These preposterous 'land acknowledgement' statements are part of the larger libel against the entire United States that promotes the idea that the nation exists on 'stolen' land. If the armies of vagrants they tolerate in West Hollywood are to be called 'un-landed' then aren't today's unlanded the same as yesterday's unlanded? Hey, morally superior people of West Hollywood, give the unlanded your land, and the homes on them. Then, those vagrants on the sidewalk will be landed, and in a home: YOURS. They won't do this of course, and they'll find a way to undermine that 'affordable' housing project as well. They don't want their maids living among them, and they don't want the 'homeless' to be West Hollywood residents either. If those natives from the past somehow showed up in the present to claim their land, they'd get the same treatment.
Just go to a theater production in Manhattan - before the curtain rises, you get the standard "land acknowledgement", which is becoming as common as the national anthem before ball games. Didn't Peter Minuit buy the Island for 24 bucks?
Yes. And had the Lenape listened to their financial advisor and put their money into a 401k with an average return of 6.5%, it would be worth $2 trillion today, basically the collective value of Manhattan real estate.
Alas, I heard they ignored that advice and backed a government supported offshore wind farm that went belly up.
No, they took their $24 and sqandered it. Or maybe they had a nice dinner at TGIF. I dont really recall. But clearly a lesson for all of us on compound interest.
We got the same at my daughter's USC graduation from President Carol Folt. It seemed inappropriate to me, as if she was forced to make such a statement.
California ALWAYS has a housing "crisis." Texas does not. California zones the s--- out of every inch of land. Texas does not. People are leaving California because of the cost of living, especially housing (when it's even available), keeps rising. Where do they go? Among other places, they go to Texas. The cost of living in Texas is lower and this is especially true in the housing market. Big government, even at the local level, loves to pass zoning laws. Cui bono? It's Occam's Razor. Drop the zoning laws and home prices go down as new houses go up.
I have some friends who live in Texas, some of them in Austin, where they talk about being priced out of their neighborhoods that they have lived in for decades. From the way they describe the situation, it sounds like they are turning into Texas SF . . . I teach at a middle school in SF Bay Area, and I can't even afford to buy a simple regular house since a simple regular house goes for a million or so.
Austin may have a crisis but where I live, in Houston, they still build houses in sufficient volume to meet demand. The housing isn’t free, but it’s in range, and the neighborhoods are beautiful. I lived in LA, had a good job, and still had to rent. The cost of a house in Houston is less than half the average for a similar house in LA. My friends that stayed in LA, renters for life. In the same time frame, I bought a house and paid it off.
I checked out Houston many years ago when I was looking to move. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that affordable housing was plentiful, and part of the reason was that Houston is so huge and spread out.
I didn't move there because I couldn't deal with the two foot-long cockroaches in the shower (I'm exaggerating only a little bit), and the heat that made me feel like my head was inside an oven every time I got out of my car. But the people were super friendly and the barbecue was awesome.
Houston is the size of the state of Rhode island and getting bigger. And, they are building the roads to handle the traffic and the houses follow. Bug spray keeps the roaches outside. You can get used to the heat, which is only present May to Sept. And the BBQ is just the beginning. Houston is the most ethnically diverse metro in the USA so no matter what you want to eat or try, it's here.
Thanks for filling in some more of the gaps. When we were visiting, there was a heavy downpour and the streets flooded. Cars were floating down the street. We were told that the sewer system wasn't great. But this was in the late 80s. I assume they've fixed that problem by now. I wouldn't mind visiting again.
"Homeless" is a misnomer. This is mental illness, and severe drug addiction, and it isn't solved with more houses that none of these people can afford. They need treatment, followed by make work programs.
In terms of building low income housing in high income neighbourhoods, I agree with the home owners, as they earned the right to live in the communities that they established. The root cause of all of this is government meddling, with ever increasing taxes, fees and levies that hinder development and make it impossible for free market to thrive. If government cut red tape, and allowed developers to build, then the free market would balance itself. Economics 101...Supply and demand. The maid can charge more for her commute, but isn't entitled to live in the same neighbourhoods, and the homeowners might just have to pay more for her to drive out. Socialism is a failed experiment.
I would argue that there are two many categories of homeless. You are right that one category is comprised of mentally ill, drug addicts etc. But there's also a large category of people for home lack of affordable housing is the main cause.
