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.
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.
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.
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.
At a hearing last week, the City Planning Commission gave a green light to the proposed Ivar Gardens Hotel, which is planned for the intersection of Sunset and Cahuenga. But like a lot of projects planned for Hollywood in recent years, it wasn’t a smooth path to approval.
The hearing room was crowded with people. Most of those who were there to speak about the hotel were against, but there were also those who wanted to support it. A representative of the Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council gave it a thumbs up, and a woman from the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce went through the usual spiel about how the hotel will bring jobs and revenue.
Let me say up front, I can see good reasons for making something happen at the corner of Sunset and Cahuenga. The Jack in the Box that ‘s been sitting there for years isn’t exactly an architectural jewel. Sure, the block is underutilized. Could it be a good place for a hotel? Maybe. But a twenty one story hotel? At one of the busiest intersections in the city? I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. Still, I should try to keep an open mind. I should think about the possible benefits. And I should trust that the City of Los Angeles would only approve such a project after the most rigorous review. I should have faith that the City would never approve such a project unless it was absolutely certain that the positive would outweigh the negative.
Yeah, right.
Before I start talking about the Department of City Planning, let me say that I believe that most of the folks who work there are smart and capable. In most of my dealings with them I’ve been impressed by how friendly and helpful they are. But I also believe the culture at the DCP has been warped by outside pressures, and I often get the impression that the state-mandated environmental review process is seen as a pointless waste of time. The documents that are supposed to assess the pros and cons of a project often seem like they’ve been slapped together as quickly as possible. In some cases the data is presented in misleading ways, and in other cases it’s clearly wrong.
Like with this hotel. To begin with, a project of this size really needs the highest level of environmental review, in other words, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). But the folks at the DCP disagreed, and they went ahead with a much lower level of review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). By making this choice they’re basically saying that all of the impacts caused by this project can be mitigated to the point where they’re insignificant. Whether or not that’s true is not important to the City. What’s important here is that the MND is much easier to prepare and makes the approval process much faster.
So let’s get back to the hearing. Like I said, there were a few people who supported the project, but a solid majority came out against it, and the speakers represented a wide variety of interests. Many of them belonged to various unions, and they raised a number of issues, but the biggest one was jobs. They couldn’t believe the City was going to approve this project without any requirement for local hire. A woman representing the Los Angeles Film School came to the mike to say they were concerned about impacts during the construction phase. The LAFS is right across the street from the site, and their programs could be severely affected by the project, but apparently the developer has shown little interest in meeting to discuss these issues so far. A number of people expressed concern over increased traffic from the hotel. One group talked about the importance of properly assessing hazardous wastes at the site. Others asked why the City was ready to hand the developer entitlements worth millions, while the developer was offering a pathetically small package of benefits to the community. And yes, the Commission was asked why an MND was being used for a project that clearly required an EIR.
That’s what I wanted to know. And I also wanted to know why the MND being considered was such an inaccurate, dishonest piece of work. I know that’s a strong statement. But let’s take a look together.
The MND supposedly assesses greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by the project. Honestly, I think the numbers are questionable, and the reductions promised by mitigation measures are pretty optimistic. There’s a lot of talk about building clean, green structures these days, but environmentalists are starting to realize that developers don’t always deliver what they promise. Still, let’s pretend the GHG numbers are accurate. The MND offers a table to show how small the impacts are.
In assessing the production of CO2 emissions, the bottom line says the “project net total” will be 1,921.34 metric tons per year (MTY). But what it should actually say is “project net total increase”. If you look at the table carefully, you can see that the actual total is 3,102.31 MTY. They came up with the 1,921.34 figure by subtracting the estimated emissions produced by the existing fast food restaurant. In reality, the proposed hotel will be spewing out CO2 at a rate of 3,102.31 MTY, or over two and a half times what the site produces now. At a time when the state is struggling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic in LA is getting steadily worse, can the DCP really claim that this is not a significant impact?
Under Public Services the MND talks about police protection. Now, the LAPD has been pretty up front in admitting that it’s struggling to deal with increases in crime across the city. The MND includes a table showing that crime has been steadily rising in Hollywood since 2013. In light of the fact that the LAPD has said they don’t have enough staff to deal with current levels of crime, how can the DCP claim this hotel, along with a number of other projects under construction in Hollywood, won’t put an even greater strain on law enforcement? In addition to the hotel’s security lighting and secure parking facilities, the MND claims that, “the continuous visible and non-visible presence of guests staying at the hotel at all times of the day would provide a sense of security during evening and early morning hours.” Actually, there are already plenty of people on the street in this area, and it doesn’t seem to be doing much to discourage crime.
To demonstrate how little the DCP cares about facts, under Population and Housing they say, “The Hollywood Community Plan (HCP) projected a 2010 population of approximately 219,000 persons….” This is true. The HCP did make that projection. What the MND doesn’t say is that the Plan was written back in the 1980s, and that according to the US Census, Hollywood’s actual population in 2010 was 198,228, about 20,000 people less than the figure they reference. The DCP surely knows that the projection was mistaken, because a judge threw out their HCP Update in 2011, largely because the population figures were wildly off base.
One of the biggest problems with the MND is its cavalier approach to cumulative impacts. This project is just one of more than sixty planned for the Hollywood area, but I haven’t seen a single environmental document come out of the DCP in the last five years that sees any significant cumulative impacts. The DCP always inserts endless bureaucratic double-speak citing regional planning reports and state guidelines. And they always find ways to ignore anyone who produces real data to call their conclusions into question. CalTrans has made numerous attempts to get the DCP to do a serious analysis of traffic impacts from all these projects. The DCP’s response is to pretend that CalTrans doesn’t exist.
I’ve saved the best for last, because it’s such a classic example of the City’s shameless dishonesty. Under Transportation/Traffic, a study included in the MND states that PM rush hour traffic at the intersections of Cahuenga/DeLongpre, Cahuenga/Sunset and Cahuenga/Hollywood flows at Level of Service A, in other words that there’s no congestion at all. Here’s a table from the MND.
This is so absurd it’s laughable. Anyone who’s travelled north on Cahuenga during evening rush hour knows it’s a parking lot. And in case you don’t live in the area, here are a few photos of what traffic really looks like on Cahuenga after working hours are over.
Rush hour on Cahuenga, July 2014.
Rush hour on Cahuenga, same day as above.
Rush hour on Cahuenga, July 2016.
Rush hour on Cahuenga, same day as above.
A lot of the people who spoke at the CPC hearing complained that traffic was bad enough and that this project would only make things worse. Knowing that this was a hot topic, Commission President David Ambroz realized he had to do something to prop up the MND’s ridiculous claim that rush hour traffic flowed smoothly. So he called on a guy from the DCP to get up and talk about the traffic study. And this guy rambled on for a few minutes about how the analysis was done in accordance with LA Department of Transportation standards, and that LADOT had approved the analysis, and that any variation may have been due to the fact that counts were taken during a holiday week. In other words, he didn’t claim that the traffic study actually reflected reality. Just that the people who compiled it followed the rules.
But it gets better. At the hearing, Commission President Ambroz mentioned that he lives in Hollywood, and that he’s familiar with the site for the proposed hotel, which means that he must know how bad the traffic is on Cahuenga at rush hour. And that means he also knows that the traffic report in the MND is substantially incorrect. But of course, he would never acknowledge that, because then he’d have to ask for the report to be done again, and done correctly. Instead, Ambroz sat there, somehow keeping a straight face, while the bureaucrat from the DCP went through his routine, trying to legitimize a traffic study that most of the people in the room knew was rubbish.
And then the Commission voted to adopt the MND and send the project on to the City Council. Interestingly, some of the Commissioners did vote no, not because of the MND, but because they felt the community benefits being offered by the developer were totally inadequate. This in spite of the fact that a last minute deal was cobbled together where the developer committed to 50% local hire.
So is the hotel a done deal? Not quite yet. It still has to go before the Planning & Land Use Management Committee (PLUM), and then on to the full City Council. Many of the people in the room were disappointed in the CPC’s decision. Afterwards I wrote to Elle Farmer of Unite Here, a labor group that spoke against the project, to ask how they felt about the outcome. Here’s a quote from their response.
