Yesterday the LA Times ran a Rorschach-test of a story about Akhilesh Jha, a developer who is buying up single-family homes and replacing them with apartment buildings. Everybody hates him, but he doesn't care:
In the face of a crushing housing affordability crisis and shortage of available homes, state lawmakers have approved more than 100 new laws in six years that are designed to incentivize new housing proposals and force local governments to approve them.
In Los Angeles, no one is pushing the envelope more than Jha. Besides the 33-unit Harvard Heights project nestled between the 10 Freeway and Koreatown, he has two proposals in the San Fernando Valley to tear down single-family homes and build dozens of apartments and townhomes on the sites — all efforts that never before would have stood a chance of getting built.
Akhilesh Jha in front of a home he wants to replace with a 67-unit apartment building. —Mel Melcon, LA Times
Jha is exploiting a variety of new laws that are meant to cut through red tape and allow the construction of high-density housing regardless of local opposition. If your site is near a mass transit station, dozens of restrictions go away. Provide a bit of low-income housing and other restrictions go away. In one case, Jha took advantage of a loophole that makes it easier to build if the state hasn't approved a city's growth plan. This happened to Los Angeles very briefly last year and Jha slipped in his application during the few days LA was out of compliance.
In one sense, Jha is only doing exactly what lawmakers intended. They wanted to make it harder for local opposition to hamstring new construction, and that's exactly what's happened. But Jha has been so aggressive that he's essentially prevented any local input into his projects. He just points to frequently arcane provisions of the law and tells everyone to pound sand.
So: YIMBY hero or ruthless villain? You make the call.
83 thoughts on “LA developer is finding ways to build high-density housing that residents hate”
cheweydelt
Absolute legend.
Rattus Norvegicus
+1. Nobody wants his product, but everybody needs it.
Crissa
Sort of, alot of these 70s style apartments become broken albatrosses around the neck of neighborhoods. Too profitable to tear down but filled with basic errors that make them bad neighbors... and deathtraps in earthquakes.
I'm not sure someone this aggressive will avoid those pitfalls.
But I hope so.
different_name
I expect it won't be too long before he he pisses off someone with pull, but I hope he has fun in the mean time.
What would be interesting is a 5 year economic before-and-after of the ares where he's doing this. Let's see some empirical data on what happens to property prices.
Hugh Jass
You’re curious to see what happens to the price of the properties people really want to live in when you reduce the number of them while increasing the number of people in the area who would really prefer them?
Can I take one wild arse guess?
Art Eclectic
The world cannot revolve around resale value. It's housing, not an investment strategy.
Every person grumbling out how higher density housing will ruin their neighborhood should vote on whether they want higher density housing or want allow homeless encampments in their parks and other open spaces and RV's full of homeless folks parking on their streets. It's going to be one or the other.
D_Ohrk_E1
Within 1/2 mile of mass transit stations, you want as much built-up high density housing as possible. People hate the transition, but that's how this is meant to work. And contrary to lower property values, this raises their values. If your property can support higher density, developers will pay more for it.
Horse stables, are you serious? That's right up there on the exclusionary covenants meant to keep neighborhoods exclusive to rich folks.
People should be offended at the insinuation that poorer folks are linked to higher crime rates. Maybe we ought to be spending more on white collar crimes than crimes against poverty.
YIMBY hero!
Special Newb
Poor people make things shitty. This is always and forever true. This is also not a character flaw. It's simply because poor people are too poor to keep things unshitty.
Bardi
Reading your comment is like reading RT.
I think you have your "English" all screwed up.
Poor people do not "make" things shitty.
By definition, poor people do not have the resources (excess cash, etc.) to fix things, which ties into your last sentence.
Special Newb
If something you broke stays broken because you have no money to fix it you have made it shittier. I have lived this situation myself. It doesn't make me a bad person but I did make the place worse to live. That's just reality.
kaleberg
In this context, poor people are probably making $80K a year per household. That's miles from dirt poor, but it's California buy-a-house poor.
Crissa
We moved into an apartment complex.
Before we moved in, no one thought to hang plants from the awnings, because they were on the second floor. Or argue with the management and put gardens in our tiny garden areas. Or even screen doors!
Because we could afford to argue with management, our neighbors copied us and the place blossomed with flowers and tomatoes.
middleoftheroaddem
D_Ohrk_E1
Respectfully, the economic impact on existing real estate value is more complicated than...."And contrary to lower property values, this raises their values." For example, in expensive residential areas, I suspect/speculate property values will decline/or not rise as rapidly relative to similar neighborhoods without new, high density, building..
Now, one may hold that is a good tradeoff. However, the idea that new, high density housing, is always accretive to the current owners is likely false.
cmayo
You'd be incorrect. One need only look at NYC for an example. The land the SFHs sit on is so valuable for other uses that it doesn't really matter what the value of the improvement is - it's going to be torn down and replaced anyway.
The only reason this is so abrupt and traumatic to folks now is because neighborhoods weren't allowed to organically densify over time due to SFH-exclusive zoning.
MF
Key issue is if all of the housing is able to be converted.
If my next door neighbor's house is torn down and replaced with multi-family housing but regulations prevent me from doing the same then my house value drops. If I can do the same, then the regulatory change increases my house value.
kaleberg
Exactly! A big part of the value of real estate is what your neighbors can't do. That's why waterfront property is so expensive.
middleoftheroaddem
cmayo - think of an expensive, primarily single family only, neighborhood. For the sake of the mental exercise, imagine this neighborhood is also within 1/2 to public transit. You honestly think the value of my theoretical $10 million single family home is increase because of the nearby construction of a dense apartment building?
Once again, I have no issues if someone believes the aforementioned is a good tradeoff: rather, the idea that everyone benefits economically is likely flawed.
cmayo
Not $10M, maybe more like $2-3M...
And yes - if the land it sits on is large enough to build a few dozen condos or even just apartments, that land is absolutely valuable enough to justify the $2-3M sale price tag to demolish and replace.
Those in this thread commenting that the value of a piece of land is what your neighbors can't do have it backwards. That's only a small piece, and it's not universal - it's very contextual based on who the buyer might be. MOST of the value of land is tied up in what CAN be done with it, not what can't.
If one can buy a 3-acre tract and build a 30-unit complex there, it's far more valuable than if you can only build a SFH there.
This is kind of land value 101...
D_Ohrk_E1
I agree I've oversimplified, but all of the areas w/in 1/2 mile of a mass transit stop will most definitely have its land value increase.
In many areas where they do something similar to this -- think Portland Oregon rezoning of higher density w/in 1/2 mile of mass transit stops -- it's done explicitly to raise the cap of taxable property values, and specifically for local (T)ax (I)ncrement (F)inancing above capped rates.
middleoftheroaddem
D_Ohrk_E1 - thank you for the clarification. I have no issue with the idea that an area, or city, benefits from up zoning. Rather, similar to most broad policies, there will be some losers...
Amil Eoj
I suppose that whether Jha has kept within the bounds of the new law will eventually be decided in court--assuming anyone has standing to sue him for something.
Although, of course, given how homeowner groups spent many long years exploiting environmental law to prevent higher density development, so the verdict here could be a long time in coming--and ultimately decided in the political rather than the legal arena.
That in turn depends on whether a politically-significant anti-development backlash gets formed up in CA. Could this be the moribund state GOP's path back to power? Is there an anti-growth Howard Jarvis out there, ready to pounce? Maybe along with a push for a statewide homeless crackdown? Seems far fetched at the moment but stranger things have happened in CA politics!
There is however one thing we can be absolutely certain about in all this: The question of whether "no one wants" Jha's moderate density housing, plopped down in low density hoods, will definitely get an answer as soon as the units go on the market. If "no one wants" them, he'll go bust, and that will be that.
I wouldn't, personally, bet against him on that score. I'm pretty sure the new units will fly off the shelves.
RiChard
This is what it's gonna take, IMO. Somebody has to shut their face and let 'em build, otherwise everything just stays like it is and somebody has to shut their face anyway. Ultimately it's gonna be TS for somebody, or TS for everybody.
cephalopod
Where I live it took 20 years to get an apartment building approved on an empty lot right by a major bus route that added a rail line during the intervening years. The site had an old big-box retailer that had moved out, leaving an empty shell that was eventually torn down. It was all the anti-gentrification folks who opposed building. It was because the affordable housing units weren't affordable enough, and there were going to be some market rate units as well. The site was perfect for housing - close to jobs, shopping, and lots of public transport. Luckily the mayor rammed it through just in time. The developer was about ready to give up on it.
I'm a bit sad whenever older housing stock is taken down to build new housing, since new housing is almost always more expensive than what was there before. My neighborhood periodically has $350,000 homes torn down so they can cram two $800,000 homes on the lot. But it looks like this guy plans to put in pretty large apartment buildings, so losing some older housing seems worth it.
On the other hand, whenever they convert empty lots, old single-story commercial buildings, and former factories, I am thrilled. The 5-story stumpies they like to build are pretty ugly, and the apartments in them aren't cheap, but the prices will moderate over the next decade or two. And we could definitely use the extra housing units!
DarkBrandon
I would like to buy him dinner, hug and kiss him, and hold his hand tenderly on many long walks.
Every time you tear down a SFH in LA, God cures a child of pediatric cancer and scratches the bellies of 10,000 furry kittens.
CAbornandbred
????????????????????So good.
bebopman
Is God hiring? I’d like to apply for that kitten job.
rick_jones
I wonder though if he’s done any of this in the neighborhoods of the legislators…
rick_jones
Blade Runner has to start somewhere.
bw
Whaddya mean, "no one wants"? Lots of people want this housing: the people who are going to pay Jha to live in it.
And that's all that should matter. if the neighbors wanted a say in what was around them, they were welcome to buy the same parcels that Jha bought. They didn't, so too bad.
jdubs
This times a billion.
Framing these situations like Kevin has done is completely normal and 100% misleading.
