August Land Use Report
August 2025 Land Use Report
SB 79 & Action Alert
SB 79 – CF 25-0002-S19
Scheduled for Council Tuesday, August 19, 10 am Item #44.
Tuesday Council agenda — Invite constituent to attend to support the motion
https://lacity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=144613
CF 25-0002-S19: Lee/Park: SB 79 // State Zoning Standards / Train Stations / Major Bus Stops / 7-Story Multifamily Housing / Municipality Exemption / Housing Element
Council File:
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0002-S19
This resolution was introduced 3/28/25 and was referred to the Council’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee which has finally waived consideration so that it has been scheduled to be heard before the full Council Tuesday, 8/19. That is one day before the measure is to be heard in the State Assembly Appropriations Committee. That agenda is here.
If adopted, the CF resolution would establish Los Angeles’ position to oppose SB 79 unless amended to exempt cities with State-approved Housing Elements.
Let’s be clear: A vote for the Council resolution is not a vote against housing density, as many housing advocates wrongly claim. Existing state law already allows increased density near transit. What SB 79 does is strip Los Angeles (and other cities) of their land-use authority, replacing careful local planning with blunt, one-size-fits-all state mandates.
There is no reasonable case for SB 79 in Los Angeles. Cities across California are mobilizing against it. Meanwhile, to gain support of his bill, Senator Wiener has carved out the districts of some elected officials. The result? Cities like Los Angeles, if silent, will carry the heaviest burden of Senator Scott Wiener’s ongoing assault on single-family neighborhoods.
Los Angeles already has an adopted Housing Element, a hard-fought plan balancing growth with infrastructure, sustainability, and livability. SB 79 would upend it, handing land-use decisions to developers and speculators whose only mandate is profit, not community. The city’s role is to plan livable, sustainable neighborhoods. SB 79 would take that role away.
Developers don’t plan for sustainability. They build to maximize return/profit.
SB 79 is an unfunded state mandate. No resources are provided to address its impact, which includes randomly placed density in areas with insufficient infrastructure. The city, left with the fallout, will face:
Strained water and power systems
Overburdened streets
Vanishing light, privacy, and open space
Families priced out or displaced
The Department of Water and Power will be forced to chase scattered, piecemeal growth at enormous cost, rather than focusing on commercial corridors, the very strategy outlined in our Housing Element.
Los Angeles is already struggling to remain family friendly. SB 79 will accelerate the decline. No parent wants a five-, six-, or seven-story building looming over their child’s home. No homeowner should fear that their investment is at the mercy of state mandates written for speculators.
From a sustainability standpoint:
Rooftop solar investments could be rendered useless
Future solar installations made infeasible
Urban tree canopy severely diminished
Community input is eliminated, projects will be “ministerial” and “by right”
And let’s be honest: Upzoning entire swaths of Los Angeles will not solve affordability. It will not solve homelessness. What it will do is destabilize neighborhoods, displace long-time residents, and replace transit riders with tenants of market-rate and luxury housing who are far less reliant on transit.
It must be repeated: A vote for the Council resolution is not a vote against housing density. Los Angeles’ Housing Element already directs density where it belongs, focusing on transit adjacency, commercial corridors, high opportunity areas, and more.
The City Council now has the chance to take a stand, on Tuesday, August 19, just one day before the Assembly Appropriations Committee votes on SB 79.
Independent of Council action, Mayor Bass has a powerful voice. Angelenos are asking her to use it. Mayor: Speak out against SB 79 before it is too late.
Urge the Mayor and City Council to protect Los Angeles from this misguided legislation and oppose
SB 79 unless amended to exempt cities with State-approved Housing Elements.
FYI: Here is a short Youtube video shared by United Neighbors: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qpM7XssnJv4
SB 79 ACTION ALERT:
Send an email message to Mayor Bass at karen.bass@lacity.org with cc to: jenny.delwood@lacity.org and marissa.bowman@lacity.org
See sample letter at the bottom of this blast or write your own short
message. Ask the Mayor to “Stand up for LA and oppose SB 79.”
Email and call the office of your (and/or all) LA City Councilmembers (and their Chiefs of Staff and Legislative Directors) to let them know you want them to support CF 25-0002-S19 to oppose SB 79.