The two groups need radically different solutions. For the 2nd group, we need to build, build, build. That's what will drive housing costs down. Moreover, that will help a lot of other people struggling to make ends meet because of the cost of housing.
And really what that means is setting housing policy at the state level so NIMYBYism can't stop development
I get the NIMBY hypocrisy, when it comes to wanting to be the last in before the gates close for all others, but that relates to densification and overall development. Build more homes everywhere, and let the free market decide what they're worth. Naturally, certain areas will garner higher values, that will lower with an excess in supply. However, forcing low income housing into established wealthier communities and neighbourhoods is not a free market, regardless of the tinge socialist guilt.
I think this is a bit reaching. I’ve lived in LA for a long time and West Hollywood, being an independent city and small one at that, does have bad traffic and the traffic logjam of trying to get through that area, whether on Sunset, Santa Monica, or Fountain has gotten worse over the years. I have to add that a lot of those new apartments that go up have units that end up being converted to Air BnBs- especially in the Hollywood and downtown area. With regard to all the homeless in the city, many are from out of town and out of state. Proper thing to do would to treat them for addiction, deal with their mental health issues, and get them into a job program. Unfortunately, many don’t want to give up their ability to get high/drunk, thus disqualifying them from entering housing provided by the city and county.
Does any municipality have the resources to treat for addiction and mental health issues the armies of homeless that wash ashore? I think not. We have vagrancy laws because it used to be acceptable to acknowledge that there are some people who would rather not put in the effort to keep a job, and a place to live, and if they gave up and were vagrant, they were arrested. See the lyrics to King of the Road; two hours of pushing broom kept these men out of jail. I doubt there is an addition and mental health problem that jail and a stint on a road crew won't fix. Lacking that, a bus ticket to somewhere else would be the next best thing. At some point, these people have to be held responsible for their own condition, and made to shape up. Noting else is working.
I'm a developer in Northern California. I don't mind zoning. I like not being Houston. But there will never be affordable housing in California unless things change that will never change such as 1. $100,000 building permit fees. 2. Up to $20,000 per house to mitigate for species that are endangered but appear to be everywhere. 3. Mandatory union labor to build a house for gosh sake. 4. Rampant NIMBYISM. 5. Environmental regulations that drive up the cost of housing. 6. Adding the cost of affordable housing to the price of market rate housing. The laws of supply and demand are evident. We need hundreds of thousands of additional homes, many in the coastal urban elitist areas where NYMBISM is rampant. We won't get them. It costs twice as much to build here as most places. We need to zone more land for housing, decrease regulations, allow the private sector to build so that supply/demand can regulate. Not in my lifetime.
Makes sense. It is like gasoline prices - we have taxes added on top of baseline gasoline price in California, that we don't see in other states. I saw a picture of one of my friends visiting South Dakota, the price is less than $3 per gal while across the bridge in Palo Alto, it's $7 per gal.
Absolutely, where is the outrage over $7 per gallon gas? Every time gas goes up, it seems to increase by about $1 over the previous high. We went ballistic at $5 and complained at $6 but now at $7 we just pay. Next year it will be $8 and then $9 and then we'll all be driving an electric car. Housing and energy seem to share the same problems. Overregulation, taxation and scarcity of supply.
Oh my…. The State of California dictates what communities can and cannot do with their communities. The progressives want affordable housing, but not where they live. The City Council folds Left on all issues. Reminds me of how the elite on Martha’s Vineyard got rid of illegal migrants in a nano-second, yet every one of them likely votes Democrat and spews so-called “Progressive” and MSNBC talking points.. Yuck.
The author stretches some points to make the community look rather stupid, but reading other articles about the project suggest that there are real concerns that are not solely exclusionary ala Martha's Vineyard.
This project is not focused on the homeless encampments so why the sensational picture of the homeless camps? The building is for low to moderate income with emphasis for suporting those with special needs and those in the work force.
The parking for 89 units is for 66 vehicles and includes parking for nonresidents (there is a church next door). This is a "green demand" that is dictated by the state and not the community. Agreeing with your comment that communities in CA have rules that are created by nonelected committees that do not live near the areas that they rule.