Everybody wants more housing in general, but when we get to individual projects we like to ignore anyone who might want that housing and pretend that the only interested parties are the people opposed to the project.
Special Newb
Both of course.
austinstoub
speaking as an angelino...
YIMBY hero, 100%
bebopman
There may be details that turn me against him, but I doubt it. Hero to me.
jdubs
Hero of course.
Think about the next Superman movie where The Man of Steel is portrayed as the villain because he didnt get enough input and buy-in from Joe, Marge and the HOA board down the street before he stopped the alien takeover, jailed the evil mastermind and saved millions of lives. What a stupid way to frame the story.
robertwaldmann
YIMBY hero
Also why am I not allowed to have a weak password ? Pointless regulation
Ken Rhodes
You have to use a strong password or somebody can steal all your sensitive financial information.
realrobmac
And then you will have to write it on a post it note because you can't remember it, so all someone has to do is find that post it note. Doesn't anyone remember how Matthew Broderick got the school password in War Games?
Crissa
Worse, use a bad password and you put all our passwords at risk.
PostRetro
Ah, the myth of a housing shortage. There isn't a single community in America where newly built apartments near transit solve the affordability crisis in housing. The only thing that will return housing prices accrues the board to lower prices is to ban all institutional ownership of housing, give tax breaks to owner-occupied housing, and increase income taxes on non-owner-occupied housing.
Without doing that, there is just a new transfer of wealth aided by government policy to further grind the middle class into poverty. The financialization of everything is not a wealth builder for those who pay for the subscriptions/rent/leases.
Boronx
You might be right, but there are other reasons that high density housing is a good idea.
jdubs
Housing isnt an area with extreme consolidation or monopolistic ownership.
We should try building housing first.
The comment doesnt make much sense when we consider that few places in the US have actually built lots of housing near transit. So to say that this hasnt solved anything doesnt make much sense when we take into account that it hasnt been tried.
Crissa
Uh-huh.
The myth.
Where are the kids supposed to live, again?
PostRetro
The kids? You mean the the entitled people who pay 3-4k for their cheaply built apartment straight outta Revit? Last I looked at the demographics, these buildings are filling with empty nesters who want to be near family only part of the year while they travel and enjoy retirement.
cmayo
You're so comically wrong.
The reasons newly built apartments aren't solving affordability crises are:
0) demand far, far, FAR outstrips supply
1) we're not building (or able to build) enough of them fast enough
2) rents are sticky and when they do go down, they only go down slowly
3) as a replacement good in a constricted supply environment, new housing pulls up the prices of the next-best units, and so on down the line - unless you can flood the market (see #1)
Banning institutional ownership of housing would be counterproductive. We need large entities capable of taking on the leverage and administrative burdens of large complexes of units. Absent social housing (i.e., housing administrated by the government) on a MASSIVE scale, this requires private corporations.
Everybody thinks they're a housing expert because they happen to have housing. Very few people actually know WTF they're talking about. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're not one of them.
Art Eclectic
I think what he meant was to ban institutional ownership of single family housing under 5 units, which I am in favor of. Also in favor of lower taxes for owner occupied housing as long as it isn't for rent on a platform like AirBnB or VRBO.
PostRetro
The population of CA is declining. So where is the demand? Is it because a wealthy upper middle class cohort in their empty nest years owns and rents multiple residences? I likely know more about the demographics of who rents than you do, and definitely know more about real estate finance than you do, since you don’t have even a basic understanding of what institutional investors means.
Salamander
Isn't there a housing shortage in CA? Aren't single family homes an inefficient way of using scarce urban space?
And, do the tenants "hate" the apartments? Or just the NIMBY-pimby neighbors?
Finally, the US has no hope, absolutely zero hope, of responding to the global warming crisis if too-restrictive zoning laws and time-consuming paperwork and "neighbor buy-in" requirements prevent responding to the challenge.
Crissa
Some of the apartment buildings suck to live in. But not all of them. Same for single-family homes.
Bluto_Blutarski
"YIMBY hero or ruthless villain? You make the call."
Maybe some information about the outcome? Affordable housing or hellish slums? I get that the answer can be in the eye of the beholder, but some info would make it possible to opine.
George Salt
The liberal/progressive version of "I got mine, screw you."
Salamander
Sadly, yes. That and "Oh, those wind turbines are SO ugly."
SamChevre
I think the real test is a decade or so down the road: do the neighborhoods where he built new buildings have equally good public services, and lower taxes, relative to comparable neighborhoods where he didn't? Are they poorer or richer? Are petty crime rates and police calls higher or lower?
New York made many of the buildings is has illegal to build more of.
E-6
I have no idea what the housing situation is in SoCal except what I occasionally read about it. That said, I have a nomenclature problem. Most YIMBYs don't have backyards and want the backyards of people that do have them. They should be called YIYBYs (Yes In YOUR Backyard). Nomenclatural inaccuracies aside, these "missing middle" proposals will always be inherently divisive. One was just snuck through via some political shenanigans in my east coast locale. Whether some developer takes advantage of enacted missing middle provisions to the fullest extent possible is not the issue. The provisions themselves are the *issue* that divides people.