Contact your State Assemblymember to oppose SB 79.
The WSSM area Assemblymember is Rick Chavez Zbur. Write to him at: rick.zbur@asm.ca.gov
with cc: to sherwin.shamoeil@asm.ca.gov
Send an email to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ key staff requesting his opposition to SB 79 unless amended to exempt cities with approved Housing Elements. You can also call his office to leave a message:
After being heard in committee, the measure will likely come to a full floor vote before the end of the month. He has power influencing which bills receive consideration and which ones are potentially stalled. Rivas’ Chief of Staff: steve.omara@asm.ca.gov and Legislative Director: myesha.jackson@asm.ca.gov
Enter a comment to the Sacramento Legislative Portal in opposition to this bill. Go to: https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/ .
If you have never posted to the State Portal, here is a video that explains the process very simply: https://youtu.be/M2iKYZzRCUY?si=Xi5wwxzqQuzjWzvc . If you are posting as an individual no need to put your letter or comments on a letterhead. A simple comment opposing the bill is just fine to post.
Zone 0 (Zero) Proposed Landscape Regulations: There is much concern about (and opposition to) proposed STATEWIDE Cal Fire requirements for vegetation clearance in high fire severity zones that were developed based upon the firestorm in Paradise, CA – a town located in a forest very different from Southern California settings. If enacted, the guidelines would create an “ember-resistant zone” within the first five feet of any structures using non-combustible materials like gravel, pavers, or concrete. result in the loss of many mature trees and the habitat of much wildlife. Additionally, the loss of existing fire resistant ground cover, would open the door to the growth of replacement non-native more flammable vegetation.
TAKE ACTIOn: A request has been made to contact the legislators (and Governor) who are considering the proposed rules for clearance of vegetation and trees in high fire severity zones.
The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is soliciting public input and conducting workshops to finalize the regulations. Their website is found at:
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-and-2dii
The Zone /zero Regulation Advisory Committee is hosting a meeting on the Zone 0 proposal Monday 8-18 beginning at 10 am:
Dial In: 1(650) 564-3271 Access Code: 165 308 095#
Register (Audio Only)External Link
To join: https://teams.microsoft.com/dl/launcher/launcher.html?url=%2F_%23%2Fl%2Fmeetup-join%2F19%3Ameeting_NjQwMjJhMDQtNjk5Zi00MDkwLWIyZjMtYmFkZGM3YTNlOGRi%40thread.v2%2F0%3Fcontext%3D%257b%2522Tid%2522%253a%2522447a4ca0-5405-454d-ad68-c98a520261f8%2522%252c%2522Oid%2522%253a%2522222f5f9a-5a40-4b3f-b917-9334715c3fb3%2522%257d%26anon%3Dtrue&type=meetup-join&deeplinkId=bf2ed253-1688-4ff4-a39d-3d7a3ea319e5&directDl=true&msLaunch=true&enableMobilePage=true&suppressPrompt=true
CF 24-1154-S2: Sidewalk and Transit Amenities Program (STAP) / Proposed Interactive Kiosk Program / IKE Smart City / Request for Proposal
The measure was referred BY Council to the Council’s Public Works Committee where it was heard 8-13 (with little notice to the public). At that meeting an amended motion was adopted but it has not yet been posted. That motion is meant to give the City Attorney’s office the lead role in the process to oversee report backs (not the Tourism Dept. who has a too cozy relationship with the vendor IKE Smart Cities to whom the Tourism and Convention Bureau signed a Letter of Intent back in 2017 to give IKE the exclusive rights to a Los Angeles ad kiosk program) with the CAO’s office responsible for evaluating the impact the Kiosk program would have on STAP revenues. Environmental review is also meant to be done.
Take Action: Letters that were previously submitted in opposition to a new sidewalk-based advertising kiosk program to the earlier Council Files 22-1154 and 22-1154-S1 should be resubmitted to the new Council File 22-1154-S2 and new opposition letters submitted. This program will directly compete with the STAP Sidewalk Transit Shelter Amenity Program for advertising revenues, thus undermining STAP’s success and the ability of the City to make good on its pledge to provide shade and shelter for transit riders.
