Rezoning not required to produce needed “affordable” housing

| July 29, 2021 | 0 Comments

WATCH the potential effects of Sacramento’s bad legislative proposals that are currently under consideration.

The Larchmont Chronicle and our readers, I hope, are grateful to Hancock Park neighbor Marilyn Wells for contributing six informative columns, over the past six months, dealing with the omnipresent and critical issue of unfortunate people living on the streets and sidewalks. Her final column appears on Page ­­­­­­ 2 of Section 2, and I commend it to our readers.

I absolutely agree with Wells that affordable housing must be built throughout the City of Los Angeles. However, I take issue with her suggestion that zoning changes are necessary for this to happen.

What really is required is for government, primarily state government, to provide taxpayers’ money to support construction of such affordable (below-market-rate) housing.

Although a particular state senator from San Francisco seemingly has a personal vendetta against owner-occupied, single-family homes and neighborhoods, his approach of shoving apartment buildings onto those existing residential streets is totally unnecessary to create needed, additional multi-family housing.

In fact, what most certainly will be shoved into city-center single-family neighborhoods —  like those surrounding Larchmont Boulevard — would be high-end duplexes and expensive “big white box” condominiums or small-lot subdivision townhouses.

For-profit developers are not going to build inexpensive housing in an area where land values are so high.

Zoned land exists already

The simple fact of the matter is that, throughout the City of Los Angeles, there exists underutilized land along major streets and boulevards (see, for example, many underutilized commercial blocks on Third Street, Beverly Boulevard, La Brea Avenue, Sixth Street, etc.) that already are zoned for commercial or multi-family residential uses. This land already can be (and is being) developed with needed apartments. Without public subsidy, however, these projects will continue to be expensive, market-rate apartments like those our readers have seen arising in recent years.

Anyone can see that Los Angeles has the already-zoned land. (View all the multi-family and commercial parcels in our area: There is no need to destroy single-family neighborhoods.

A 2019 McKinsey Global Institute study regarding affordable housing in Los Angeles ( shows that, even for the excessively high growth projections (Regional Housing Needs Assessment — “RHNA”) dictated from Sacramento, every bit of “housing needs“ for our city ( can be met without changing any single-family zoning or disrupting any single-family neighborhoods (McKinsey page 28).

Those are the facts. And any astute observer will see that multi-family buildings already are being built, slowly but surely, on underutilized commercial portions of streets such as Third and Sixth.

RENDERING of 437 N. Irving Blvd., with possible new neighbors.

Sacramento’s latest “bad bills”

This year’s bad legislation from Sacramento, seeking to dictate the undoing of single-family streets and neighborhoods, has yet to be approved by the full State Assembly.

SB 9, SB 10 and SB 478 were written by, and are financed by, builders and investors who produce and manage lucrative, not affordable, housing. For the past three years, similar bad bills have been defeated in Sacramento. There still is time (but not much) to stop this year’s greedy and overreaching special-interest legislation that will not result in affordable housing.

Legislature’s recess ending

After the State Assembly comes back from recess on Mon., Aug. 16, there will be an opportunity for a majority of those elected Assemblymembers to vote “no” — to reject, once again, this petulantly vindictive and confiscatory legislation emanating from State Sen. Scott Wiener and his allies.

Do not be fooled. These bills are not designed to, nor will they result in, needed affordable housing. These proposed Senate Bills (already adopted in the Senate) will make windfall profits for property owners and developers while markedly decreasing the quality of life on owner-occupied, family-oriented, low-density neighborhood streets throughout the State of California.

CLICK IMAGE above to visit Livable California’s website to learn more about how you can oppose SB 9, SB 10 and SB 478.

And what can we do?

We Mid-Wilshire residents absolutely should make telephone calls to, and request meetings and conversations with, our two local Assemblymembers — while they are back here in their districts until mid-August.

Our two representatives are: Richard Bloom, Assembly District 50 (basically Plymouth to the west), local telephone number 310-450-0041; and Miguel Santiago, Assembly District 53 (basically Plymouth to the east), local telephone number 213-620-4646.

If you know other Assemblymembers, anywhere in California, call them too!

Ask them to vote NO on SB 9, SB 10 and SB 478.

For additional information, take a look at an article in the specialist publication, “The Planning Report,” written recently by Fifth District City Councilmember Paul Koretz. This excellent, current commentary on the three bad bills also urges us residents to reach out to our Assemblymembers. See:

In addition, many of our local homeowner associations are members of United Neighbors, a Sherman Oaks-based community group opposed to the bad bills and also a repository of excellent explanatory information at:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Category: News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *