t think it’s a problem.

After receiving no help from Krekorian, the caretaker tried getting in touch with State Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian, but nothing came of that. In desperation, she tried contacting every member of the State Assembly. Only Patty López’ office responded. Fiona says, “She was a godsend.” While the neighborhood’s own elected representatives apparently didn’t feel the situation warranted taking action, Patty López organized a meeting with members of the community. About 15 people showed up, and they had plenty to say. While López declined to get involved in problems related to the squatters, she was concerned enough about the project proposed by Urban Blox that she wrote a letter to Nazarian’s office. In it, she lists a number issues raised by the community, including vacating a public street for the developer’s benefit, the loss of green space, the loss of parking and impacts to wildlife.

The City Council's PLUM Committee has approved turning over the west end of Weddington to the developer.

The City Council has approved turning over the west end of Weddington to the developer.

In fact, throughout the approval process people have expressed serious doubts about the project. When it came before the Area Planning Commission, Vice-President Lydia Drew Mather said she wished the Council Office and the Developer had worked more with the community to address potential problems, and added that she felt the project was moving forward too fast. Commissioner Rebecca Beatty voiced concern about the fact that the project would get rid of rent-controlled units. Even City Councilmember José Huizar, Chair of the Planning & Land Use Management Committee, questioned the wisdom of greenlighting a project when the developer’s right to the property was being debated in court.

A rendering of the bland, generic units that Urban Blox wants to build.

But did that stop the City Council from approving Urban Blox’ plan? Of course not. The Council gave it a thumbs up. They’re apparently okay with bulldozing rent-controlled units, vacating a public street, cutting down trees and displacing wildlife. This is what City Hall does. Our elected officials are happy to hand the developers an entitlement worth millions of dollars so they can get rid of a unique community resource and replace it with high-priced housing.

There’s one more detail I want to add just to throw a little more light on how projects get approved in LA. When a developer comes to the City with a proposed project, California law requires the Department of City Planning to prepare an Initial Study to assess what impacts the project might have. The Initial Study is used to determine what level of environmental review is required. In this case the Initial Study was signed by Planning Assistant Courtney Shum. Does it surprise you to learn that before taking the position at City Planning, Ms. Shum worked as a registered lobbyist for Max Development, LLC (DBA three6ixty), a firm that has received tens of thousands of dollars from its client Urban Blox?

If it was just a matter of the caretaker finding a new place, maybe she could walk away from this mess. But The Hermitage is also home to chickens, ducks, dogs, cats and bees. She is responsible for all of them. So she stays close to her small house and cares for the animals, reluctant to leave for fear of what might happen while she’s gone. And she still hopes that somehow she can hang on to her home.

———-

If you see a problem with a City Planning Assistant being involved with a project that benefits a client of her former employer’s, you might want to drop a line to Planning Director Vince Bertoni. Here’s his e-mail address.

vince.bertoni@lacity.org

Don’t forget to include the case number in the subject line.

ENV-2015-2618-MND

And you could also copy your own Councilmember on the e-mail, just to let them know you’re fed up with the way City Hall does business.

A view of Weddington from The Hermitage before the trouble started.

Traffic-Oriented Development

Posted on November 16, 2016 by cmaddren

For over a decade people at City Hall have been talking about transit-oriented development (TOD). In theory, if we create high-density residential and commercial developments near transit centers, people will be encouraged to take busses and trains instead of driving their cars. Makes sense, right? So for years the City has been telling us we have to build up instead of out, that we need to go vertical instead of horizontal. And they’ve approved a slew of high-rises, all the while insisting that this will get people out of cars and onto transit.

Before I go any further, I’d like you to watch a video. It lasts about twelve minutes, and it was shot during rush hour not too far from Hollywood and Vine.

I hope the video makes my point clear.* The City keeps approving high-rises, and when communities complain that congestion will get worse, planners and politicians invariably say that the people who live and/or work in these buildings will surely take transit. But they’ve been saying that for over a decade now, and it ain’t working. The MTA station at Hollywood and Vine is a hub for a number of bus lines, as well as the subway. But these people are all driving right past it.

I’m not against TOD, but to make it work, you’ve got to do some planning. Instead of creating a well thought out framework for all this development, the City keeps dumping project after project in the Hollywood area. Mayor Garcetti will tell you that the City did produce the Hollywood Community Plan Update (HCPU), and residents sued to overturn it. That’s true. Among the HCPU’s many shortcomings, the population figure it was based on was inflated by about 10%, in spite of the fact that US Census numbers were readily available. The judge who threw the plan out called it “fatally flawed”.