A seven story building with subterranean parking near a fault line is concerning. Below ground parking lots have fewer supports and in previous significant earthquakes the buildings have "pancaked" or collapsed into itself. This is not to imply in anyway that there would be use of unsatisfactory materials (like on the new Bay Bridge) or incompetent inspectors/engineers (like San Francisco's Millennium Tower sinking and tilting) and citizens should conclude that a hurried project by a developer would meet all safety concerns. Insert a huge grimace and wink here!
The author confuses low income housing with temporary housing for the homeless. The unhoused issue is so extremely complicated and umbrellas those in financial stress , with the mentally ill, and the drug addicted….further complications and clouding the issue is not needed! The goal of unhoused programs is to support and make the transition to permanent housing possible, but the implication that low income housing is the first placement is usually incorrect.
The low income housing is theoretically a place to live for those in the community who are employed or have an income source, but cannot afford housing in the community. It should be housing for maids, teachers, civil workers, restaurant workers, those on social security, etc. But low income housing guidelines from the state of CA also have green goals. An example is limited or no parking for the units. This means that the maid with the car commuting hours may not be able to park at the housing unit.
The green goal for low income housing is to support a person giving up their car and using public transportation to decrease pollution levels, congestion, etc. Public transportation in many CA communities is not reliable or unavailable. It could also be suggested that a maid in W Hollywood with a car is more employable because they can easily access many residents, service businesses after hours, and transport their equipment. Parking off site is often difficult since few parking spaces are available that are without time limits, free, and secure. Gascon and Price and the current laws have essentially legalized breaking into cars and removing parts from cars which further complicates the need and expense of being the working poor.
The racist, progressive people of Palo Alto California implement their racist policies by making below market rate housing "for school teachers". "Low Income" (not that teachers are low income) people can live near them--but only if they have Master's degrees. The janitor who cleans their kids shit off the bathroom floor? Let him live somewhere else.
(It's even worse, of course, because the teachers get the imputed income from the discounted rent and mortgages tax free! So they can cry poverty and get even more tax dollars even though you and I would need to earn $500,000/year to buy equivalent benefits.)
Always thought it was interesting that the progressives of Palo Alto have never thought of the value of expanding their school district (25 k per student) to include the diversity of the students in East Palo Alto (15k per student) to obtain equal education opportunities. Palo Alto/East Palo Alto looks like apartheid policies but Palo Alto talks like precious DEI
This title is deceptive. Fake news. Renting in LA is a disaster. It's a very violent, racist (towards white and other) city and degenerative city. You wouldn't know this unless you live there.
These people aren't interested in solutions; they're interested in virtue signaling. Although I agree that existing residents have a right to live in the community of their choice, they should just shut up about caring about low income housing. The worst are those who complained it wouldn't be good enough. Just be honest - you paid a lot for your home so you would live among other rich people, not the poors!
Here's a news item from TFP today - "An empty office tower in San Francisco that was once valued at $62 million just sold for $6.5 million." If these hypocrites in California really wanted to address the "housing crisis," the city would scoop it up, waive zoning restrictions, and find a way to convert it into residential housing. I can hear the "but, but, but..." already.
P.S. Ben, this segment needed more man-on-the-street.
This is a terribly misleading and simplistic article. I'm an affordable housing advocate with extensive experience in LA and am familiar with this project and the non-profit developer, which is a terrific organization. My haircutter lives next door and opposed this project due to its size and other factors, not its population. Yes, there are serious NIMBY problems everywhere. Per those opposing, this project is 7 stories high where no other building is close to that height (they are 3-4) and it is next to a church that it will dwarf. Of the 89 units, 62 units (69%) are 303 square foot studios intended to house 2+ people. Underground parking consists of 66 stalls for 200+ residents (most of which are for economy sized vehicles), 18 of which are to be shared with the church, further limiting available spots. Street parking and traffic is a very challenging in the area. There are other concerns. So, it's not such a simple situation. There are serious and genuine "quality of life" issues to be taken into account in these matters. We desperately need more affordable housing for both the working poor and those with special needs but dismissing and mocking people for raising these issues is not productive or helpful.
In a market economy, devoid of government involvement and tinkering, everyone would have housing.
If there is demand for housing, it will get built unless government steps in to restrict it through its insidious hurdles and policies. Government involvement should be limited to supporting those buying or renting, not building or managing.
It runs against the market to insert low cost housing into expensive neighborhoods. Location determines price. Want better housing? Work harder, pay attention in school, etc.
I benefitted from living with two parents who prioritized education and modeled working, frugality and citizenship. They were very poor immigrants, owned a laundry and only one finished high school. I and my friends in similar situations all succeeded in life, earning doctoral and professional degrees and/or owning businesses. Our parents did not receive government supports and we worked our ways through colleges and/or received scholarships.
I used to take girlfriends to see the home and neighborhood where I lived from 3rd grade through high school. No matter the degree of success I attained in life, I was proud of living in a country that allowed one to improve his life through work and education.
Imposing housing where it does not belong is an aspect of our country taking the social welfare path instead of the work hard and study path of personal responsibility and achievement.
John Heilman, the councilmember who casts some shade on the NIMBY at the very end of the video, is a longtime lecturer at USC Law School for the subject of Community Property. He was a GREAT law professor and I nailed that subject on the Bar exam thanks to him. He was actually Mayor of West Hollywood back in the late 1990s. He was funny, smart and no surprise he had a whip-smart comment at the end of this video.
I read the story - it was a great story. I wanted to share it with some people I work with, but the link seems dead or misdirected. Can someone check it?
I can't presume to know Ben's motives, but if this is mostly a skewering of progressive hypocrisy, then have at it. But the demurrals being voiced do point to valid concerns, even if the WeHo lefties are ashamed to own up to it. We lived there for 25 years, from the time we fell off the turnip truck barely in our 20s until the day we couldn't bear another minute of the loud, vulgar, New Orleans-but-without-the-good-food chaos. I understand the concern of residents who just want to have what is still recognizable as an American standard of living. Striving to preserve that standard isn't a vice; going vertical and packing them in isn't a self-evident virtue. Ultimately I think those in WeHo hoping to preserve their status quo are going to have to move--they just haven't admitted it to themselves yet. Intolerable density is coming, and it's going to look more like Rio than Tokyo.
These preposterous 'land acknowledgement' statements are part of the larger libel against the entire United States that promotes the idea that the nation exists on 'stolen' land. If the armies of vagrants they tolerate in West Hollywood are to be called 'un-landed' then aren't today's unlanded the same as yesterday's unlanded? Hey, morally superior people of West Hollywood, give the unlanded your land, and the homes on them. Then, those vagrants on the sidewalk will be landed, and in a home: YOURS. They won't do this of course, and they'll find a way to undermine that 'affordable' housing project as well. They don't want their maids living among them, and they don't want the 'homeless' to be West Hollywood residents either. If those natives from the past somehow showed up in the present to claim their land, they'd get the same treatment.
Just go to a theater production in Manhattan - before the curtain rises, you get the standard "land acknowledgement", which is becoming as common as the national anthem before ball games. Didn't Peter Minuit buy the Island for 24 bucks?
Yes. And had the Lenape listened to their financial advisor and put their money into a 401k with an average return of 6.5%, it would be worth $2 trillion today, basically the collective value of Manhattan real estate.
Alas, I heard they ignored that advice and backed a government supported offshore wind farm that went belly up.
Live and learn.
So you're saying New York owes the Lenape two trillion dollars? I'm listening.
No, they took their $24 and sqandered it. Or maybe they had a nice dinner at TGIF. I dont really recall. But clearly a lesson for all of us on compound interest.
We got the same at my daughter's USC graduation from President Carol Folt. It seemed inappropriate to me, as if she was forced to make such a statement.
California ALWAYS has a housing "crisis." Texas does not. California zones the s--- out of every inch of land. Texas does not. People are leaving California because of the cost of living, especially housing (when it's even available), keeps rising. Where do they go? Among other places, they go to Texas. The cost of living in Texas is lower and this is especially true in the housing market. Big government, even at the local level, loves to pass zoning laws. Cui bono? It's Occam's Razor. Drop the zoning laws and home prices go down as new houses go up.
I have some friends who live in Texas, some of them in Austin, where they talk about being priced out of their neighborhoods that they have lived in for decades. From the way they describe the situation, it sounds like they are turning into Texas SF . . . I teach at a middle school in SF Bay Area, and I can't even afford to buy a simple regular house since a simple regular house goes for a million or so.
Austin may have a crisis but where I live, in Houston, they still build houses in sufficient volume to meet demand. The housing isn’t free, but it’s in range, and the neighborhoods are beautiful. I lived in LA, had a good job, and still had to rent. The cost of a house in Houston is less than half the average for a similar house in LA. My friends that stayed in LA, renters for life. In the same time frame, I bought a house and paid it off.