Crissa
I have a backyard, and I supported my neighbors turning parts of their homes into new apartments. Even when it wasn't legal!
So no.
Also, you seem to want to prevent others from ever having back yards of their own...
cld
dear heaven an LA version of Fred Trump is unlikely to be anyone's hero.
Let me know when he builds something anyone would actually want to live in.
Five Parrots in a Shoe
"Let me know when he builds something anyone would actually want to live in."
This is how we can tell you don't live in SoCal. Those apartments WILL get rented out. Most likely there will be 500+ people wanting to sign leases for those 33 units.
cld
If all you've got is garbage and unpleasantness that's going to be the life you have going forward.
An actively worthwhile environment is too little appreciated, especially when it comes to affordable housing, and even less affordable housing.
McOwlface
I live in SoCal, LA County, in fact. Worse, I rent. And yet I do not support the projects going up in my area. There is no question that they will sell, but they are poorly sited from the standpoint of neighborhood quality of life, not least because there is no public transport nearby, meaning they will generate a lot of new traffic (130 units, so presumably roughly 260 cars) on side streets not built for it. The Sylmar property mentioned in the article looks to be similarly sited. We need more density (in my neighborhood, too), but it would be great if this new development could be done with some planning rather than simply wherever a developer can buy land and then bulldoze approvals. I've lived in the no-zoning hellhole of Houston. I'd hate to see that chaos recreated here.
Owns 9 Fedoras
Sounds like he made use of the "Builder's Remedy" clause. This phrase has been much in the news here in the SF Peninsula, as upscale enclaves like Atherton have had to hustle to get their "housing element" plans approved or face unrestricted development, and many remain out of compliance.
What that article is really about is that super-clickbait picture.
Probably nobody minds too much if someone puts up big apartment buildings near new subway stops, for instance, along Wilshire, which is mostly office buildings anyway.
But if you suggest -- as that picture does -- that developers are suddenly going to buy old single family homes in residential neighborhoods several blocks from main streets and thus bus lines and replace those homes with big apartment buildings, well, you've tapped into the very specific fears of the homeowners, who, if they bought fairly recently, certainly paid well over $1 million for a place like something in that picture.
Which is exactly why I don't believe the picture. No smart developer would build a big apartment building blocks from any main street (and thus mass transit). He wouldn't be able to get the financing for it, I assume, as the bank would assume no one would want to move in. I really would like to see the surroundings of the house in that picture. (It appears, in the top pic at least, that there is a very large structure behind that house, so I'm guessing that house is pretty close to main roads and already may be in a semi-industrial area or near shopping malls.)
That being said, central LA, in contrast to lot of other cities, does have huge swaths of single family homes where there really should be, at least, duplexes, and, on the main streets, much bigger apartment complexes. A good example of that would be the area around the Grove mall and the Farmer's Market, which is smack dab in central LA and has blocks and blocks of single family homes (many worth well upwards of $3 million these days). Tear it all down and build apartments, I say.
What to me is more interesting is: what happens to gas stations as we transition to electric cars? Many gas stations are on absolutely prime land for a big apartment building, and the gas station, by necessity, is usually using only the ground level. Real waste of space, as are many parking lots.
Salamander
Re: filling stations.
They could start diversifying, adding charging stations and covering themselves over with solar panels, etc. Planning to make the transition.
Or, more likely, the owners could cash in on their "absolutely prime land" -- and maybe even net enough to pay for digging up the old gasoline tanks and remediating the spillage, assuming the laws require this.
kaleberg
Thanks for pointing out the big red brick and black glass building and seems many times larger than the house in question. I really should pay more attention.
HokieAnnie
A gas station at the end of my street was converted to a bank then a realtor and now it's a kebab place that is apparently doing very well with takeout orders from the nearby hospital.
Jim Carey
If his intent is to serve the long-term interest of the people whose lives are being affected by his actions, then he is a hero. If his intent is to serve himself at the expense of the long-term interest of the people whose lives are being affected by his actions, then he is a ruthless villain.
Coincidentally, Kevin's header included the following John Locke quote: "Few men think, yet all will have opinions. Hence men's opinions are superficial and confused." Presumably, with a few exceptions.
Intent is not to be confused with competence. Competence is the speed, and intent is the direction.
It is not impossible to act in the long-term interest of the people that are being affected by one's decisions. Instead, it is inconvenient. The inconvenience is the small short-term pain that, if avoided, leads to the increasingly large long-term pain that we're all suffering and wondering, "Where did that come from?"
realrobmac
I wonder how the dairy farmers on Manhattan Island felt in the early 1800s. Maybe people should have listened to them and kept it all pastures and grainfields.
That said I have no idea if this guy's plans are good or not. If he's building towers surrounded by big surface parking lots, that is not helping. If he's building walkable density, in the long run, these areas will be better off.