To give you an idea of how little City Hall cares about planning, let’s go back to those two buildings in the video. The residential high-rise on the southwest corner is just getting started, and the hotel on the northeast corner isn’t quite finished. But look at how bad traffic is already, long before these projects are completed. Unbelievably, the City is considering approval of a third high-rise at the very same intersection. How clueless can you get?!

As I said in the video, I don’t own a car and depend on transit to get around. I support planning to encourage transit use. But TOD isn’t working in LA. Why? I think primarily it’s because that’s not really what the City is building. If our elected officials were really interested in building TOD, they’d be pushing high-density housing made up mostly of affordable units. But instead, the City has been encouraging developers to build high-priced housing by offering them generous entitlements.

I got on the Department of City Planning web site and took a look at multi-family projects in Hollywood and North Hollywood that have been built near Red Line stations since the subway was completed. The Lofts and The Gallery at Noho Commons combined contain 724 units. Eastown, when the second phase is completed, will have over 1,000. The Jefferson has 270, and is the only one that offers any affordable housing, 27 units. So out of about 2,000 apartments, only 27 are accessible to people in lower income brackets. And if you’re not one of the lucky few to snag one of low cost units, you can expect to spend at least $2,000 a month for a one bedroom. Let’s not even talk about what it might cost to live at The Vermont, which sits just across from the Vermont/Wilshire station. And call it a hunch, but I don’t think the massive Wilshire Grand Tower, which is rising up next to the 7th/Figueroa station, will be offering any affordable units at all.

According to a story published by the LA Times earlier this year (Measuring Income along LA’s Metro Stations, March 4, 2016), the median income in almost all communities served by the Red Line is well below the County median of $55,870, ranging roughly from $22,000 to $46,000 a year. (Universal City is the lone exception, with residents there making well above the County median.) For the people in the lowest income bracket, renting an apartment at the newer “TOD” buildings would consume pretty much all their earnings, and even at the higher end of the scale it would mean spending over half what they make in a year. The City says these high-density projects encourage transit use, but most transit riders couldn’t afford to live in them.

Could this be one of the reasons that transit ridership is lower now than it was back in 1985? There may be many reasons for the decline, but you’ve got to wonder why the MTA is serving fewer people than it did three decades ago. The drop in ridership is even more disturbing when you realize that the population of LA County (the area served by the MTA) has grown by over a million since 1985. Does anyone see a problem here? City Hall has been telling us for years that their policies will get people off the road and onto transit. Instead, we’ve seen a net loss in transit ridership since the eighties, in spite of the fact that the population has continued to climb. And the traffic that used to just clog the main thoroughfares is now spilling over onto side streets.

The City’s claim that they’re promoting transit-oriented density is bogus. What they’re really doing is allowing developers who spend a fortune lobbying City Hall to cash in on projects that don’t serve the majority of Angelenos. They’re backing projects geared towards the affluent, which is what developers want because that’s where the highest profits are. Meanwhile lines of cars sit on our streets and freeways at rush hour, burning fossil fuels and spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

You call this transit-oriented development? I call it a disgusting sham.

————————————————–

*
Just in case you’re thinking traffic is bad because it’s a Hollywood Bowl night, it’s not. The video was shot on Tuesday, October 25. Nothing was on the schedule that evening. But I can tell you the back-up on these streets can get way worse when something is happening at the Bowl.

I Can’t Vote for Measure M

Posted on November 7, 2016 by cmaddren

Construction moves forward on MTA’s Regional Connector in Little Tokyo.

I ride public transit almost every day. I really believe we need to invest in building a better transit system. And I used to think we were doing that, but not any more.

Measure M, the LA County Traffic Improvement Plan, is an ambitious attempt to do a lot of things. By adding another half cent to our sales tax, the County hopes to fund a variety of projects, with a good part of the money going toward enlarging the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s rail system. The MTA has already embarked on an ambitious program of building new rail lines and expanding others. You’d think that would be a good thing, but looking at the facts, I’m really not so sure.

For years now the MTA has been building rail all over LA County. First we got the Red Line and the Purple Line, then the Green, Blue and Gold Lines. The Expo Line was recently extended west, and the Crenshaw/LAX Line is currently under construction. You’d think that with this massive investment in rail, taking public transit would be so easy and fast that everyone would be jumping on board.

But that’s not what’s happening. In fact, transit ridership in LA County is lower than it was 30 years ago. When the LA Times reported this disturbing fact at the beginning of the year, the article sparked a lot of heated discussion. Some claimed that the Times was giving a distorted view. Others looked to the future, saying that stats would get better with time. But in the reading I did, there was one crucial fact that no one commented on. The County’s population has grown by over a million since 1990. To my mind, when you take that into account, there’s only one conclusion you can reach. Our current approach has been a disaster. If the population has grown by more than 10% over the past 30 years, how can we say that a decline in ridership during the same period represents anything but failure.