I checked out Houston many years ago when I was looking to move. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that affordable housing was plentiful, and part of the reason was that Houston is so huge and spread out.
I didn't move there because I couldn't deal with the two foot-long cockroaches in the shower (I'm exaggerating only a little bit), and the heat that made me feel like my head was inside an oven every time I got out of my car. But the people were super friendly and the barbecue was awesome.
Houston is the size of the state of Rhode island and getting bigger. And, they are building the roads to handle the traffic and the houses follow. Bug spray keeps the roaches outside. You can get used to the heat, which is only present May to Sept. And the BBQ is just the beginning. Houston is the most ethnically diverse metro in the USA so no matter what you want to eat or try, it's here.
Thanks for filling in some more of the gaps. When we were visiting, there was a heavy downpour and the streets flooded. Cars were floating down the street. We were told that the sewer system wasn't great. But this was in the late 80s. I assume they've fixed that problem by now. I wouldn't mind visiting again.
You nailed it.
I did a DuckDuckGo search for the terms "Texas housing crisis" which seems to undermine your thesis. Google showed similar results.
Not arguing that California isn't worse, just that the term Texas hosing crisis seems used by many so it can't be nirvana.
"Homeless" is a misnomer. This is mental illness, and severe drug addiction, and it isn't solved with more houses that none of these people can afford. They need treatment, followed by make work programs.
In terms of building low income housing in high income neighbourhoods, I agree with the home owners, as they earned the right to live in the communities that they established. The root cause of all of this is government meddling, with ever increasing taxes, fees and levies that hinder development and make it impossible for free market to thrive. If government cut red tape, and allowed developers to build, then the free market would balance itself. Economics 101...Supply and demand. The maid can charge more for her commute, but isn't entitled to live in the same neighbourhoods, and the homeowners might just have to pay more for her to drive out. Socialism is a failed experiment.
I would argue that there are two many categories of homeless. You are right that one category is comprised of mentally ill, drug addicts etc. But there's also a large category of people for home lack of affordable housing is the main cause.
The two groups need radically different solutions. For the 2nd group, we need to build, build, build. That's what will drive housing costs down. Moreover, that will help a lot of other people struggling to make ends meet because of the cost of housing.
And really what that means is setting housing policy at the state level so NIMYBYism can't stop development
I get the NIMBY hypocrisy, when it comes to wanting to be the last in before the gates close for all others, but that relates to densification and overall development. Build more homes everywhere, and let the free market decide what they're worth. Naturally, certain areas will garner higher values, that will lower with an excess in supply. However, forcing low income housing into established wealthier communities and neighbourhoods is not a free market, regardless of the tinge socialist guilt.
They aren't forcing them in. They're just allowing them to get built
I think this is a bit reaching. I’ve lived in LA for a long time and West Hollywood, being an independent city and small one at that, does have bad traffic and the traffic logjam of trying to get through that area, whether on Sunset, Santa Monica, or Fountain has gotten worse over the years. I have to add that a lot of those new apartments that go up have units that end up being converted to Air BnBs- especially in the Hollywood and downtown area. With regard to all the homeless in the city, many are from out of town and out of state. Proper thing to do would to treat them for addiction, deal with their mental health issues, and get them into a job program. Unfortunately, many don’t want to give up their ability to get high/drunk, thus disqualifying them from entering housing provided by the city and county.
Does any municipality have the resources to treat for addiction and mental health issues the armies of homeless that wash ashore? I think not. We have vagrancy laws because it used to be acceptable to acknowledge that there are some people who would rather not put in the effort to keep a job, and a place to live, and if they gave up and were vagrant, they were arrested. See the lyrics to King of the Road; two hours of pushing broom kept these men out of jail. I doubt there is an addition and mental health problem that jail and a stint on a road crew won't fix. Lacking that, a bus ticket to somewhere else would be the next best thing. At some point, these people have to be held responsible for their own condition, and made to shape up. Noting else is working.
Hypocrisy is funny and even kind of cute!
Vote blue, no matter who!
Go Joe, go!
Trump said things about pussies... that "trumps" everything!
Vote blue, no matter who!
When I say "Kamala" you say "K!"
When I say "Kamala" you say "K!"
When I say "Kamala" you say "K!"