Submit CIS statements as required and public comments to the file: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=22-1154-S2
For your information – as a follow up on group discussion re: high resource (or opportunity) zones:
LA City Planning reference to high opportunity zones:
https://planning.lacity.gov/plans-policies/community-plan-update/housing-element-rezoning-program-news/what-are-higher
The origin of the mapping of high opportunity zones is the State. Here is the State website with the maps created for this year and over time: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
Council File Referrals (incomplete list to get this report out for SB 79 alert!)
ARTICLES OF INTEREST
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/senate-tackles-housing-affordability-crisis-ROAD-to-housing-act/756310/?utm_source=urbanize.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=senate-pushes-bipartisan-bill-to-tackle-housing-affordability&_bhlid=9da9f436c01ec5291afdb3dfa9f8d4d88ccc9f37
Senate tackles housing affordability crisis with bipartisan bill
….. Among its provisions, the bill would
Exempt certain housing projects from environmental reviews previously required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Eliminate the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes, which advocates call a regulatory burden to new construction.
Require the development of guidelines on state and local zoning within three years to “support production of adequate housing to meet the needs of communities and provide housing for individuals at every income level.”
The legislation largely focuses on regulatory changes, but it also establishes an Innovation Fund, a five-year, $200 million grant program for entities that have found demonstrable ways to expand housing supply in their jurisdictions. HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program, which distributes approximately $3.5 billion annually, would also be refocused to favor “localities with above-median housing costs and above-median rates of growth” and put new reporting requirements for grant recipients in place, Reason reported.
https://ericjaye.substack.com/p/california-politicians-define-a-minor?triedRedirect=true
California Politicians Define a Minor Speed Bump as Major Roadblock and Take a Premature Victory Lap on Housing
The Data Clearly Show CEQA Was NOT a Major Barrier to New Housing – But It Is an Easy Excuse for Politicians Afraid to Do the Hard Work of Actually Creating Housing Californians Can Afford.
Eric Jaye / Jul 15, 2025
Echoing the language used by California’s giddy politicians, headline writers called the recent passage of CEQA reform in California “historic,” “transformative,” and even the normally sober CalMatters called it “the holy grail.”
After reading the breathless headlines, readers could logically reach the conclusion that a major barrier to California’s brutally high housing costs had been struck down and more affordable housing was finally on the horizon.
But almost all recent data show that this simplistic conclusion is not correct; that CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) compliance is a relatively minor part of housing costs in California, and pales in comparison to other issues such as construction costs, borrowing costs, building codes, the size and type of homes being built, the demands for higher rates of return by Private Equity investors, government disinvestment in housing, and importantly – land costs.
The elevation of such a minor reform as an “historic” housing solution is deeply consequential if you understand the behavior of politicians and their frequently misaligned incentives. Because giving our political leaders such a major “win” on such a minor issue gives them a pass to take a victory lap instead of taking a data-driven look at how to actually solve the state’s crushing affordable housing crisis.
It is important (as always when considering Sacramento laws) to look beyond the spin to see the data because the same Wall-Street backed developers who championed CEQA reform are not stopping there. They seek near complete deregulation of housing markets. They promise that a revival of Reagan-era economic policies that gives them a blank check to build what they want, wherever they want, without pesky impediments like reasonable affordable housing requirements, could magically solve our housing crisis. And their power grab rests on the provably false premise that housing in California costs so much because of state regulations like CEQA, and local regulations like zoning. [See Endnote on “trickle down” housing.]
Considering that CEQA reform will do so little to make housing more affordable – it is fair to ask: why are the politicians so giddy about it? The answer might be what else is in the bill – which includes sweeping exemptions for industrial uses like data centers and, of great consequence to San Franciscans, a near blanket CEQA exemption to up-zoning. State Senator Scott Wiener even now is carrying a bill that would essentially take away nearly all the tools San Francisco, and other dense cities, use to guide growth to where it makes sense and to negotiate with developers to create more affordable housing. This massive upzoning is now exempt from environmental review – allowing luxury housing developments on nearly every block of every neighborhood with zero plans to address traffic, congestion, costs, and environmental consequences.
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with removing certain CEQA barriers to affordable housing in urban areas with the proper guardrails.