Salamander
The close proximity to public transit suggests that vast parking lots won't be necessary. That's just a guess, of course. The developer may run afoul of local regs that mandate a certain number of parking spaces per resident, or some other well-meaning but now inappropriate mandate.
cmayo
I doubt the dairy farmers on Manhattan in the early 1800s wanted to keep it all pastures and fields.
Eastvillager
The dairy farmers of Brooklyn did try to stop development in the 19th century by refusing to allow roads to be built or widened.
cmayo
I guess if somebody's going to be exploiting development law for profit, it should be somebody who's building the density of housing we need rather than Gypsum Castle developers.
name99
I’d like to hear more about who the “everybody” is that supposedly hates him.
Existing homeowners who think property value is going down?
“Community activists” who oppose gentrification?
Everyday people who are afraid of noise?
Politicians and pundits who aren’t affected but oppose because they dislike the law on principle?
Real point is - do we actually have 95% opposition by people who live in these areas? Or 5% opposition by loudmouths?
D_Ohrk_E1
Some people might recall that Santa Monica had (still has?) on the books a ban on most housing developments. This led to notorious 2-year waiting lists to get into an apartment in the area.
This year, they created a law banning the Builder's Remedy described in KD's post. That was obviously illegal -- state laws always preempt local. Will this change the character of Santa Monica? Sure, but you shouldn't trust anyone who claims to know that it'll be for the worse.
Absolute legend.
+1. Nobody wants his product, but everybody needs it.
Sort of, alot of these 70s style apartments become broken albatrosses around the neck of neighborhoods. Too profitable to tear down but filled with basic errors that make them bad neighbors... and deathtraps in earthquakes.
I'm not sure someone this aggressive will avoid those pitfalls.
But I hope so.
I expect it won't be too long before he he pisses off someone with pull, but I hope he has fun in the mean time.
What would be interesting is a 5 year economic before-and-after of the ares where he's doing this. Let's see some empirical data on what happens to property prices.
You’re curious to see what happens to the price of the properties people really want to live in when you reduce the number of them while increasing the number of people in the area who would really prefer them?
Can I take one wild arse guess?
The world cannot revolve around resale value. It's housing, not an investment strategy.
Every person grumbling out how higher density housing will ruin their neighborhood should vote on whether they want higher density housing or want allow homeless encampments in their parks and other open spaces and RV's full of homeless folks parking on their streets. It's going to be one or the other.
Within 1/2 mile of mass transit stations, you want as much built-up high density housing as possible. People hate the transition, but that's how this is meant to work. And contrary to lower property values, this raises their values. If your property can support higher density, developers will pay more for it.
Horse stables, are you serious? That's right up there on the exclusionary covenants meant to keep neighborhoods exclusive to rich folks.
People should be offended at the insinuation that poorer folks are linked to higher crime rates. Maybe we ought to be spending more on white collar crimes than crimes against poverty.
YIMBY hero!
Poor people make things shitty. This is always and forever true. This is also not a character flaw. It's simply because poor people are too poor to keep things unshitty.
Reading your comment is like reading RT.
I think you have your "English" all screwed up.
Poor people do not "make" things shitty.
By definition, poor people do not have the resources (excess cash, etc.) to fix things, which ties into your last sentence.
If something you broke stays broken because you have no money to fix it you have made it shittier. I have lived this situation myself. It doesn't make me a bad person but I did make the place worse to live. That's just reality.
In this context, poor people are probably making $80K a year per household. That's miles from dirt poor, but it's California buy-a-house poor.
We moved into an apartment complex.
Before we moved in, no one thought to hang plants from the awnings, because they were on the second floor. Or argue with the management and put gardens in our tiny garden areas. Or even screen doors!
Because we could afford to argue with management, our neighbors copied us and the place blossomed with flowers and tomatoes.
D_Ohrk_E1
Respectfully, the economic impact on existing real estate value is more complicated than...."And contrary to lower property values, this raises their values." For example, in expensive residential areas, I suspect/speculate property values will decline/or not rise as rapidly relative to similar neighborhoods without new, high density, building..
Now, one may hold that is a good tradeoff. However, the idea that new, high density housing, is always accretive to the current owners is likely false.
You'd be incorrect. One need only look at NYC for an example. The land the SFHs sit on is so valuable for other uses that it doesn't really matter what the value of the improvement is - it's going to be torn down and replaced anyway.
The only reason this is so abrupt and traumatic to folks now is because neighborhoods weren't allowed to organically densify over time due to SFH-exclusive zoning.
Key issue is if all of the housing is able to be converted.
If my next door neighbor's house is torn down and replaced with multi-family housing but regulations prevent me from doing the same then my house value drops. If I can do the same, then the regulatory change increases my house value.
Exactly! A big part of the value of real estate is what your neighbors can't do. That's why waterfront property is so expensive.
cmayo - think of an expensive, primarily single family only, neighborhood. For the sake of the mental exercise, imagine this neighborhood is also within 1/2 to public transit. You honestly think the value of my theoretical $10 million single family home is increase because of the nearby construction of a dense apartment building?
Once again, I have no issues if someone believes the aforementioned is a good tradeoff: rather, the idea that everyone benefits economically is likely flawed.