We are still in this, and we still oppose the project as it currently stands, with no real community benefits, and no care for the environmental protection process.
And Unite Here is not satisfied with the last minute promise of local hire, as they feel it’s impossible to enforce.
I also asked for a statement from the Los Angeles Film School. Here’s an excerpt.
We support a vibrant Hollywood community and believe we played a major role in kickstarting the current renaissance. We are also the largest and most impacted stakeholder of this proposed project. Although the Commission did not grant a continuance, representatives for the developer did convey their willingness to sit down with us and discuss the project and its impacts to our campus after the hearing. We look forward to that opportunity.
And what am I looking forward to? The day when the DCP can put together an MND that actually reflects reality. And in the process shows a willingness to put the interests of the community ahead the interests of developers.
Members of Union de Vecinos and the LA Tenants Union at a gathering on Thursday.
It’s not uncommon these days to hear about a group of investors buying an apartment building and forcing the tenants out. Sadly, this kind of thing happens all too frequently in LA, and we’ve seen thousands of apartment dwellers lose their homes in recent years. Many renters don’t know their rights and leave without putting up a fight. Those that try to stay can get ground down by long and costly court battles.
But every once in a while the tenants win out.
Apartments at 4330 City Terrace.
Earlier this year the apartments at 4330 City Terrace were bought by Manhattan Manor, LLC. (Love the name. It’s so classy.) The new owners immediately imposed a steep rent increase on the tenants, certainly knowing that most couldn’t pay and would have to leave. Carolina Rodriguez’ rent went from $1,250 to $2,000, far beyond what she could afford. She could have thrown in the towel and left, hoping to find another place she could afford. But she decided to fight, and last month, she won.
With the help of the Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action (LACCLA), Carolina went to court, and the jury sided with her. In fact, not only did the jury decide that $2,000 a month was unfair, they said that the apartment she occupied needed major repairs and was only worth $1,050 in its current state. Must’ve been a shock to Manhattan Manor.
Celebration on City Terrace after the victory in court.
On Thursday a crowd of people gathered at 4330 City Terrace to celebrate this victory. In addition to residents from the building, members of Union de Vecinos (UV) and the Los Angeles Tenants Union (LATU) showed up to hear speakers talk about Carolina’s struggle, and to remind everyone that the struggle is still going on. Noah Grynberg, the lawyer from LACCLA who argued the case, gave an energetic speech about the importance of protecting people’s rights. Elizabeth Blaney, of UV, emphasized that there was still a long way to go in the battle against gentrification and displacement.
Noah Grynberg, of LACCLA, speaks to the crowd.
And Carolina took the mike to talk about how she came to the point where she felt she could stand up to the landlords. She mentioned another tenant who lived in the building, Jesus Baltazar, who had been a major influence. Though he was very ill, Jesus had insisted passionately that the tenants had to make a stand, that they shouldn’t be pushed around. His determination inspired her, and she decided to go to court. Sadly, he has passed away. His daughter, Georgina, is still fighting eviction.
Carolina Rodriguez tells how she decided to fight eviction.
The struggle goes on. Property owners will continue to kick people out of their homes in their pursuit of higher profits. But this story shows that tenants can fight back, and they can win.
If you’d like more info about the organizations mentioned above, the links are below. They all deserve your support.
Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action
A friend recently sent me a link to an article from The Planning Report where Bill Witte, CEO and Chairman of Related California, talks about the toxic development debate in California. He focusses mostly on LA, and discusses the factors that drove activists to put Build Better LA and the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on upcoming ballots. I have to say it was really refreshing to hear a developer talk honestly about why the situation has gotten so bad, and to offer a plausible solution.
What does Witte recommend? That we actually do some planning. And he’s not talking about blueprints drawn up in a backroom by politicians and lobbyists. Witte urges developers to engage with communities in order to create a realistic framework that will allow us to build for the future. And he also asks for leadership from City Hall that will make this happen.