But just weeks before the passage of California’s CEQA reform the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a comprehensive study of housing markets, and how regulatory requirements like CEQA shape housing prices. Their conclusions? Regulations like CEQA had almost no impact at all on housing costs.
The Fed summed it up: “differences in housing supply elasticities (regulations) across U.S. cities are small and quantitatively not important for explaining differences in house price and quantity growth.”
And the authors provided a sharp rebuttal to the conventional wisdom, finding that it was growth in income, not regulations, that drove increases in housing supply. The authors conclude: “Contrary to prevailing beliefs and influential policy narratives, our empirical results consistently demonstrate In other words, housing costs so much in California largely because people make so much in California – and private developers charge what the market will bear.that higher income growth predicts similar growth in house prices, housing quantities, population, and living space per person across more and less housing constrained cities.” In other words, housing costs so much in California largely because people make so much in California – and private developers charge what the market will bear.
The Fed’s study is not alone in reaching the conclusion that the regulatory requirements that are the focus of nearly all of California’s housing debate play just a small part in California’s high housing costs.
The RAND Institute earlier in the year released the first comprehensive study of its kind studying the factors driving housing costs across numerous areas, including Texas, Colorado, and Northern and Southern California.
RAND found that the cost of multi-family construction in Northern California was up to three times the cost of construction in Texas for private developments. After hearing such shocking facts, average voters, encouraged by the massive marketing campaigns funded by private developers, might conclude the difference could be explained by California’s regulatory state.
That’s not what the RAND Report found.
The RAND scholars found that the super majority of the cost differential in housing construction costs were driven NOT by “soft” costs (that include issues such as CEQA delay) but instead by “hard” costs – such as the cost of land, labor and materials.
Drilling down, RAND found just 25 percent of the cost differential between California and Texas in private construction was the result of “soft” costs. And much of those “soft” costs were the local impact fees California municipalities charge for the services new residents require. The balance included the costs of long delays for city permit approvals and city inspections. CEQA was a rounding error in part because CEQA actions are rare. The one definitive review on the prevalence of CEQA use found that just 6% of new housing underwent full Environmental Impact Reports.
Why does this matter so much? Why not just “take the win” on CEQA and move on?
For two very important reasons.
One, the CEQA reform is part of a broader agenda driven by private developers and their allies like State Senator Scott Wiener to explain California’s high housing costs as a result of regulations – and to fuel their efforts to essentially de-regulate housing decisions and hand a blank check to private developers. They are not stopping at CEQA – they want massive up zoning without requiring mitigations like appropriate levels of affordable housing in return (which is essentially a gift of a public resource to landowners that might rival the transfer of wealth we saw with Proposition 13).
And two, we need to understand the psychology of politicians. They want “a win” and the easier the better.
Actually solving the problem of creating affordable housing is truly challenging. You have to lower construction costs, which means sitting down with unions and educators to train new workers and accept new technologies, like modular construction. You have to lower capital (borrowing) costs – which might mean using state borrowing authority, which carries risk. You have to lower “impact” fees – which are the costs cities now have virtually no choice but to charge because of Proposition 13, the so-called “third rail” of California politics few politicians dare to touch. You have to stand up to the most egregious demands of developers, now frequently backed by Private Equity, who give so many millions to political campaigns and demand increasingly high rates of return for investing in new housing. You should take a look at the size and type of housing being built and ask why in fact we have nearly twice the square feet of housing available per person than 50 years ago but still have an affordability crisis (the answer is we are all taking up more space than before for numerous reasons, including financial disincentives to older Californians to leave their existing homes). You have to have funds to pay for the new roads, water, energy, transit, schools, police, firefighters that new residents require (a giant bill the for-profit developers are effectively transferring back to the public). And you have to remember, California once invested over $1 billion per year in affordable housing, funds taken away more than a decade ago and never restored.
These are hard, hard issues. And politicians would rather declare that they have solved the problem, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Doing hard things is hard. Taking a victory lap is easy, particularly with so many well-heeled developer donors and their acolytes sitting in the stands cheering you on.
END NOTE
The developer-backed groups claim simply building more luxury housing makes all housing more affordable in the end because it increases supply. That is false, particularly in the context of global cities like San Francisco, where so much of the new housing simply is purchased by overseas investors. San Francisco will never be able to build enough luxury condos to satisfy the global demand of the wealthy seeking to offshore their assets. The developers call the benefits of building new luxury housing the “filtering effect,” and base their argument on the notion that building housing for the wealthy will help make housing more affordable. This is the exact same argument former President Ronald Reagan made in the 1980s, that cutting taxes for the rich would “trickle down” to the middle and working classes. The acolytes of “Reagonmics” forgot to predict that proceeds from this wealth transfer would not be invested, but frequently hoarded – which is what happened. The developers build luxury housing – and sell it or rent it at luxury rates to meet the luxury market – which is separate from the affordable market. They act like real estate is a depreciating asset – but it is not, it appreciates, and the “old” units don’t get more affordable over time, they get less affordable. The developers talk about the law of supply and demand only when it supports their argument. In San Francisco, for example, a comprehensive nexus study conducted by the Planning Department found that market rate developments needed approximately 30 percent affordable on site to meet affordable demands. Why? Because when you bring in a new supply of high-income residents, they drive demand for service workers. If you don’t create new housing for those service workers, you actually drive up the costs of their housing by building luxury – which is what is happening in San Francisco.
https://www.circlingthenews.com/viewpoint-california-legislators-double-down-on-assault-to-neighborhoods/
Viewpoint: California Legislators Double Down on Assault to Neighborhoods.
Posted on June 6, 2025
Senate Bill 79 Is a Trojan Horse for Overdevelopment
By NICO RUDERMAN
There’s a Senate Bill (SB) moving through Sacramento that would have a drastic impact on communities across California — and everyone in the Palisades needs to pay attention. While it would affect most residential neighborhoods in the state, its most immediate and devastating consequences could be felt in post-disaster recovery zones like Pacific Palisades and Altadena, where land rendered vacant by recent wildfires is now vulnerable to opportunistic overdevelopment.
The bill is called SB 79 and would strip away local control over zoning and land use, and give developers the green light to build 65-foot buildings — six stories — within a half-mile of any major bus or rail stop, even in quiet, low-density, single-family neighborhoods. If developers take advantage of other existing incentives, those buildings could potentially reach 10 or even 15 stories. These oversized buildings would tower over homes with direct views into private backyards, bedrooms, and family spaces. No local review. No parking requirements. No infrastructure review. No compatibility standards. No say from the people who actually live there.
In places like Pacific Palisades and Brentwood, where there are only three routes in and out, this is not a quality-of-life issue, it would be a safety crisis. Traffic is already a daily headache. But during the last wildfire, evacuation routes were choked even with the existing population. Add large-scale developments and thousands more residents with no road expansion? It’s not just a bad idea, it would be another disaster waiting to happen.
Look to Altadena, where the writing’s already on the wall. A recent Los Angeles Times article titled “Unfortunately, Altadena is for sale” revealed that more than 145 fire damaged lots have already been sold, with dozens more in escrow. Developers are moving fast, often through anonymous LLCs, before residents have a chance to rebuild.
And for what? SB 79 includes no affordability mandates. It doesn’t require a single unit to be affordable to the people who need it most—families, essential workers, or displaced fire survivors. It’s not about rebuilding or livability. It’s about enabling developers to build whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.
SB 79 barely passed the State Senate on June 3, after hours of contentious debate. It received only 19 “yes” votes on the first count. But the bill’s author, Senator Scott Wiener (San Francisco), kept the roll open and lobbied for two more votes, eventually squeaking it through by literally one vote. It was a strange tally: some Republicans supported it, while a significant number of Democrats voted no or abstained. Senator Ben Allen was among the six who did not cast a vote. Now the bill heads to the State Assembly, where it must be stopped before it becomes law.
Wiener is promoting SB 79 as a fix for the so-called “housing and homelessness crisis,” but that framing is false. Housing affordability and homelessness are separate issues, and this bill doesn’t solve either. In fact, SB 79 could make the affordability crisis even worse, by driving up land values and encouraging luxury development in high-opportunity areas, while doing nothing to help those actually struggling to find housing.
If this bill passes, it would be devastating for communities across Senate District 24, from Rancho Palos Verdes and the South Bay, through Santa Monica, Brentwood, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood, and into the Conejo Valley, including Agoura Hills, Calbasas, and Westlake Village. The damage wouldn’t be limited to one neighborhood. It would spread statewide.
The Bill has now been sent to the Assembly and has had its first reading. Stop this now. Call your Assemblymember, Jacqui Irwin. Contact Governor Gavin Newsom. You can also reach out to every other State Assemblymember and tell them how the Palisades feels about this.
I’m running for State Senate because Sacramento has lost touch with the communities it claims to represent. If I had been your state senator this year, I would have voted a firm and unequivocal no on SB 79—and I would have worked with my colleagues to explain just how destructive this bill would be, especially for vulnerable areas still recovering from fire and trauma. Legislating without understanding the terrain puts neighborhoods and lives at risk.
SB 79 is not a housing solution. It’s a gift to developers—and a threat to the safety, character, livability, and autonomy of neighborhoods across California. Let’s stop it before it becomes law.
https://utahvanguard.medium.com/a-critical-examination-of-abundance-yimby-9c0bbd58b26e
A Critical Examination of Abundance/YIMBY
The Utah Vanguard
This is a follow up to a recent post.
The discourse surrounding development and housing affordability often finds itself at a contentious crossroads, epitomized by the rise of “YIMBY” (Yes In My Backyard) or “Abundance” activism. While seemingly advocating for increased housing supply, a closer look at the core tenets and outcomes, as presented by its critics, reveals a more complex agenda: one primarily focused on maximizing developer profits through land value extraction and rent appreciation, rather than genuinely addressing the needs of working-class communities for affordable housing and universally accessible amenities.
The foundational principle driving the Abundance/YIMBY movement rests on a seemingly straightforward economic premise, that is, an unadulterated increase in the sheer volume of housing units will inherently, almost magically, precipitate a decrease in housing prices. This perspective champions a decidedly simplified interpretation of economic dynamics, asserting that the immutable laws of supply and demand will invariably guide costs downwards, making housing more accessible and affordable for everyone. The narrative suggests a direct, almost linear correlation: more homes equate to lower prices, a universal panacea for the housing crisis.
This robust conviction, nevertheless, often leads to a swift and rather dismissive categorization of any dissenting voices. Individuals or groups who dare to raise legitimate objections, voice concerns about the character of proposed developments and concerns with respect to social equitability, or question the broader implications of rapid, undifferentiated growth are promptly branded as “NIMBYs” (Not In My Backyard). This label carries with it a potent pejorative connotation, implying that these individuals are economically illiterate, selfishly motivated by a desire to protect their own property values, or fundamentally resistant to societal progress. The charge of being a NIMBY effectively shuts down substantive discourse, transforming complex planning challenges into an obtuse dichotomy of “pro-growth” versus “anti-growth.”
This rhetorical strategy serves a dual purpose: it not only marginalizes those who advocate for nuanced approaches to development — such as considering infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, community character, or the actual affordability of new units — but it also stifles genuine critical discussion about the underlying assumptions of the YIMBY approach. By painting all opposition with the broad brush of “NIMBYism,” the movement sidesteps deeper examinations of issues like the role of speculation in housing markets, the impact of luxury developments on overall affordability, the displacement of existing communities, or the potential for increased density to strain public services without commensurate investment. The accusation effectively creates an intellectual no-fly zone, where questioning the efficacy of an unbridled supply-side solution is equated with a moral failing or an ignorance of basic principles. This dismissal, therefore, does not just silence critics; it actively obstructs a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the multifaceted challenges inherent in addressing the housing crisis, preventing a more nuanced dialogue about what constitutes sustainable neighborhoods.
If the pace for critical discussion is maximized, a widespread understanding would reveal the significant flaws in “sheer quantity” logic of the Abundance/YIMBY ideology. It’s rehashed supply-side or “trickle-down” economics and, thus, ontologically and epistemologically unintelligent. The dynamics of supply and demand are not natural but are, in fact, institutionally configurated. This means that what is often articulated as “market forces” are, in fact, shaped and manipulated by policies, regulations, and power structures. The housing crisis does not merely reflect shortage of units, but manifests a consequence of “constructed scarcity”, that is, a deliberate or, maybe indirect, outcome of planning that prioritizes real estate profit. The notion that simply building more will automatically make housing affordable is psychologically reductionist.