Not $10M, maybe more like $2-3M...
And yes - if the land it sits on is large enough to build a few dozen condos or even just apartments, that land is absolutely valuable enough to justify the $2-3M sale price tag to demolish and replace.
Those in this thread commenting that the value of a piece of land is what your neighbors can't do have it backwards. That's only a small piece, and it's not universal - it's very contextual based on who the buyer might be. MOST of the value of land is tied up in what CAN be done with it, not what can't.
If one can buy a 3-acre tract and build a 30-unit complex there, it's far more valuable than if you can only build a SFH there.
This is kind of land value 101...
I agree I've oversimplified, but all of the areas w/in 1/2 mile of a mass transit stop will most definitely have its land value increase.
In many areas where they do something similar to this -- think Portland Oregon rezoning of higher density w/in 1/2 mile of mass transit stops -- it's done explicitly to raise the cap of taxable property values, and specifically for local (T)ax (I)ncrement (F)inancing above capped rates.
D_Ohrk_E1 - thank you for the clarification. I have no issue with the idea that an area, or city, benefits from up zoning. Rather, similar to most broad policies, there will be some losers...
I suppose that whether Jha has kept within the bounds of the new law will eventually be decided in court--assuming anyone has standing to sue him for something.
Although, of course, given how homeowner groups spent many long years exploiting environmental law to prevent higher density development, so the verdict here could be a long time in coming--and ultimately decided in the political rather than the legal arena.
That in turn depends on whether a politically-significant anti-development backlash gets formed up in CA. Could this be the moribund state GOP's path back to power? Is there an anti-growth Howard Jarvis out there, ready to pounce? Maybe along with a push for a statewide homeless crackdown? Seems far fetched at the moment but stranger things have happened in CA politics!
There is however one thing we can be absolutely certain about in all this: The question of whether "no one wants" Jha's moderate density housing, plopped down in low density hoods, will definitely get an answer as soon as the units go on the market. If "no one wants" them, he'll go bust, and that will be that.
I wouldn't, personally, bet against him on that score. I'm pretty sure the new units will fly off the shelves.
This is what it's gonna take, IMO. Somebody has to shut their face and let 'em build, otherwise everything just stays like it is and somebody has to shut their face anyway. Ultimately it's gonna be TS for somebody, or TS for everybody.
Where I live it took 20 years to get an apartment building approved on an empty lot right by a major bus route that added a rail line during the intervening years. The site had an old big-box retailer that had moved out, leaving an empty shell that was eventually torn down. It was all the anti-gentrification folks who opposed building. It was because the affordable housing units weren't affordable enough, and there were going to be some market rate units as well. The site was perfect for housing - close to jobs, shopping, and lots of public transport. Luckily the mayor rammed it through just in time. The developer was about ready to give up on it.
I'm a bit sad whenever older housing stock is taken down to build new housing, since new housing is almost always more expensive than what was there before. My neighborhood periodically has $350,000 homes torn down so they can cram two $800,000 homes on the lot. But it looks like this guy plans to put in pretty large apartment buildings, so losing some older housing seems worth it.
On the other hand, whenever they convert empty lots, old single-story commercial buildings, and former factories, I am thrilled. The 5-story stumpies they like to build are pretty ugly, and the apartments in them aren't cheap, but the prices will moderate over the next decade or two. And we could definitely use the extra housing units!
I would like to buy him dinner, hug and kiss him, and hold his hand tenderly on many long walks.
Every time you tear down a SFH in LA, God cures a child of pediatric cancer and scratches the bellies of 10,000 furry kittens.
????????????????????So good.
Is God hiring? I’d like to apply for that kitten job.
I wonder though if he’s done any of this in the neighborhoods of the legislators…
Blade Runner has to start somewhere.
Whaddya mean, "no one wants"? Lots of people want this housing: the people who are going to pay Jha to live in it.
And that's all that should matter. if the neighbors wanted a say in what was around them, they were welcome to buy the same parcels that Jha bought. They didn't, so too bad.
This times a billion.
Framing these situations like Kevin has done is completely normal and 100% misleading.
Everybody wants more housing in general, but when we get to individual projects we like to ignore anyone who might want that housing and pretend that the only interested parties are the people opposed to the project.
Both of course.
speaking as an angelino...
YIMBY hero, 100%
There may be details that turn me against him, but I doubt it. Hero to me.
Hero of course.
Think about the next Superman movie where The Man of Steel is portrayed as the villain because he didnt get enough input and buy-in from Joe, Marge and the HOA board down the street before he stopped the alien takeover, jailed the evil mastermind and saved millions of lives. What a stupid way to frame the story.
YIMBY hero
Also why am I not allowed to have a weak password ? Pointless regulation
You have to use a strong password or somebody can steal all your sensitive financial information.
And then you will have to write it on a post it note because you can't remember it, so all someone has to do is find that post it note. Doesn't anyone remember how Matthew Broderick got the school password in War Games?
Worse, use a bad password and you put all our passwords at risk.