Really, this is the only way to break the current stalemate. People all over LA are furious because they feel they’ve lost control of their communities. Developers are constantly asking for zone changes and general plan amendments, and City Hall hands these out freely. When people complain, our elected officials often adopt a condescending tone and insist that they have to grant entitlements to encourage growth. They also tend to characterize anyone who objects as an anti-development NIMBY. City Hall tells us they’re acting in our best interests, but affordable housing is disappearing, the number of homeless keeps growing, traffic is steadily getting worse, air quality is declining, crime is on the rise, and our water resources are drying up.
But if our elected officials made a serious attempt to bring developers and communities together to plan for the future, we could make some real progress in addressing these problems. It wouldn’t be easy. Witte says flat out that developers would have to make concessions. Community stakeholders would also have to give some ground. But the end result would offer huge rewards for both sides. Residents would finally feel like they had some control over how their community was going to grow. Developers would know exactly what the plan allowed and could build their projects without going through endless meetings and without facing court challenges.
Could this really happen? It’s probably a long shot. Developers would be reluctant to give up potential profits. No doubt some communities would be averse to making any significant concessions. And while City Hall is good at staging dog and pony shows, they’ve shown zero interest in seeking meaningful input from LA’s communities. In fact, in recent years they seem to be doing everything they can to shut the public out.
Still, it would be great if we could all get together and do some planning. It’s really the only way out of this mess.
Here’s the link to Witte’s comments. They’re worth a read.
Related’s Witte Tells Developers to Engage in Planning from The Planning Report
Lately most of the press on the MTA has been about its rail expansions, but there are other, smaller projects that deserve attention, too. Work was recently completed on both the North Hollywood Station Underpass and the Universal City Pedestrian Bridge. There have been some complaints from transit advocates about these projects, but I have to say I think both offer significant benefits.
The smaller and less flashy of the two is the underpass. The construction phase was a huge pain, but now that it’s finished I think it’s a big improvement over the previous set-up. Using the tunnel to transfer from the Red Line to the Orange Line is much faster, and much safer. I remember waiting for the light to change so I could cross Lankershim, and I’d see people dashing across the street, dodging oncoming traffic, just so they could catch an Orange Line bus. So it’s definitely a step up in terms of safety. I also like the bright, playful design of the underpass. It fits in well with vibe of the Red Line Station.
Street level entrance to the North Hollywood Station Underpass.
A closer view of the entrance.
Looking down the stairwell.
Looking up the stairwell.
The first time I checked out the bridge at Universal City I had some reservations. While it’s an interesting structure, my initial reaction was that it was a little too severe. But while I was taking photos the other day, I was really impressed by the spaces it creates, and also how it exploits the views of the surrounding community. On one side you have the low roll of the Hollywood Hills, on the other side the Valley is stretching out to the horizon. Look up and you see massive high-rises cutting into the sky, look down and you see the traffic swirling on the street below.
A view from the west side of the Universal City Pedestrian Bridge.
Looking across the bridge to Universal City.
Looking down on Lankershim Blvd..
A view of the Hollywood Hills.
A crowd of people leaving the theme park.
Another shot of Lankershim.
Shadows stretching across the bridge as the sun goes down.
The west end of the bridge, with the hills in the distance.
Transit planning is a large and complicated puzzle. I don’t claim to understand all the intricacies, and I know that some people feel the money spent on these projects could have been used for other purposes. But I see definite advantages in both the bridge and the underpass. I’m glad to have them.
Hotel construction is booming in Hollywood. Obviously, tourism is big business and brings a lot of money into the area, so it makes sense to build accommodations for visitors. But there are also tens of thousands of people who actually live in the community, and they need to be considered, too. Is City Hall thinking about them? Why don’t we ponder that question as we do a quick rundown of the hotels that are coming to Hollywood. It’s quite a list. We’ll start with the ones that are currently under construction.
The Camden
There’s the nearly completed Camden at the corner of Vine and Selma. In addition to the beautifully appointed rooms, the Camden also offers a heated saltwater pool, a movie lounge, a dog den, and the “The Garden”, a “quiet zen filled space to meditate and reflect.”