I'm a developer in Northern California. I don't mind zoning. I like not being Houston. But there will never be affordable housing in California unless things change that will never change such as 1. $100,000 building permit fees. 2. Up to $20,000 per house to mitigate for species that are endangered but appear to be everywhere. 3. Mandatory union labor to build a house for gosh sake. 4. Rampant NIMBYISM. 5. Environmental regulations that drive up the cost of housing. 6. Adding the cost of affordable housing to the price of market rate housing. The laws of supply and demand are evident. We need hundreds of thousands of additional homes, many in the coastal urban elitist areas where NYMBISM is rampant. We won't get them. It costs twice as much to build here as most places. We need to zone more land for housing, decrease regulations, allow the private sector to build so that supply/demand can regulate. Not in my lifetime.
Makes sense. It is like gasoline prices - we have taxes added on top of baseline gasoline price in California, that we don't see in other states. I saw a picture of one of my friends visiting South Dakota, the price is less than $3 per gal while across the bridge in Palo Alto, it's $7 per gal.
Sigh, pay less in Hawaii for gas than parts of California.
Absolutely, where is the outrage over $7 per gallon gas? Every time gas goes up, it seems to increase by about $1 over the previous high. We went ballistic at $5 and complained at $6 but now at $7 we just pay. Next year it will be $8 and then $9 and then we'll all be driving an electric car. Housing and energy seem to share the same problems. Overregulation, taxation and scarcity of supply.
Oh my…. The State of California dictates what communities can and cannot do with their communities. The progressives want affordable housing, but not where they live. The City Council folds Left on all issues. Reminds me of how the elite on Martha’s Vineyard got rid of illegal migrants in a nano-second, yet every one of them likely votes Democrat and spews so-called “Progressive” and MSNBC talking points.. Yuck.
The author stretches some points to make the community look rather stupid, but reading other articles about the project suggest that there are real concerns that are not solely exclusionary ala Martha's Vineyard.
This project is not focused on the homeless encampments so why the sensational picture of the homeless camps? The building is for low to moderate income with emphasis for suporting those with special needs and those in the work force.
The parking for 89 units is for 66 vehicles and includes parking for nonresidents (there is a church next door). This is a "green demand" that is dictated by the state and not the community. Agreeing with your comment that communities in CA have rules that are created by nonelected committees that do not live near the areas that they rule.
A seven story building with subterranean parking near a fault line is concerning. Below ground parking lots have fewer supports and in previous significant earthquakes the buildings have "pancaked" or collapsed into itself. This is not to imply in anyway that there would be use of unsatisfactory materials (like on the new Bay Bridge) or incompetent inspectors/engineers (like San Francisco's Millennium Tower sinking and tilting) and citizens should conclude that a hurried project by a developer would meet all safety concerns. Insert a huge grimace and wink here!
The author confuses low income housing with temporary housing for the homeless. The unhoused issue is so extremely complicated and umbrellas those in financial stress , with the mentally ill, and the drug addicted….further complications and clouding the issue is not needed! The goal of unhoused programs is to support and make the transition to permanent housing possible, but the implication that low income housing is the first placement is usually incorrect.
The low income housing is theoretically a place to live for those in the community who are employed or have an income source, but cannot afford housing in the community. It should be housing for maids, teachers, civil workers, restaurant workers, those on social security, etc. But low income housing guidelines from the state of CA also have green goals. An example is limited or no parking for the units. This means that the maid with the car commuting hours may not be able to park at the housing unit.
The green goal for low income housing is to support a person giving up their car and using public transportation to decrease pollution levels, congestion, etc. Public transportation in many CA communities is not reliable or unavailable. It could also be suggested that a maid in W Hollywood with a car is more employable because they can easily access many residents, service businesses after hours, and transport their equipment. Parking off site is often difficult since few parking spaces are available that are without time limits, free, and secure. Gascon and Price and the current laws have essentially legalized breaking into cars and removing parts from cars which further complicates the need and expense of being the working poor.
The racist, progressive people of Palo Alto California implement their racist policies by making below market rate housing "for school teachers". "Low Income" (not that teachers are low income) people can live near them--but only if they have Master's degrees. The janitor who cleans their kids shit off the bathroom floor? Let him live somewhere else.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/02/03/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-teacher-housing-project-in-palo-alto/
(It's even worse, of course, because the teachers get the imputed income from the discounted rent and mortgages tax free! So they can cry poverty and get even more tax dollars even though you and I would need to earn $500,000/year to buy equivalent benefits.)