Another shot of construction on the Regional Connector.

There are a lot of different theories floating around as to why ridership hasn’t grown along with the system, and I’m sure there are a number of factors in play. But I think one of the most important factors is the City of LA’s insane approach to planning. I read a lot of the stuff that comes out of City Hall, and over and over I hear the refrain that transit and land use must be considered together. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? It would make sense to think about where you’re putting housing at the same time as you think about where the next rail line goes. In theory, people could just step out of their apartment, walk down to the platform and catch a train wherever they’re going. Who needs a car?

The problem is, when the housing starts at $2,000 a month, and often goes much higher, you’re really not building housing for the people who use public transit. For the most part the people who depend on the MTA can’t afford that kind of rent. And the people who can pay that much are more likely to own cars. What’s even worse, as the rail network has expanded, City Hall’s policies have actively encouraged gentrification around new rail stops. It used to be pretty much anybody could afford to live in Hollywood. Not any more. As the Department of City Planning approves an endless parade of high-end housing projects and chic hotels, as they continue to hand out liquor permits to trendy restaurants and clubs, rents keep spiralling higher and the demographic most likely to use transit is being squeezed out. A similar scenario has already played out in North Hollywood, Downtown, and Highland Park, and you can look for more of the same in Leimert Park and Boyle Heights in a few years. So while City Hall claims to be thinking about transportation and land use together, in reality their policies are driving transit riders farther away from transit hubs.

Construction site for Purple Line extension at Wilshire and La Brea.

Another problem I have with Measure M is the fact a large portion of the funding goes toward road and freeway improvements, and this is something many people have commented on. There are those transit critics who complain that the MTA is heavily subsidized by our tax dollars, but they never seem to mention that a huge share of our tax dollars also goes to subsidizing travel by car. If we’re trying to reduce our use of fossil fuels and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, then our focus should be on investing in public transit. But Measure M continues our current policy of investing in both at the same time. How’s this working? Well, our recent experience with widening the San Diego Freeway tells the story. After years of work and millions of dollars, traffic is still awful. We do need to maintain roads and freeways, since busses travel on both, but massive investment in “upgrades” is just encouraging people to keep driving their cars.

I’d love to see us build a transit system that made travelling by rail and bus attractive to a majority of Angelenos. But that isn’t what’s been happenning. Instead, a bizarre tangle of policies has led to a decline in transit use even as the County has continued to grow. The City of LA seems dead set on continuing its drive to build upscale urban enclaves, forcing low-income Angelenos away from transit hubs. And for all the money Measure M would put into transit, it would also spend a lot of money on keeping people in their cars.

Sorry. I can’t vote for Measure M.

Another shot of construction at Wilshire and La Brea.

Oil and Water Don’t Mix

Posted on October 31, 2016 by cmaddren

Protesters in front of CNN building on Sunset.

If you haven’t heard about the protests by Native Americans against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), don’t feel bad. A lot of people haven’t gotten the news because the mainstream media was slow to report the story, and still isn’t giving it the attention it deserves. That’s why a group of Indian activists showed up in front of CNN’s offices on Sunset Blvd. on Saturday to make their voices heard.

To give you a quick update, Energy Access Partners (EAP) is pushing for the construction of a pipeline which would carry crude oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota and Montana down to South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Indian tribes are fighting the project, citing damage to sacred grounds and the potential for contamination of the Missouri River if the pipeline should rupture.

Protesters claim the mainstream media has failed to highlight the risks posed by the DAPL.

I don’t know the area and my knowledge of Native American religion is almost non-existent, so I won’t comment on the first claim. But it doesn’t take much more than common sense to realize that concerns about a possible rupture and massive environmental damage are absolutely valid. EAP claims that the pipeline would be safe, but just last month there was a spill in Alabama which saw the release of over 300,000 gallons of fuel. A link to the story in The Guardian is below. Funny how the incident didn’t get much attention in the US.

Pipeline Rupture in Alabama from The Guardian

And Californians will remember the pipeline leak earlier this summer which spilled 30,000 gallons of crude.

Oil Spill in California from Alternet

But let’s cut to the chase. Pipeline accidents happen all the time. Here’s a list from Wikipedia documenting hundreds that have happened just in the US since 2000. Many of them are small, with no significant damage to life or property, but the list contains a number of major incidents.

List of US Pipeline Accidents Since 2000 from Wikipedia

The petroleum industry keeps saying these accidents won’t happen, yet somehow they keep happening, and sometimes the damage to the environment is severe. What’s worse, when there is a disaster, the oil companies do everything they can to deny responsibility, and spend years in court fighting to reduce their liability.

EAP claims that the pipeline will promote energy independence for the US, but really they’re just feeding the country’s addiction to oil. The best way to foster energy independence is to reduce our use of fossil fuels. A huge body of evidence points to the conclusion that our reliance on fossil fuels is causing the climate to change. Glaciers are disappearing, the snowpacks are receding, and the polar caps are melting. And EAP wants to build another pipeline to boost our domestic oil supply? It’s obvious they just don’t give a damn.

Lydia Ponce, of AIM SoCal, (right) posing with her sister.

I spoke to Lydia Ponce of the American Indian Movement (AIM), Southern California. She talked about the multiple incidents where police have used force against the protesters at Standing Rock. She also pointed out that the DAPL is just the latest episode in this country’s long history of allowing big business to exploit land and resources at the expense of native people. It’s actually been going on since the US was founded. Is it ever going to stop?

If you want to support the Indian communities that are fighting the DAPL, contact your elected officials now. Let Congress and the President know that we can’t afford the risks this pipeline poses, and we can’t afford to let oil companies continue to poison our water and our skies.

Click the link below to find out how to contact your elected officials.

Find Your Elected Officials

Following Through on Earthquake Safety

Posted on October 27, 2016 by cmaddren

Photo of building damaged in earthquake from LADBS web site.

For a while now I’ve been meaning to follow up on a post I did in 2014 about seismic retrofitting. Back then Mayor Garcetti proposed evaluating buildings based on how they’d weather an earthquake, and to make the information available to the public. This was to be the first step in creating a program to reinforce thousands of soft-story apartment buildings, i.e., older wood-frame structures with parking tucked under the units.

It was a great idea, but I have to admit I was skeptical about the Mayor pulling it off. Everybody agreed that it was important to upgrade these older buildings, but implementing such a program meant that landlords and tenants would have to shell out a lot of money to make it happen. I was afraid that after the initial hype faded away, the initiative would die a quiet death at the hands of some committee at City Hall.

I was wrong. Garcetti brought Lucy Jones on board, and she successfully spearheaded the effort to make this happen. The City Council adopted the ordinance in 2015. Earlier this year the Department of Building and Safety started sending letters to property owners letting them know what they have to do to comply. The program will be rolled out in phases, tackling the most risky buildings first. Landlords will be allowed to pass a portion of the cost along to tenants.

The Mayor deserves credit for making this happen, as does Lucy Jones. It wasn’t easy selling it to anxious landlords and tenants. It’ll take years for the process to be completed, but this ordinance will save lives when the next earthquake hits.

If you’d like more information, follow this link to the page at the Department of Building and Safety.

Soft-Story Retrofit Program at LADBS

The Bridge and the River

Posted on October 24, 2016 by cmaddren

A view of the Hyperion Bridge.

Sunday afternoon I took a walk across the Hyperion Bridge. I shot this short video on the way up.

I also spent some time at Red Car River Park, just next to the bridge. Here’s another short video shot from the park.

How Bad Is Rent Control?

Posted on September 28, 2016 by cmaddren

A while ago I was at a neighborhood council meeting in Hollywood, and things were getting pretty heated. The topic was the conversion of a rent-controlled apartment building into a boutique hotel, and the people who spoke weren’t shy about saying which side they were on. It was the tenants versus the property owners, and there was no middle ground. Each side was convinced they were absolutely in the right.

The tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife. And it only jacked things up higher when one of the pro-business attendees jumped into the debate. I can’t remember her exact words, but she said something like, “Let’s face it. The vast majority of economists are against rent control.”

I didn’t believe it. I thought she was just trying to bolster her own position. But I didn’t get a chance to call her on it, because the meeting was running late, and ended up lurching to an abrupt halt. The crowd wandered slowly out of the room, with little groups banding together to keep the debate going, while the security guard kept trying to herd us all toward the exit.

Later on, I got on the net to find out what economists really had to say about rent control. And I found out she was right. The vast majority of economists are totally against it. It really floored me when I found a piece Paul Krugman wrote back in 2000 where he argues forcefully that rent control discourages new construction, thereby limiting supply, and inevitably driving rents up. I have a lot of respect for Krugman. I figured if he said it was bad, then it had to be bad.

But the more I thought about it, the more I began to question whether the economists really knew what they were talking about. They’re making the standard argument, that prices rise when supply is short and demand is high, and that prices fall when supply starts to outstrip demand. It’s one of the basics of economic theory, and you can find thousands of examples where the market works exactly that way.

So who am I to tell Paul Krugman he’s wrong? He’s got a Nobel Prize. I don’t even have a college degree. But actually, I don’t think his view lines up with the facts. And here’s why….

