Tuesday, February 13, 2018

opportunity

This week, a large coalition of Los Angeles-based social and environmental justice, mobility, public health, and community empowerment organizations came together to publicly oppose California State Senate Bill 827, which was introduced last month by Senator Scott Wiener. So far, the bill has only been introduced and referred to committee, with no public hearing yet or opportunity for amendment in the public process.

[If you're looking for a primer on SB 827, check out this link, or this link, or this link (this last one from Senator Wiener responding to concerns raised in the first two weeks after introduction). If you're looking for reasons why SB 827 is a radical departure worth considering read this, or this, or this, or this.]

The coalition letter, titled "Re: SB 827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning - Transit-Rich Housing Bonus - OPPOSE," stated its concern about the impacts that SB 827 could have on low-income communities and communities of color. So, let's dive in to what this letter says and why it does a disservice to the bill.

The letter states that, "It is clear that in the City of Los Angeles, SB 827 will exacerbate the very issue it seeks to remedy, especially in low-income communities and communities of color." (Years ago, a professor taught us that words like "clear" used in the context of an argument generally fail the test of scrutiny.) As the letter proceeds to cite examples of current zoning and planning practices leading to displacement of large numbers of low-income individuals and families, it does not show how the concerns they raise are unaddressed by SB 827.

So, let's look at the letter's approach and address its points.


Cited Studies
The letter cites several recent studies to back up the assertion that it claims is clear. Let's go through those analyses point-by-point.

Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, “Maintaining Diversity In America’s Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: Tools for Equitable Neighborhood Change.

This analysis found that, "with the addition of transit, housing stock became more expensive, neighborhood residents wealthier and vehicle ownership more common." It offers a number of policy solutions that primarily focus on transit corridor planning and the development of affordable housing along new transit.

California Housing Partnership Corporation, “Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy.

The topline executive summary of this report states that, "a well-designed program to put more affordable homes near transit would not just meet the requirements set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), but would be a powerful and durable GHG reduction strategy – directly reducing driving while creating a host of economic and social benefits." The two key findings from this analysis were:
  • "Lower Income households drive 25-30% fewer miles when living within 1/2 mile of transit than those living in non-TOD. When living within [a] 1/4 mile of frequent transit they drove nearly 50% less.
  • Higher Income households drive more than twice as many miles and own more than twice as many vehicles as Extremely Low-Income households living within 1/4 mile of frequent transit. This underscores why it is critical to ensure that low-income families can live within 1/4 mile of transit."
Miriam Zuk and Karen Chapple, “Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships.

The two broadly-applicable key findings from this report included:
  • "At the regional level, both market-rate and subsidized housing reduce displacement pressures, but subsidized housing has over double the impact of market-rate units.
  • Market-rate production is associated with higher housing cost burden for low-income  households, but lower median rents in subsequent decades."
The analysis' summary of findings continued that, "Although more detailed analysis is needed to clarify the complex relationship  between  development, affordability, and displacement at the local scale, this research implies the importance of not only increasing production of subsidized and market-rate housing in California’s  coastal  communities, but also investing in the preservation of housing affordability and stabilizing vulnerable communities."

-

So, what can we glean from these studies? They're all effectively saying the same thing: We need to do more than just create new housing, generally. Particularly for our most vulnerable communities, it's critical that we have a plan both to preserve existing affordable housing and also to create new affordable housing. Based on these studies, however, the coalition letter concludes that, while SB 827 may create new housing, it doesn't preserve existing affordable housing or create new affordable housing (more on that in a bit)

Let's consider several other key elements of the letter.

"City of Los Angeles"
The letter specifically references the "City of Los Angeles." Why is this important? In LA County, one million of our ten million residents live in unincorporated County. There are 87 cities other than the City of Los Angeles in LA County alone, never mind communities in neighboring counties. Many if not all of the organizations that signed onto this letter serve constituents in many of these cities and places that are not specifically the City of Los Angeles. And while Los Angeles has taken some meaningful steps toward providing affordable housing, particularly around its growing transit network, a significant number of the impacted communities served by the letter's signatories are found in cities and places other than the City of Los Angeles. Yes, LA is California's largest city, but it is only 40% of the population in the County, and it is only 10% of the population in California.

Also, the letter offers that "Our context here in Los Angeles is distinct." While it is true that LA has differences in scale and scope from other places in California, the challenges we face and the opportunities we possess are not so unique as to render our position totally unlike any place else. As someone who has lived in LA and in SF, I've seen regional exceptionalism in both places that sadly often renders both places unable to learn from each other as they deal with many very similar, though contextually unique, concerns.