Always thought it was interesting that the progressives of Palo Alto have never thought of the value of expanding their school district (25 k per student) to include the diversity of the students in East Palo Alto (15k per student) to obtain equal education opportunities. Palo Alto/East Palo Alto looks like apartheid policies but Palo Alto talks like precious DEI
This title is deceptive. Fake news. Renting in LA is a disaster. It's a very violent, racist (towards white and other) city and degenerative city. You wouldn't know this unless you live there.
These people aren't interested in solutions; they're interested in virtue signaling. Although I agree that existing residents have a right to live in the community of their choice, they should just shut up about caring about low income housing. The worst are those who complained it wouldn't be good enough. Just be honest - you paid a lot for your home so you would live among other rich people, not the poors!
Here's a news item from TFP today - "An empty office tower in San Francisco that was once valued at $62 million just sold for $6.5 million." If these hypocrites in California really wanted to address the "housing crisis," the city would scoop it up, waive zoning restrictions, and find a way to convert it into residential housing. I can hear the "but, but, but..." already.
P.S. Ben, this segment needed more man-on-the-street.
This is a terribly misleading and simplistic article. I'm an affordable housing advocate with extensive experience in LA and am familiar with this project and the non-profit developer, which is a terrific organization. My haircutter lives next door and opposed this project due to its size and other factors, not its population. Yes, there are serious NIMBY problems everywhere. Per those opposing, this project is 7 stories high where no other building is close to that height (they are 3-4) and it is next to a church that it will dwarf. Of the 89 units, 62 units (69%) are 303 square foot studios intended to house 2+ people. Underground parking consists of 66 stalls for 200+ residents (most of which are for economy sized vehicles), 18 of which are to be shared with the church, further limiting available spots. Street parking and traffic is a very challenging in the area. There are other concerns. So, it's not such a simple situation. There are serious and genuine "quality of life" issues to be taken into account in these matters. We desperately need more affordable housing for both the working poor and those with special needs but dismissing and mocking people for raising these issues is not productive or helpful.
In a market economy, devoid of government involvement and tinkering, everyone would have housing.
If there is demand for housing, it will get built unless government steps in to restrict it through its insidious hurdles and policies. Government involvement should be limited to supporting those buying or renting, not building or managing.
It runs against the market to insert low cost housing into expensive neighborhoods. Location determines price. Want better housing? Work harder, pay attention in school, etc.
I benefitted from living with two parents who prioritized education and modeled working, frugality and citizenship. They were very poor immigrants, owned a laundry and only one finished high school. I and my friends in similar situations all succeeded in life, earning doctoral and professional degrees and/or owning businesses. Our parents did not receive government supports and we worked our ways through colleges and/or received scholarships.
I used to take girlfriends to see the home and neighborhood where I lived from 3rd grade through high school. No matter the degree of success I attained in life, I was proud of living in a country that allowed one to improve his life through work and education.
Imposing housing where it does not belong is an aspect of our country taking the social welfare path instead of the work hard and study path of personal responsibility and achievement.
John Heilman, the councilmember who casts some shade on the NIMBY at the very end of the video, is a longtime lecturer at USC Law School for the subject of Community Property. He was a GREAT law professor and I nailed that subject on the Bar exam thanks to him. He was actually Mayor of West Hollywood back in the late 1990s. He was funny, smart and no surprise he had a whip-smart comment at the end of this video.
I read the story - it was a great story. I wanted to share it with some people I work with, but the link seems dead or misdirected. Can someone check it?
I can't presume to know Ben's motives, but if this is mostly a skewering of progressive hypocrisy, then have at it. But the demurrals being voiced do point to valid concerns, even if the WeHo lefties are ashamed to own up to it. We lived there for 25 years, from the time we fell off the turnip truck barely in our 20s until the day we couldn't bear another minute of the loud, vulgar, New Orleans-but-without-the-good-food chaos. I understand the concern of residents who just want to have what is still recognizable as an American standard of living. Striving to preserve that standard isn't a vice; going vertical and packing them in isn't a self-evident virtue. Ultimately I think those in WeHo hoping to preserve their status quo are going to have to move--they just haven't admitted it to themselves yet. Intolerable density is coming, and it's going to look more like Rio than Tokyo.