In surfing the net, I learned that there are two schools of thought on rent control. The economists who argue that it’s inevitably bad point can point to a mountain of evidence in their favor. But the evidence they’re basing their conclusions on is mostly decades old. In the early- to mid-twentieth century, you had “hard” rent control, which meant setting absolute limits to what landlords could charge for a unit. Once the price was fixed, there was no changing it. The result was poor maintenance, black markets, and little or no construction of new units. But this kind of rent control largely vanished after WWII. And yes, the reason it disappeared in the US was because of a building boom that created huge numbers of houses and apartments, aided by federal policies that made it possible for the average person to get a home loan. Supply-siders please take note. The federal government actively supported middle-income families who wanted to buy a home, spurring the creation of housing developments nationwide.

The second generation of rent control came in the 70s, when rental prices started climbing rapidly. Numerous US cities passed some kind of ordinance to keep a lid on rising rents. And right there the supply siders should see a problem with their argument. If the absence of rent control led to plentiful supply and cheap housing, then nobody would have felt the need to impose regulation. The fact that municipalities all over the US felt pressure from renters to take action indicates that the free market wasn’t working the way it was supposed to.

But the ordinances passed in the 70s were different from “hard” rent control. These measures mostly took a “soft” approach, meaning they didn’t set absolute limits. The Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) passed in LA allowed gradual yearly increases. Also, it only applied to units constructed before 1978. There are economists who are argue that even measures like this still suppress construction, but that didn’t happen in LA. In fact, in the mid-80s the city saw a building boom that created around 100,000 units in the space of a few years. Another feature of “soft” rent control was vacancy decontrol, meaning that when a tenant moved out the landlord could raise the rent as high as they wanted.

But according to the supply siders, it doesn’t matter how you structure it, rent control is bad. And many of them cite LA as a classic example of why it doesn’t work. “Of course tenants are paying outrageous prices there,” they say. “It’s because they’ve got rent control. It drives prices up.” The problem with this argument is that most of the people making it don’t even know which LA they’re talking about. Generally they’re thinking of the County of Los Angeles, not the City of Los Angeles, and there’s a big difference. The County is made up of 88 different cities, and only a few of them have rent control. If the argument put forward by the supply-siders was true, then rents within the City of LA would be higher than rents in surrounding cities that don’t have rent control. But that’s not necessarily the case.

Before I go any further, let me say that finding useful data to make any judgments at all about rent-control isn’t easy. I looked at a number of sources before writing this post, and gradually realized that it’s hard to find reliable, objective info about prices for apartments that are currently on the market. My first move was to look at US Census data, and I quickly ruled it out because it records what tenants are paying instead of prices for units that are currently being offered. That would definitely drive the numbers down in rent-controlled cities, so I had to look elsewhere. I checked out a number of sites that list current rentals, and I was astounded by how high the prices were on some of them. But this is because these sites are mostly geared towards newer apartments, and they often get revenue, directly or indirectly, from the companies that are marketing the units. Another problem is that most commercial sites tend to focus on the hotter markets. Zumper covers the entire US, and regularly issues reports on rental prices. The data they collect is cited by many who write about the market, including journalists. But after taking a closer look I have to question the reliability of Zumper’s info. Check out this map they published this summer about the rental scene in LA.

LA Rental Prices from Zumper, Summer 2016

Based on the data from this sampling, they report that the median rent for a one-bedroom in LA is $1,970, and that LA is the seventh most expensive city in the nation. Let’s take the second claim first. It’s not true. LA may be the seventh most expensive major city in the nation, but there are many cities that are more expensive, including a number in California, like Santa Clara, Redwood City, Dublin, and Cupertino. And none of them have rent control.

Second, this map includes three cities besides the City of Los Angeles. It shows Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Culver City. If you think this is nitpicking, let’s move on to the fact that the map actually only shows about half of the City of Los Angeles. It doesn’t include anything east of Downtown or north of the Hollywood Hills. While it includes some neighborhoods where rents are lower, the map seems to have been deliberately drawn to focus on the hottest areas. Why isn’t East LA in the picture? And how come the entire Valley is left out? Is this Zumper’s idea of objective data? There are some pricey neighborhoods in the Valley, but if they’d included Van Nuys, Arleta, Panorama City, Pacoima, Reseda and Sylmar it would almost certainly have brought the median rent for a one-bedroom down. The fact that Zumper’s map is centered on the neighborhoods where prices are highest makes their conclusions seem pretty dubious.

So where do you go to get credible data on current market rates? Honestly, I don’t think there’s any source you can trust completely, but I did find one that seemed more reliable than the others. Rentometer not only covers all of LA, but it also offers information on specific neighborhoods. Its data covers the range of units currently being offered, both new and old. Also, since I wanted to compare LA with other cities that don’t have rent control, I needed a site that would give data limited to a certain area. You may think that’s pretty basic, but I’ve been to sites where I punch in a zip code and they give me everything within a five mile radius.