Dream Hollywood
According to the web site, “Dream Hollywood is an ultra-luxury merger of familiar and fantasy, where the line between entrée and exclusivity is refreshingly blurred.” Geared toward the “creative class”, it offers 179 “hyper-chic, yet comfortable” rooms and suites, along with a rooftop pool, restaurant and lounge “destined to become a player in the Hollywood skyline scene.”
Argyle Hotel
Currently under construction, the Argyle Hotel will rise 16 stories above the intersection of Yucca and Argyle. It will feature 225 rooms, 6,000 square feet of meeting space and 3,000 square feet of restaurant space. There are also two residential high-rises planned for this same intersection, one already under construction. Afternoon rush hour traffic on Argyle is already pretty bad. Expect it to get way worse.
1850 Cherokee
The owner of this formerly rent-controlled apartment building realized he could make more money by evicting the tenants and turning it into something else. He used the Ellis Act to get rid of the residents a few years ago, saying that he was going to build condos on the site. When that project fell through, he decided to turn the building into a boutique hotel. The owner asked the City for a zone change to make it happen, and no surprise, the City let him have it.
A similar scenario has also played out at the historic Villa Carlotta on Franklin. The owners evicted the tenants from their rent-controlled units with the aim of turning it into a boutique hotel. It was only through the efforts of dedicated activists that the change of use was thwarted. But the evictions have already taken place, and 50 rent-controlled units were taken off the market.
Crossraods Hollywood
This massive project would be situated near the intersection of Sunset and Highland. Three skyscrapers are planned, including a 32-story hotel tower featuring 308 guest rooms and 10,500 square feet of ground-level retail and restaurant space. The developers are also asking for a Master Conditional Use Permit for “the sale of alcoholic beverages and for live entertainment in connection with a total of 22 alcohol-related uses”. You read that right. Twenty two new places for folks to buy alcohol in this one project. In addition, approximately 80 rent-controlled units will be demolished to build this behemoth, which the developer says will be replaced by approximately 80 affordable units. Even if the current tenants are granted right-of-return, where they’re supposed to live during the construction phase isn’t clear.
Ivar Gardens
The Department of City Planning(DCP) decided this 21-story hotel at the extremely congested intersection of Sunset and Cahuenga didn’t need a full Environmental Impact Report. Instead, planners have been trying to rush this through with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a much lower level of environmental review. The traffic study claims that PM rush hour traffic northbound on Cahuenga flows freely with no significant delays. Anyone who’s made that trip at rush hour knows how ridiculous that claim is. But that didn’t stop the LA Department of Transportation from approving the report. Just further proof that when a developer with deep pockets wants something to happen, the City of LA is only too happy to oblige.
1919 Wilcox
One more example of how Hollywood area developers are pushing hotels into residential neighborhoods. While a small hotel does exist on Franklin just to the south, apartment buildings are directly adjacent to this proposed project on the north and west boundaries of the site. Residents were not happy to learn that they might have a 6-story, 150 room hotel next door. It didn’t help matters that the developer is seeking a liquor permit for a 1,200 sq. ft. bar/lounge in the lobby and a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant/lounge on the north side of the site. Who cares if Chief Beck has written to the DCP warning about the oversaturation of locations that serve alcohol in Hollywood and the resulting problems with violent crime? Certainly nobody at the DCP. They keep handing out liquor permits like there’s no tomorrow.
1717 Wilcox
Also on Wilcox, but closer to Hollywood Blvd., is this planned 134-room hotel with a 2,500 sq. ft. ground floor restaurant and a rooftop bar. You can never have too many rooftop bars, right? Who cares if the people in the apartment building next door don’t like it? And as traffic on Cahuenga continues to spill onto neighboring streets, you can bet these two projects will help turn Wilcox into a parking lot at rush hour.
The point of all this is not to say that we shouldn’t have hotels in Hollywood. The point is that these 8 hotels are just a few of the over 60 projects currently proposed for the Hollywood area. All of these projects will have impacts on infrastructure, air quality, traffic, and LAPD response times, but the City of LA isn’t making any serious effort to assess the cumulative effects of all this development. Whenever possible the DCP tries to approve these projects with a quick MND, and even when they do an EIR there’s no credible attempt made to calculate the collective impacts caused by this massive building binge. The Hollywood Community Plan Update was thrown out by a judge, in large part because the City inflated its population figures, but that hasn’t stopped the City from going full speed ahead. With no community plan in place, the DCP continues to approve thousands of new residential units, hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial, and who knows how many new hotels.