Ah, the myth of a housing shortage. There isn't a single community in America where newly built apartments near transit solve the affordability crisis in housing. The only thing that will return housing prices accrues the board to lower prices is to ban all institutional ownership of housing, give tax breaks to owner-occupied housing, and increase income taxes on non-owner-occupied housing.
Without doing that, there is just a new transfer of wealth aided by government policy to further grind the middle class into poverty. The financialization of everything is not a wealth builder for those who pay for the subscriptions/rent/leases.
You might be right, but there are other reasons that high density housing is a good idea.
Housing isnt an area with extreme consolidation or monopolistic ownership.
We should try building housing first.
The comment doesnt make much sense when we consider that few places in the US have actually built lots of housing near transit. So to say that this hasnt solved anything doesnt make much sense when we take into account that it hasnt been tried.
Uh-huh.
The myth.
Where are the kids supposed to live, again?
The kids? You mean the the entitled people who pay 3-4k for their cheaply built apartment straight outta Revit? Last I looked at the demographics, these buildings are filling with empty nesters who want to be near family only part of the year while they travel and enjoy retirement.
You're so comically wrong.
The reasons newly built apartments aren't solving affordability crises are:
0) demand far, far, FAR outstrips supply
1) we're not building (or able to build) enough of them fast enough
2) rents are sticky and when they do go down, they only go down slowly
3) as a replacement good in a constricted supply environment, new housing pulls up the prices of the next-best units, and so on down the line - unless you can flood the market (see #1)
Banning institutional ownership of housing would be counterproductive. We need large entities capable of taking on the leverage and administrative burdens of large complexes of units. Absent social housing (i.e., housing administrated by the government) on a MASSIVE scale, this requires private corporations.
Everybody thinks they're a housing expert because they happen to have housing. Very few people actually know WTF they're talking about. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're not one of them.
I think what he meant was to ban institutional ownership of single family housing under 5 units, which I am in favor of. Also in favor of lower taxes for owner occupied housing as long as it isn't for rent on a platform like AirBnB or VRBO.
The population of CA is declining. So where is the demand? Is it because a wealthy upper middle class cohort in their empty nest years owns and rents multiple residences? I likely know more about the demographics of who rents than you do, and definitely know more about real estate finance than you do, since you don’t have even a basic understanding of what institutional investors means.
Isn't there a housing shortage in CA? Aren't single family homes an inefficient way of using scarce urban space?
And, do the tenants "hate" the apartments? Or just the NIMBY-pimby neighbors?
Finally, the US has no hope, absolutely zero hope, of responding to the global warming crisis if too-restrictive zoning laws and time-consuming paperwork and "neighbor buy-in" requirements prevent responding to the challenge.
Some of the apartment buildings suck to live in. But not all of them. Same for single-family homes.
"YIMBY hero or ruthless villain? You make the call."
Maybe some information about the outcome? Affordable housing or hellish slums? I get that the answer can be in the eye of the beholder, but some info would make it possible to opine.
The liberal/progressive version of "I got mine, screw you."
Sadly, yes. That and "Oh, those wind turbines are SO ugly."
I think the real test is a decade or so down the road: do the neighborhoods where he built new buildings have equally good public services, and lower taxes, relative to comparable neighborhoods where he didn't? Are they poorer or richer? Are petty crime rates and police calls higher or lower?
Density can always be overwhelmed https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/central-park-among-nyc-areas-considered-to-house-migrants-everything-is-on-the-table/4559040/
New York made many of the buildings is has illegal to build more of.
I have no idea what the housing situation is in SoCal except what I occasionally read about it. That said, I have a nomenclature problem. Most YIMBYs don't have backyards and want the backyards of people that do have them. They should be called YIYBYs (Yes In YOUR Backyard). Nomenclatural inaccuracies aside, these "missing middle" proposals will always be inherently divisive. One was just snuck through via some political shenanigans in my east coast locale. Whether some developer takes advantage of enacted missing middle provisions to the fullest extent possible is not the issue. The provisions themselves are the *issue* that divides people.
I have a backyard, and I supported my neighbors turning parts of their homes into new apartments. Even when it wasn't legal!
So no.
Also, you seem to want to prevent others from ever having back yards of their own...
dear heaven an LA version of Fred Trump is unlikely to be anyone's hero.
Let me know when he builds something anyone would actually want to live in.
"Let me know when he builds something anyone would actually want to live in."
This is how we can tell you don't live in SoCal. Those apartments WILL get rented out. Most likely there will be 500+ people wanting to sign leases for those 33 units.
If all you've got is garbage and unpleasantness that's going to be the life you have going forward.
An actively worthwhile environment is too little appreciated, especially when it comes to affordable housing, and even less affordable housing.
I live in SoCal, LA County, in fact. Worse, I rent. And yet I do not support the projects going up in my area. There is no question that they will sell, but they are poorly sited from the standpoint of neighborhood quality of life, not least because there is no public transport nearby, meaning they will generate a lot of new traffic (130 units, so presumably roughly 260 cars) on side streets not built for it. The Sylmar property mentioned in the article looks to be similarly sited. We need more density (in my neighborhood, too), but it would be great if this new development could be done with some planning rather than simply wherever a developer can buy land and then bulldoze approvals. I've lived in the no-zoning hellhole of Houston. I'd hate to see that chaos recreated here.