So using Rentometer, I started entering zip codes to compare prices in neighborhoods all over LA County.* Here’s the data I found based on the median rent for a one-bedroom.

LA Rental Prices from Rentometer, Summer 2016

The first thing the graph shows is that there’s a huge range of prices just within the City of LA. This may sound obvious, but again, most commercial sites focus on the high end, and really don’t give an accurate picture of how much variation there is. You can find a huge difference in prices even in neighborhoods that are right next door to each other. I was skeptical about how high the median price given for Van Nuys was, but looking at a map I found that the area covered by this zip code was just west of Valley College. Definitely a more upscale neighborhood than what you’d find around Van Nuys Blvd. and Sherman Way. I was also surprised by how low the median rent was on the west side of Pasadena, but a friend who lives in that city told me that housing around the Foothill Freeway is definitely cheaper.

The second conclusion I came to is that prices don’t seem any lower in cities with no rent control. Neither Burbank nor Long Beach have rent control, but they come out right about in the middle. Pasadena and Culver City don’t have rent control either, and they both appear at the high end. Comparing Palms and Culver City seems like a good way to make my point, since they’re right next to each other. The first is part of the City of LA and subject to rent control, while the second is an independent city where there is no rent control. But the median price for a one-bedroom is almost exactly the same.

I’m sure there are those who will say that this comparison is flawed, since these cities are all within LA County, and that the RSO is causing a spillover effect, pushing up prices even where there’s no rent control. To those people I say, take a look at Orange County. None of the cities within its boundaries have rent control, but you’ll find pretty much the same range of prices.

Is this data conclusive? Or course not. If there’s anybody who can come up with a better source and compile a more comprehensive sample, I’d love to see the results. But based on the data I’ve found, I don’t see any reason to believe that rent control drives prices up. To me it looks like the deciding factor is how desirable an area is for people who have money to spend.

Yes, it’s true that the majority of economists are opposed to rent control. But it’s also true that there’s a younger generation of economists who see the situation as being more complex than your standard supply side formula. I found an article on-line by economist Richard Arnott, (Time for Revisionism on Rent Control?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 1995) that makes a compelling case for a more nuanced view. Arnott acknowledges that the older “hard” rent control measures were counter-productive, but he doesn’t believe that the newer “soft” measures necessarily have the same damaging impacts.

Arnott also talks about imperfect markets. These are markets where there are forces in play that disrupt the standard dynamic, creating situations that can’t be explained using a simple supply side equation. Twenty first century LA is a great example. Fifty years ago if you built an apartment complex in LA you were most likely marketing your units to people who lived in LA. That’s not true any more. These days developers are pitching their product not just to prospective tenants all over the US, but in some cases all over the world. To them it doesn’t matter if the average Angeleno can’t afford their prices. There’s probably somebody in New York, or Paris, or Seoul, who can.

Here’s something else to consider. With interest rates at record lows, real estate is one of the few sectors that has offered a high rate of return. Investors have been plowing their money into development in search of big payoffs. Why should they waste their time building modest housing for middle-income renters when they could reap huge profits building luxury skyscrapers for the wealthy? This has led to a speculative binge that’s caused real estate prices to skyrocket, and made it difficult for anyone to build housing for middle-income or low-income families. The higher prices charged for new units distort the numbers, and push the so-called “market rate” higher than it should be. A report produced by LA’s Housing + Community Investment Department (HCID) in November 2015 found that there was a 12% vacancy rate in units built since 2005. At the same time, the overall vacancy rate in the city was around 4%. To my mind this shows that these days developers aren’t building units geared toward the people who actually live in LA. If they were, you wouldn’t be seeing such a huge disparity in vacancy rates.

Short-term rentals (STRs) are also having an impact. If landlords find that renters can’t afford their units, no problem. You can actually make just as much money (or more) by listing the units on the net as STRs. Why should a landlord bother with pesky renters who expect a livable dwelling in return for their money, when they can cash in by turning the place into a weekend crash pad? City Hall recently passed legislation to clamp down on this practice, but it’s too early to tell if it’s having any effect.

Again, I’m not going to claim that the data I’ve collected proves anything conclusively, but if anyone wants to argue that rent control is evil, they’ll have to come up with something better. I believe that skyrocketing rents in LA have nothing to do with rent control, and everything to do with a speculative market that’s been actively encouraged by the politicians who run this city. And anyone who wants to make a supply side argument had better show how they’ve factored in the forces described above. When it comes to housing, the landscape has changed. I don’t believe the old rules apply.

If you’re interested in reading more on the subject, I recommend Arnott’s article. Here’s the link.

Time for Revisionism on Rent Control?

*
I should note that when I started checking prices on Rentometer, the site allowed you to search by zip code. That changed recently, and now you have to search by neighborhood. When I looked up the last couple of communities for the graph, I searched by neighborhood and then found the corresponding zip codes.

How Do We Help the Homeless?

Posted on September 26, 2016 by cmaddren

Notice outside of vacant homes on Roscoe Blvd. in Panorama City.

If you live in LA, by now you’ve gotten used to the fact that homeless people are part of the landscape. No matter where you go, Downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, Van Nuys, you see people living on the streets. It used to be that homelessness was one of those things you could escape by running to the suburbs, but not any more. Nowadays Burbank, Glendale, Encino, all have their share of people living in tents and cardboard boxes. The homeless are everywhere, and there’s no simple solution.

The homeless population in Panorama City has been growing for a long time. For a while there was a large encampment off of Van Nuys Blvd. over by Smart & Final. Not too long ago the City dismantled it, but of course, that didn’t solve the problem. The residents of the camp were dispersed, but they didn’t go away. They just bundled up their stuff and moved it somewhere else.

Homeless encampment near Roscoe and Lennox.

Another shot of the makeshift shelter.

At the corner of Roscoe and Lennox there was a row of houses that were empty. A developer had bought them intending to tear them down, but since work on the project hadn’t started yet, the homes just stood there, vacant. It wasn’t long before a group of homeless people decided to move in. The police chased them out, but instead of leaving the area, they simply created a makeshift shelter on the parkway in front of the houses. As weeks went by the shelter grew larger and longer, until it was difficult to pass on the sidewalk.

Vacant houses near Roscoe and Lennox.

A view from the alley behind the vacant homes.

I was curious to find out what was going on with the empty houses, so I contacted Councilmember Nury Martinez’ office. I got a call back from her Communications Director, Adam Bass, who told me that the developer had pulled a demolition permit for the houses, though he wasn’t sure when they’d actually be bulldozed. I asked how Councilmember Martinez was dealing with the homeless situation in her district, and he informed me that earlier this year a new program had been launched in CD 6. The Homeless Outreach and Proactive Engagement (HOPE) initiative brings together the LAPD, the Bureau of Sanitation, and the LA Homeless Services Authority to engage with those living on the streets. While the City still clears away illegal encampments, the idea is to offer assistance to those who want it. Bass told me that since May, the HOPE initiative had helped dozens of homeless people in the Valley, in some cases finding them space in shelters and in others giving a hand to those looking for jobs. Over the summer the program expanded into the LAPD’s Central and West bureaus, and next month it’ll move into South LA.

This is a big improvement over the City’s past efforts. Some of City Hall’s recent attempts to deal with the homeless have been outrageously heavy-handed. Their efforts were so draconian that they were challenged in court three times, and the City lost every time. So the idea of a multi-pronged approach that brings different agencies together to offer assistance is a welcome one, and I’m glad it’s been successful so far. But unfortunately, the problem is so big and so complex that it’s going to take a lot more to bring about real change.

There are no easy answers. I’ve talked to a lot of people about this issue, and everybody’s got ideas, but there’s no consensus. In November there will be a measure on the City ballot to approve a $1.2 billion bond which would pay for construction of permanent supportive housing. At the same time, the County is expected to ask voters to approve a quarter cent sales tax increase which would help provide new services to the homeless. These initiatives could make a big difference, but really they both have to pass in order to make things work. To construct new housing without expanding staff to provide support for the homeless would be a waste of money, and the same goes for offering additional support without getting people off the streets.

And it could be that both of these measures will go down. In this upcoming election, the City, County and State are asking voters to approve billions in taxes and bond measures, and it seems possible that many voters, overwhelmed by the flood of initiatives, won’t be in the mood to approve anything.

As for other ideas on how to help the homeless, some people have suggested that the City use existing vacant housing to provide shelter. My feeling is that without support services, this would be futile. The idea of gathering tens of thousands of homeless together in empty buildings without offering mental health services, help for addicts or counseling seems like a recipe for disaster. Another proposal is to get the state and/or federal government to kick in more money. Garcetti already tried that. It went nowhere.

Personally, I think the most important thing is to keep people from becoming homeless in the first place. This probably sounds so obvious you may ask why I’m even mentioning it, but it’s important to keep in mind. One of the leading causes of homelessness is eviction, and thousands of LA tenants have been kicked out of their homes in recent years. In part, this is because the City offers incentives to developers that make it very tempting for them to take advantage of the Ellis Act. If City Hall really wants to make a dent in the homeless problem, our elected officials need to stop rewarding landlords who throw their tenants out. The recent passage of an ordinance to crack down on “cash for keys” scams is a good start, but City Hall needs to do more. If you don’t want people living on the streets, then you need to do everything possible to keep them in their homes.

