The Editorial
The Condo Moratorium--Back Bill's Ban, It's Better Business
Evidently, the editorial board of the
Los Angeles Times is composed of world-renowned economic theorists qualified to lecture Venice’s city councilman, Bill Rosendahl, on Econ 101.
At least that was the gist of a
Times’ August editorial in which the newspaper caustically derided the councilman’s proposal for a moratorium on condo development in his Westside district.
As conceived, Rosendahl’s moratorium would put condominium conversions and new condo construction projects on hold for a year to give the city, developers and other stakeholders time to devise solutions to the affordable and middle-class housing crisis in the area.
Rosendahl’s council district includes Venice, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Westchester, West L.A. and Mar Vista. Between 2001 and 2005, The district lost 3,058 rent-controlled units—one-third of the total of those lost citywide.
While a news story in the
Times implied that the moratorium would also stop apartment construction, it would not. Apartment development would continue unimpinged. Perhaps the Times needs to concentrate on reporting the story correctly rather than offering up editorials with tired clichés.
The Times accused Rosendahl (and City Hall in general) of playing “politics” with condo development to appease an “array of noisy interest groups.” Since when was initiating a proposal that angers developers “playing politics”? It’s Politics 101 that developers are big donors during Los Angeles’ election season.
What troubles us most about the
Times editorial is its narrow perspective. The affordable-housing crisis impacts everyone, including the Los Angles business community, the LA economy.
Here are three reasons why Rosendahl’s moratorium could increase property values in Venice and Los Angeles in the long run and produce wealth for residents, businesses and the city. It could:
1. Provide a consistent workforce closer to businesses in need.
2. Diminish traffic congestion’s toll on the economy.
3. Improve consistency in school attendance, thereby better educating the next generation of Los Angeles business people.
Retail businesses on the Westside, we’d say especially in Venice, are having an increasingly difficult time obtaining employees. That translates to lower profits for owners whose time is spent searching for employees and must pay to train each new worker. Stopping the demolition of apartments, some of which are the last vestiges of work force housing in the area, supports these businesses.
When employees are retained, they are often commuting farther distances. Segmented communities make for clogged freeways and streets. Clogged freeways and streets, in turn, make for bad business.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2005 Urban Mobility Report, the Los Angeles area experiences the worst traffic congestion in the country. The report calculates that congestion cost Los Angeles $10.7 million in 2003. The report also states that in 2003, the average Los Angeles motorist experienced 93 hours of delay during the peak travel periods. That’s the equivalent of two work weeks which could be used for vacation time, school time, family time. Don’t you want it back?
Creating communities in which multiple economic strata can live close to work and therefore commute less will help.
Evictions also hurt Los Angeles’ future economy. Approximately 25 percent of students move during the Los Angeles school year. That’s a terrible number, both in terms of emotional toll on children and education levels. If we are to re-work the Los Angeles school system, as Mayor Villaraigosa wishes, we must also increase opportunities for children to complete their academic year at the same institution.
For sure, Rosendahl’s proposed moratorium is not a solution. But, the free market is not solving the crisis. In Los Angeles, the number of households which pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent rose by 12.2 percent since 2000. During that time, the Los Angeles population increased by only 3.9 percent.
In addition, replacing units—whether they are affordable or market rate—once they have been demolished is an expensive venture. That’s basic math.
We believe that during the moratorium, or “time-out,” as Rosendahl has dubbed it, government agencies, residents and developers must work together to create viable policies that encourage better models of density.
It’s also time to stop tagging every developer with the same “villain” label. Creating shelter and facilitating places for local business to prosper can be a positive goal. With construction costs skyrocketing due to the global economy, developers trying to do good work cannot, nor should not be carrying the cost of a better city alone.
If we want to cut back on traffic and create more, small- to mid-size developments that are in keeping with Venice’s character of diverse structure size and style, we must be willing to support financing, tax credits, subsidies and planning policies to make such growth feasible. We should also explore policies that give Westside developers a break from expensive parking requirements in return for substantial contributions to a transportation fund for a light-rail or subway system on Lincoln Boulevard. We must pursue this with the determination it took to rebuild the Santa Monica Freeway after the Northridge earthquake.
Finally, as Westside liberals (and it’s not news to say we are a predominantly liberal district), we must face some hard truths together.
If we are serious about being “environmentalists,” we have to accept higher density as a solution to urban sprawl. Don’t want the Brazilians cutting down rain forest to facilitate growth in their country? Stop environmental degradation here in California by building denser cities. Objected to apartheid? Consider mixed strata living here in Los Angeles.
Rosendahl, himself, lobbied for denser apartment buildings along major traffic corridors the day he announced his moratorium proposal. The
Times did not report it. We believe that such a proposal surpasses Econ 101. The thought and planning policy it will take to create smart density, and the richer Los Angeles economy that will stem from it, is an upper division class. Rosendahl is thinking big. We support his proposed moratorium.
© 2006 VenicePaper. All rights reserved. Reproduction of the above is restricted to the first paragraph and must include a link to www.venicepaper.net Further reproduction is prohibited unless requested and approved in writing.