Sounds like he made use of the "Builder's Remedy" clause. This phrase has been much in the news here in the SF Peninsula, as upscale enclaves like Atherton have had to hustle to get their "housing element" plans approved or face unrestricted development, and many remain out of compliance.
https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/02/california-housing-podcast-builders-remedy/
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/builders-remedy-bay-area-will-soon-face-a-powerful-housing-tool
What that article is really about is that super-clickbait picture.
Probably nobody minds too much if someone puts up big apartment buildings near new subway stops, for instance, along Wilshire, which is mostly office buildings anyway.
But if you suggest -- as that picture does -- that developers are suddenly going to buy old single family homes in residential neighborhoods several blocks from main streets and thus bus lines and replace those homes with big apartment buildings, well, you've tapped into the very specific fears of the homeowners, who, if they bought fairly recently, certainly paid well over $1 million for a place like something in that picture.
Which is exactly why I don't believe the picture. No smart developer would build a big apartment building blocks from any main street (and thus mass transit). He wouldn't be able to get the financing for it, I assume, as the bank would assume no one would want to move in. I really would like to see the surroundings of the house in that picture. (It appears, in the top pic at least, that there is a very large structure behind that house, so I'm guessing that house is pretty close to main roads and already may be in a semi-industrial area or near shopping malls.)
That being said, central LA, in contrast to lot of other cities, does have huge swaths of single family homes where there really should be, at least, duplexes, and, on the main streets, much bigger apartment complexes. A good example of that would be the area around the Grove mall and the Farmer's Market, which is smack dab in central LA and has blocks and blocks of single family homes (many worth well upwards of $3 million these days). Tear it all down and build apartments, I say.
What to me is more interesting is: what happens to gas stations as we transition to electric cars? Many gas stations are on absolutely prime land for a big apartment building, and the gas station, by necessity, is usually using only the ground level. Real waste of space, as are many parking lots.
Re: filling stations.
They could start diversifying, adding charging stations and covering themselves over with solar panels, etc. Planning to make the transition.
Or, more likely, the owners could cash in on their "absolutely prime land" -- and maybe even net enough to pay for digging up the old gasoline tanks and remediating the spillage, assuming the laws require this.
Thanks for pointing out the big red brick and black glass building and seems many times larger than the house in question. I really should pay more attention.
A gas station at the end of my street was converted to a bank then a realtor and now it's a kebab place that is apparently doing very well with takeout orders from the nearby hospital.
If his intent is to serve the long-term interest of the people whose lives are being affected by his actions, then he is a hero. If his intent is to serve himself at the expense of the long-term interest of the people whose lives are being affected by his actions, then he is a ruthless villain.
Coincidentally, Kevin's header included the following John Locke quote: "Few men think, yet all will have opinions. Hence men's opinions are superficial and confused." Presumably, with a few exceptions.
Intent is not to be confused with competence. Competence is the speed, and intent is the direction.
It is not impossible to act in the long-term interest of the people that are being affected by one's decisions. Instead, it is inconvenient. The inconvenience is the small short-term pain that, if avoided, leads to the increasingly large long-term pain that we're all suffering and wondering, "Where did that come from?"
I wonder how the dairy farmers on Manhattan Island felt in the early 1800s. Maybe people should have listened to them and kept it all pastures and grainfields.
That said I have no idea if this guy's plans are good or not. If he's building towers surrounded by big surface parking lots, that is not helping. If he's building walkable density, in the long run, these areas will be better off.
The close proximity to public transit suggests that vast parking lots won't be necessary. That's just a guess, of course. The developer may run afoul of local regs that mandate a certain number of parking spaces per resident, or some other well-meaning but now inappropriate mandate.
I doubt the dairy farmers on Manhattan in the early 1800s wanted to keep it all pastures and fields.
The dairy farmers of Brooklyn did try to stop development in the 19th century by refusing to allow roads to be built or widened.
I guess if somebody's going to be exploiting development law for profit, it should be somebody who's building the density of housing we need rather than Gypsum Castle developers.
I’d like to hear more about who the “everybody” is that supposedly hates him.
Existing homeowners who think property value is going down?
“Community activists” who oppose gentrification?
Everyday people who are afraid of noise?
Politicians and pundits who aren’t affected but oppose because they dislike the law on principle?
Real point is - do we actually have 95% opposition by people who live in these areas? Or 5% opposition by loudmouths?
Some people might recall that Santa Monica had (still has?) on the books a ban on most housing developments. This led to notorious 2-year waiting lists to get into an apartment in the area.
This year, they created a law banning the Builder's Remedy described in KD's post. That was obviously illegal -- state laws always preempt local. Will this change the character of Santa Monica? Sure, but you shouldn't trust anyone who claims to know that it'll be for the worse.
I reiterate: YIMBY hero!