No doubt all these classy new hotels will make Hollywood a great place for tourists. Just not so great for the people who actually live in the community.
Town hall meeting on proposed Junction Gateway project.
On Wednesday night the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council (SLNC) hosted a town hall meeting where the topic was the proposed Junction Gateway project. For those of you who haven’t been following this story, developer Frost Chaddock wants to build three structures on three sites along Sunset Blvd. in Silverlake. Two of the buildings are mixed-use, including residential, restaurant and retail space. The third is a boutique hotel. Predictably, the developer is asking for a number of entitlements, among them increases height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). And predictably, a lot of the locals are ticked off.
By my count, the town hall drew about fifty area residents. The developer was there, along with the project architect, and a very smooth land use attorney from a high-powered law firm. They kicked the meeting off with a presentation on the project, emphasizing the ways they felt it would be beneficial to the community. Then two board members from the SLNC took turns reading questions that had been submitted by audience members. I want to say in passing that the SLNC board members handled the whole thing very well. The tension in the air was palpable, but they did an excellent job of minimizing disruption and keeping things on track.
A land use attorney explains why his client’s project will be a boon to the community.
I have to admit I left early since I was taking the bus to Burbank and didn’t want to get started too late. But as I listened to the questions being read, it all sounded very familiar. While the developer claimed that Junction Gateway was absolutely right for the neighborhood, the tone of the questions made it clear that there was intense opposition in the community. The land use lawyer kept saying they had met with residents and made changes based on their input. But the changes mentioned were mostly cosmetic, and it was clear that the developer intended to build the project regardless of neighborhood oppostion. For me, the funniest moment was when the developer’s land used attorney insisted that in talking to the community, “We heard over and over again that Silverlake is lacking in boutique hotels.” That was a surprise to me. I know people who live in Silverlake, and I’ve never heard any of them complain about a shortage of boutique hotels.
The audience is skeptical.
But to my mind, the most crucial questions that were raised shouldn’t have been addressed to the developer. They should have been addressed to Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell, whose district includes Silverlake.
First, why are developers continually encouraged to build projects that violate the existing community plan for Silverlake and Echo Park? According to the Department of City Planning web site, “the 35 Community Plans provide the specific, neighborhood-level detail, relevant policies, and implementation strategies necessary to achieve the General Plan objectives.” When our City Council reps routinely allow developers to build beyond what the existing framework allows, they make planning meaningless. Why do we have community plans if our elected officials are happy to toss them out for any developer with deep pockets?
Second, what about doing a meaningful assessment of all projects currently being considered for the area? The developer’s team pointed out that Junction Gateway has been in process for years, and they argue that their assessment of cumulative impacts included everything that was happening when they started out. Even if we accept this argument, there are a number of other projects that are coming through the pipeline and there hasn’t been any serious attempt to gauge their impacts on the community. Infrastructure is already strained, air quality is deteriorating, and the streets are more congested than ever. And yet O’Farrell keeps pushing new projects forward as though none of these problems existed.
The City of LA’s refusal to respect the planning process shows that our elected officials are far more interested in serving developers than in serving the citizens. Instead of creating a rational planning framework that starts with a genuine effort to engage the community, we get an avalanche of projects being dumped haphazardly on neighborhoods all over LA.
It’s no wonder the people at the meeting were ticked off. Affordable housing in Silverlake is fast becoming a distant memory, small-lot subdivisions are a plague sweeping the community, traffic keeps getting worse, the number of homeless is increasing. And still Mitch O’Farrell continues to back one project after another, blithely insisting that this onslaught of reckless overdevelopment will lead to a better and brighter future for his constituents.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people aren’t buying it. A number of those who attended the meeting belong to a group called Save Sunset Junction. If you’d like to connect with them, here’s the link.
The Horizon and the Skyline 