There is a profound over-reliance, perhaps even a deliberate one, on theoretically flawed and empirically untenable economic models. Among the most prominent of these is the Marshallian Cross, which depicts the intersection of idealized supply and demand curves. While these models can, perhaps, serve as useful pedagogical tools for illustrating basic principles in an abstract, simplified vacuum, their application to the multifaceted realities of the housing market, and to the broader contours of social reality, proves severely limited. The primary failing of such models is their inability to account for the complex, historically-specific, social, political, and institutional forces that profoundly shape both the supply of and demand for housing. They abstract away from the very mechanisms that create disparities, like discriminatory labor markets and wage inequalities.
The relentless pursuit of profit when coupled with the significant ability of developers and powerful interests to influence crucial regulatory frameworks like zoning and development policies, can lead to deeply problematic outcomes. This potent combination results in a situation where the construction of new housing supply disproportionately, if not exclusively, caters to more privileged segments of the population, as a result of high price setting that pushes out those with modest incomes. Without an effective regulatory framework to ensure broadly shared prosperity, developers, driven by the highest potential returns, will prioritize luxury condominiums and expensive single-family homes & apartments, neglecting the urgent need for affordable housing in perpetuity. By focusing on high-value properties, such development inevitably drives up land values across an entire area. As land becomes more expensive, the cost of all subsequent development increases, further pushing affordable housing out of reach. This process frequently leads to significant displacement, as rising rents and property taxes force long-term lower income residents out of their communities, i.e. gentrification. The cycle is self-reinforcing: the more the created market caters to the affluent, the higher land values climb, and the less viable truly affordable housing becomes, creating a widening chasm between the housing available and the housing needed by the majority of the population.
Despite claims to the contrary, the primary aim of the Abundance/YIMBY ideology is not social equity, but the reinforcement of social exclusion.
David Fields is a Utah economist whose primary work centers on the role of social provisioning with respect to economic development, locally, nationally, and internationally. He is also a business and economics writer for the Utah Vanguard.
https://la.urbanize.city/post/mixed-use-buildings-ditch-ground-floor-retail-add-more-housing?utm_source=urbanize.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=la-developers-turn-retail-to-housing-in-adaptive-reuse-shift&_bhlid=2f5522350a47d214a2739174af0982b9e44e20af
Mised-use buildings ditch ground-floor retail to add more housing
Smaller adaptive reuse projects add modest density to existing structures
The article discusses how with reduced demand for retail space, developers are converting ground floor retail into apartments taking advantage of State law that allows for mixed use projects to incorporate ADUs and to add additional housing.
Editor’s note: On active pedestrian corridors where there are surrounding retail businesses, there is a need to maintain pedestrian interest in ground floor uses. Is it possible to have a City measure that takes into account the need to maintain a percentage of active pedestrian uses or retail for projects with large footprints – to offset the possibility of having a long expanse of ground floor “dead” residential is space which may contribute to a failed commercial corridor environment.
SB 79 SAMPLE letter to Mayor:
Send to: karen.bass@lacity.org
cc. jenny.delwood@lacity.org, marissa.bowman@lacity.org
Dear Mayor Bass,
Will you stand up for LA and oppose SB 79 loud and clear?
With a full-on assault of our neighborhoods by real estate investors who want to deregulate our zoning so they can financially benefit by building apartments in the midst of single-family neighborhoods, we need you to voice concern. This bill rezones neighborhoods randomly and can generate enormous unneeded housing capacity from any qualifying bus stop. As much as 42,000 apartment units will be permitted per every qualifying bus or transit stop. How is this even reasonable? Many of our small communities will be wiped out.
Will you speak up and support us? Please oppose SB 79 and voice your support for the Council File Motion 25-0002-S19.
Sincerely,
(be sure to sign your name
This report does not necessarily reflect a position published by any neighborhood council. It carries the material selected by a neighborhood council land use volunteer who serves as its editor.Will be posted here shortly.
Also, this is the link to the meeting: https://youtu.be/xAo3V4Dqlqc