El Plan del Pueblo, People's Plan, and the Cornfield Arroyo Specific Plan
The letter references a number of City of LA plans, including the Cornfield Arroyo Specific Plan, which the letter states "will lead to affordable housing set asides near transit." That plan, approved over 5 years ago, was recently described by a local builder as "an urbanist's dream," that also "has not produced a single unit of new housing." Not one new unit of housing in five years, and yet the authors state that it will lead to affordable housing.

The letter also notes the Boyle Heights El Plan del Pueblo and the South LA People's Plan. About these plans, the letter notes, "provisions in the above cited plans and policies to prevent destruction of affordable units, require replacement of affordable units and mitigate displacement of low-income families would be undermined."

To this point about the Boyle Heights and South LA plans, I'll note Senator Wiener's own words, "Some have stated that SB 827, by allowing more homes to be built, will lead to demolitions and displacement. That is false. SB 827 does *not* in any way change local limits on rent increases or demolitions. If a city has rent control, it will continue to have rent control. If a city has an inclusionary housing ordinance (i.e., requiring a portion of new units to be affordable to low income people), it will continue to have that ordinance. And, if a city restricts demolitions of apartment buildings (as many do, particularly for rent-controlled buildings), those controls will remain fully in place."

In other words, the very protections provided in the plans cited by the coalition letter are the protections that SB 827 honors. However, the letter states, unequivocally, that, "If SB 827 passes, we stand to lose out on tens of thousands of affordable homes near transit and we are putting families who depend on rent stabilization at greater risk of displacement at a time of severe housing and homelessness crises."

Conclusion: Oppose
The letter's concluding sentence reads: "Unfortuantely, [sic] SB 827 will roll back our progress." This at the end of a letter that opened with "OPPOSE" in all-caps. As noted at the start of this post, however, SB 827 was introduced one month ago. It was referred to committee two weeks later. It hasn't had a single hearing yet. There hasn't been an opportunity to amend the legislation because it has only just been introduced.

As Senator Wiener stated, "In addition, we are looking at ways to include anti-displacement provisions directly in SB 827, in particular around demolition controls and affordability requirements. We will solve the housing crisis by having more housing while also protecting existing residents in their housing. I am completely opposed to incentivizing evictions and demolitions of sound housing—these actions have no place in a smart housing plan—and I fully support adding affordable housing for lower-income people. Our communities are stronger when they are stable and families are secure in their housing."

What about any of this led the numerous participants in this coalition letter to oppose SB 827 before it has even so much as had a single hearing? Groups that have been on the front lines supporting transit, biking, and walking. Groups that have been fighting for tenant protections and housing affordability opportunities in a region that has struggled to find working solutions. Groups that have been addressing disparities in public health, housing access, air quality, and mobility and access. These are groups that have worked for decades to change policies through complex and complicated legislative processes. They understand how laws are made and how advocacy works, and they all signed onto a letter opposing a bill that hasn't had a single hearing, at the same time that the bill's author and his office have been openly soliciting feedback and recommendations for improvement.

-

All this begs the question: Why? And, what now? Unfortunately for Los Angeles, this letter sucks the proverbial air out of the room and removes the majority of our region's community leadership from the negotiating table even before this bill has even begun the legislative process. Perhaps that's a negotiating position in and of itself, but the difference between expressing concerns and requesting changes versus expressing concerns and declaring opposition is the difference between coming to the table to make a bill stronger and walking from the table and letting everyone else decide what makes sense. A couple weeks back, even the LA Times noted many of the same concerns as this coalition letter, but it didn't take those concerns to conclude the bill ought to be opposed.

SB 827 is not the perfect approach - no bill ever is - but it offers a radical departure from the status quo, a status quo which the letter's authors tacitly acknowledge has significant challenges. The shape of this bill - if it is to stand a chance not only at passage in both State legislative chambers but also for being signed into law by the Governor - will have to change significantly between now and the end of the legislative session some 6-7 months away.

The political calculus for why all these organizations decided to come out, so early and so strongly in opposition to SB 827, is unclear. However, LA ought to be at the table as this bill is shaped in the legislative process. Unfortunately, that will now be a much more difficult proposition, as the bill's author's are all Bay Area electeds, and electeds from LA could now be more wary to publicly work on this bill.

There should be no doubt that LA is a better place for the work of each and every one of these organizations. Our air is cleaner, people with lower incomes have more housing security, people of color have stronger communities, and all of us are beneficiaries of a stronger transit and transportation network. However, on this, while their concerns are valid, the approach taken by the signatories to this letter undermines a unique and critical opportunity to address an issue that affects people from all walks of life across the entirety of California. Here's hoping that there's still time for these organizations to consider a collaborative approach to SB 827 that helps address our regional challenges on a broader scale and in a meaningful way. We all would be better off for that.

No comments:

Post a Comment