Yet another case of a property owner filing a development application and having someone maliciously file a historic preservation application on their behalf, against their will. This time, a former Chili Bowl of such great historic value that it's currently a sushi restaurant.
This whole building is like 1400 sq ft. If we're so dedicated to this petty preservation we at least need to figure out how to move these buildings somewhere they're not standing in the way of homes for dozens of LA households.
Also I totally missed that in their letter to the city the owner says this is an affordable development. It's not clear to me if they just mean the 2-3 low income units required by TOC or if it's actually 100% affordable. Either way it's bad, but REALLY bad if the latter.
I have a new paper at the @UCLALewisCenter! This one's pretty wonky, but I hope it helps illuminate how the timing of fees and other development costs really matters — a dollar paid today is very different from a dollar paid 3 or 5 years from now. lewis.ucla.edu/research/reduc…
The gist of the paper is this: Many development fees are paid early, at building permit issuance, with equity or debt. By the time devs recoup that expense they might be paying back 150% of that amount to their investors or lenders. This makes it more expensive to build housing.
I should note that, in general, this applies to for-profit as well as non-profit developers.
Americans are set to buy 170+ million new cars between now and 2030. At an average cost of around $38K, that's about $6.5 trillion—before accounting for gas (or electricity), insurance, repairs, etc. Imagine what people could do with that money if we made driving optional. 1/
Right now most people feel they have no realistic alternative but to buy a car, and our politicians are doing virtually nothing to change that. Their inaction is going to cost us trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and, ultimately, our planet's ecosystem. 2/
It's so frustrating to see how much we spend on transportation investments we all hate—cars and more traffic—and no urgency to change it. Even the money we spend on it in LA is laughably small compared to what its residents spend on cars—because they feel it's necessary. 3/
Quick thread: I strongly support Ellis Act reform. We should compensate tenants much better than we do today when they're displaced to build higher-density housing, and that new housing should be held to minimum standards of affordability -- otherwise why redevelop at all?
The goal of Ellis Act reform shouldn't be to stop redevelopment, but to discourage it where the difference between existing bldgs and future projects isn't that great. Replace a duplex with 40 units including 6 affordable? Awesome. Replace 20 units with the same? Not so much.
One very important note: This can't be used as an excuse for demonizing developers who build something we desperately need: housing. Even market-rate housing is almost always accompanied by affordable units nowadays, and it costs the city nothing; we need it all.