The battle over how to deal with growth in Los Angeles continues after a new initiative aimed at development and affordable housing was introduced last week.

Community members packed a conference room at Emerson College to hear the town hall on the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on Tuesday.
(photo by Gregory Cornfield)

A coalition of labor unions and housing advocates launched the Build Better Los Angeles (BBLA) initiative last week that would require affordable units be included with residential projects that require zone changes and General Plan amendments. If approved, the initiative would also ensure that construction jobs go to residents through a local hire provision.

“It simply says, developers who build affordable housing will move quicker … as long as they hire local people,” said Rusty Hicks, secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and spokesman for Build Better LA. “It is through this initiative that Los Angeles will be able to close the gap on the affordable housing and good-job shortage.”

Representatives for BBLA said the “bold plan” will align the city’s land use policies and funding to build more housing and create more jobs.

“When the city of L.A. approves a new building, we want it built by the people who live and pay taxes here, by your neighbors, by your community, by the men and women who go to school right here,” said Ron Miller, executive secretary of the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. “Build Better LA will help us open a pipeline for jobs and housing. It will bring more jobs to the neighborhoods of Los Angeles, and more housing to those in need. It builds a better city.”

The Coalition to Preserve L.A. (CPLA) – the group that introduced the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (NII) – called the Build Better L.A. initiative a “misguided plan” and a “remarkably bad idea” for “putting overdevelopment on steroids.”

“This proposal is not the medicine L.A. needs. It just doubles down on spreading the disease,” said Jill Stewart, campaign director for CPLA. “If you want more congestion, more traffic misery, more concrete, more air pollution, more noise, more attacks on L.A.’s quality of life, then you should support this special interest plan. But that’s not what the public wants. They want relief from development – not more development.”

(photo by Gregory Cornfield)

The NII calls for a two-year moratorium on development projects that need zone changes and General Plan amendments. Opponents of the NII instead call for updates to the outdated General Plan.

On Tuesday, four Hollywood neighborhood councils hosted a town hall on the NII at Emerson College. Jack Humphreville, a member of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council and columnist for CityWatch, and Grace Woo, a social justice activist, spoke in favor of the NII.

Humphreville and Woo explained that “spot zoning,” which the NII would eliminate, encourages “soft corruption” among city planners and elected officials when developers and lobbyists can incentivize zone changes with political donations. They also said “mega developments” will worsen the affordable housing crisis and congestion in the city.

“The buildings that they’re building up here in Hollywood … they’re ‘affordable’ if you’re a single guy making $100,000,” Humphreville said. “But they’re not affordable in the way that the city likes us to think. The other thing that bugged me is that they say they’re building ‘transit-oriented development.’ Somebody who is renting an apartment at $3,000 or $4,000 a month, they ain’t taking the bus and they ain’t taking the Red Line. This is not transit-oriented development by any matter of means.”

Woo explained that the city can’t take the influx of development without updating water infrastructure when some pipes are 50-100 years old. She said it would make sense to think about how many units they are adding to the same pipeline. The added population also requires more police, she said.

“With city hall, they don’t seem to care about what makes sense and what’s logical,” Woo said.

Humphreville pointed to Old Town Pasadena as an example of how the city’s plans should work.

“That place is a gold mine. It’s fantastic. It’s not overwhelming. They put together a plan and they live by it, they enforced it, and now you have a helluva operation over there,” he said.

Leron Gubler, president and CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition.

“Twenty-three years ago, when I came to Hollywood it was very different than it is today,” Gubler said. “We were kind of down and out. A lot of people had given up on Hollywood. Businesses were moving out right and left. We worked very hard in the ensuing period to turn this community around, and with much success. The reason we were able to succeed is because of new development. The developers have been our partners in revitalizing Hollywood, they are not the enemy.”

Gubler said he agrees that the General Plan and community plans need to be updated, and said developers “would be thrilled” if that happened because then they would not have to apply for General Plan amendments.

“But I also know you cannot wave a magic wand and change the world,” he said. “The problem with initiatives like this is they often create more problems than they solve. And they often promise more than they can deliver. The problem with the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is that it simply goes too far.”

Gubler explained that if the NII was in place, Emerson College, which hosted the town hall, would not exist because it required a General Plan amendment and spot zoning.

He explained that the two-year moratorium wouldn’t just apply to residential developments; it could also affect schools, hospitals, Metro expansions, LAX expansions, the master plan for Union Station and the city’s plans for the Olympics. Also, smaller renovations such as fencing or plumbing repairs could be stopped by an appeal if NII passes.

Luke Klipp, an affordable housing activist with the Los Feliz Neighborhood Council, explained that if the NII is passed, it doesn’t just mean large buildings in Hollywood would be stopped. He said that all neighborhoods would remain the same as they are today because developments would be restricted to the same heights as surrounding buildings.

“That’s why I am so upset about this, because I refuse to allow a few folks with a lot of money to get this measure on the ballot because they have a few concerns about a few developments in a couple communities – which frankly, I think they have very fair concerns – but they are limited to very particular parts of Los Angeles and this initiative is for all of Los Angeles.”