Demolition of the houses on Roscoe.

Earlier this month, the homeless encampment on Roscoe was dismantled. Around the same time, the houses that had been standing empty were demolished. But it’s only a matter of time before another makeshift shelter springs up in the neighborhood. This problem isn’t going away any time soon.

Tenants Take a Stand

Posted on September 21, 2016 by cmaddren

There’s been a noticeable shift in City Hall’s public stance on evictions recently. A couple years ago, the Mayor and the City Council weren’t saying much, and certainly weren’t doing much, about the wave of displacement that was sweeping across LA. Ellis Act evictions had been rising steadily, thousands of tenants had been forced out of rent-stabilized apartments, and City Hall’s reaction was pretty much, “Who cares?”

But now that the issue is getting media attention and our elected officials are taking some serious heat for their inaction, the change in attitude at City Hall is noticeable. Mayor Garcetti has unveiled the Home for Renters campaign, designed to inform tenants of their rights. The Housing & Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) web site is offering booklets renters can download in English and Spanish to learn about how the law protects them. There’s also been an accompanying media blitz to get the word out. I have to wonder if City Hall’s sudden concern for LA’s renters will last beyond next year’s election, but right now you can tell the politicians are nervous.

One of the most striking examples of this turnaround can be found in the story of a group of tenants living in the apartment building at the corner of Yucca and Argyle in Hollywood. The building is home to 44 households, including singles, couples, families with children, seniors and veterans. It’s subject to LA’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO), which means that rents can only go up about 3% every year. A while ago they got word that the building was going to be sold to Champion Real Estate, a developer that had plans to build a luxury high-rise on the site. It seemed like it would just be a matter of time before the new owner started handing out eviction notices.

But that hasn’t happened. Yet. And a large part of it has to do with the fact that the tenants decided they weren’t going to let themselves be pushed around. They connected with the LA Tenants Union (LATU), which helped them organize the Yucca Argyle Tenants Association (YATA). They spoke out. They took part in public actions. They got support from their neighborhood council. They let the world know they weren’t going without a fight.

In fact they made so much noise that the developer stepped forward with pretty unusual offer. I asked Sasha Ali, of YATA, for an update, and here’s her response.

The developer recently stated at the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council’s Planning and Land Use Management meeting that he is willing to offer affected tenants the right of return to the proposed development at their existing terms of rent. He also offered to relocate returning tenants in Hollywood during construction and subsidize their rent.

When you think about the fact that many tenants evicted under the Ellis Act have to fight to get the payments that the law requires, this is pretty impressive. It’s a sign that the media attention about displacement is having an impact. Remember, this is happening in Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell’s district, and O’Farrell has been getting a lot of heat about widespread evictions happening on his watch. Could he have asked Champion to make some concessions in order to cool things down? Well, O’Farrell is up for re-election next year.

There’s no way of saying for sure what will happen next. Sasha said that at this point, eviction notices have not been served, and in fact Champion hasn’t actually bought the building yet. The tenants have retained a lawyer to help them negotiate with the developer.

I’m glad that the tenants at Yucca and Argyle are demanding a fair deal, and I wish them the best. But the dynamics that have created this situation are still wreaking havoc across LA. The eviction juggernaut is being driven by the huge profits developers can reap by buying an existing building, knocking it down, and putting up something much larger. This usually works pretty smoothly, because the City Council is mostly willing to grant whatever entitlements the developer asks for. Want a zone change? Sure! Boost the floor area ratio? No problem! Reduce setbacks to zero? Hell, yeah! Developers feel pretty confident they can make a bundle on these projects because they know all they have to do is hand a wish list to someone like O’Farrell, and he’ll do everything he can to make their wishes come true.

The City Council has no legal authority to stop Ellis Act evictions, but they need to stop incentivizing the practice. They need to stop handing developers massive profits by approving endless entitlements. If you want to talk about building higher density, fine. Let’s create community plans that will allow the City to increase density in an orderly way. Let’s revise our zoning so that developers can work within a consistent framework. (And I’m not talking about wasting time on a worthless sham like re:code LA.) And then let’s make the City Council abide by those plans, instead of making exceptions for every project that comes their way.

Hopefully things will turn out okay for the folks at Yucca and Argyle. But we need to stop the practices that create these situations in the first place. The City Council needs to stop handing out favors and start doing some planning.

	noemailaddressaccoun… on Vigil in Altadena One Year aft…
	Alan Dowsett on Oki Dog Is Gone
	noemailaddressaccoun… on Thousands Protest in Downtown…
	cmaddren on Oki Dog Is Gone
	Margaret Wynn on Oki Dog Is Gone

The Horizon and the Skyline

A blog about Los Angeles

Author Archives: cmaddren