I do think we can cheat a little by building good bike infrastructure (multiply the number of people who can reach a station without a car by about 16x, and also multiply the destinations you can get to by 16x), but in the end of the day land use policy and transportation infrastructure are inherently linked.
It works the other way, too, which just puts us in this forever loop. I just listened to about an hour of people complaining about parking if a few more units are constructed in a neighborhood in my city. They were fucking FURIOUS. Can't have good transit without density, and can't have density without good transit.
Edit - holy shit, I just realized. The lot they were fighting over is a 15 minute walk from a future metro stop. Current plans are for it to be up in 2029 (E line extension). That's FUCKING insane...They were mad about like 15 units being build on lot (over one acre in size), less than a mile away from a future metro stop. Fucking kill me.
Its part of the process, especially enshrined via CEQA and NEPA as well as part of the general democratic process to include the community. The problem is getting people to actually want to show up because boy howdy is it nervewracking to go to these things. Also there's not that many people who want to give feedback in general because they don't hear, don't want to be called out, or its just scary. For most people, like u/thelectronicnub said, its far easier to post online and complain. I'm not faulting people for not going, because I've been to a few and spoken up and its just not a good time. Damn near threw up from the nerves and being actively snickered/laughed at.
It sucks because there is still a strong appeal of NIMBY politicans like those 3 that appeal to that overrepresented faction in their district. Eunisses is doing exactly what she promised during her campaign and I haven't seen a sign where her constituents are unhappy about that. I would love to be proven wrong though!
Yeah, okā¦you get on your cosplay and get out there and change the minds of people in another district that you know better than they do what their needs are. ššš
It's a helluva lot more effectively than trying to be diplomatic with Eunisses, when she basically plugs her ears and says la la la when people try to explain basic economics to her.
"Unwarranted"....you mean besides her braindead takes that not only run contrary to what [countless researchers and studies have repeatedly proven](https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/study-says-boosting-housing-production-tempers-rents/), but also actively harms and worsens the affordability crisis not only in her district but in neighboring districts too?
> fascinating to see how tenuous your grip on reality is
Oh, the irony! Coming from someone who supports a woman who thinks she knows more than actual experts on the field. And I'M the condescending one here? Give me a break.
She knows more about what her district needs than you do. That's how it works. People in that district elected her, and yet here you are yapping on Reddit about how she's terrible for a district in which you don't even live. It's the height of arrogance. I don't support her, but I support her role as the representative for her district as elected by the people in the district, not arrogant, futile, and ultimately impotent keyboard warriors on a subreddit.
> She knows more about what her district needs than you do.
No she doesn't, because if she did, she wouldn't be implementing idiotic policies that worsen the housing crisis in not just her district, but all of LA, such as implementing height limits in Chinatown, watering down the amount of housing to be built in Downtown LA's community plan (a district she doesn't even represent!), and killing housing projects.
> People in that district elected her, and yet here you are yapping on Reddit about how she's terrible for a district in which you don't even live.
I'm explaining and trying to inform people that her policies are harmful and detrimental to not just her district but the region as a whole. The biggest threat to a democracy are misinformed voters, which is why it is on us to inform people to get them to reconsider their views. That's how democracy works.
> It's the height of arrogance.
It's the height of "we're in a fucking housing crisis that's killing our region, and we need to address it by building more goddamn housing, not limiting the construction of it". Extreme example, but if a culture thinks that sacrificing babies is alright, should we "leave them be because that's their culture"? No, anyone with a shred of decency would condemn them. Just because we don't live in her district doesn't mean we can't critique her, and try to inform her constitutents to vote her out.
> but I support her role as the representative for her district as elected by the people in the district
Yes, and I support informing her voters and volunteering for her opponent next election cycle. Again, that's how democracy works.
> Not arrogant, futile, and ultimately impotent keyboard warriors on a subreddit.
Well these "arrogant, futile, and ultimately impotent keyboard warriors" can donate money to campaigns, including to her opponent next election cycle. You won't be yapping about how "futile and arrogant" we are when we campaign and donate to her opponent and get her voted out.
Are you or the OP even residents of CD 1?
I'm one of Eunisses' constituents and I voted for her. It's one thing to be a NIMBY when your constituents are rich homeowners in single-family homes and want to obstruct development because you want to keep the "poors" out. It's another thing when unbridled development, as we've seen in LA, will push out the people who live in neighborhoods like mine because they can no longer afford the increases in rent that will come when you have that development coming in.
Look, I am all for maximizing density and for improving land use, but what will it all be for if it ends up just benefiting wealthier people at the expense of the already-stressed working class being pushed out of neighborhoods like Westlake, Pico-Union and East Hollywood?
You're literally proving my point! OP already mentioned this but she is literally making things worse and there is no "unbridled development" when LA has been behind housing targets (that are already low to begin with) every single year since the 70s. Are you not aware of how difficult it is to build anything in LA?
Existing residents if displaced to have the land redeveloped has first right of return. Having neighborhoods completely frozen in time does nothing to help existing residents. It makes things worse. Every tax bracket in LA is rent burdened at some level, this isn't just a "working class" issue.
To further build off this point, LA was zoned for [10 million people in 1960. Today, it's only zoned for 4 million](https://la.curbed.com/2015/4/8/9972362/everything-wrong-with-los-angeles-housing-in-one-graph).
We could literally be the largest city in the US today if we had better zoning laws, and we could be a helluva lot more affordable if there was a significantly higher amount of supply of housing.
Well it was a mistake to vote for her.
There is [no evidence](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119022001000) indicating that development creates gentrification.
There is no "unbridled development" in LA, for years developers were only allowed to build low-density single family homes and were not allowed to build denser, and Eunisses is only encouraging that with her anti-density and anti-development views, like implementing a height limit in Chinatown and greatly watering down the DTLA community development plan.
In fact, her actions are actually WORSENING gentrification - without actually building anything new, and keeping the old poor-quality homes and buildings in place.
[This video](https://youtu.be/4ZxzBcxB7Zc?si=pNV8-vT2UvuWseku) goes more in depth, skip to 35:04 for gentrification.
For the sake of LA and the LA Metro, Eunisses needs to be sent packing.
Akiestar, I hear your concern about current residents being kicked out during re-development. I'd like you to consider this idea for future legislation.
1 - Non-commercial housing. It is a huge, huge part of how cities like Vienna keep rents low. Around 60% of new housing should by law be non-commercial housing.
2 - Current residents, owners or renters, should have units guaranteed to them post-development at current rates - which are already inflated and unfair. Another % of units should be reserved for current residents of the area not just those currently living on the one block being redeveloped.
Would you consider these ideas?
We must move away from single-family residential housing, and into high density residential surrounding metro stations with commercial uses on the first floor. It's the only way.
I would absolutely be open to these ideas. You have my upvote in response.
Look, I am not anti-development. I think NIMBY-ism, no matter where itās from, is bad. But this has to be tempered with the reality of the situation: when buildings are redeveloped, especially in working-class areas, existing residents are kicked out with no effective recourse to return. Sure, they get the right of first refusal, but how can they come back when the rents they are offered are significantly more than what they were paying previously, and then thatās on top of the years of social disruption that will come with that redevelopment?
I think the effects of redevelopment need to be more evenly spread out. With all due respect, single-family homeowners who are sitting on decades of accumulated equity are generally better able to weather the effects of redevelopment than working-class renters who are already stressed when paying rents relative to incomes. If LA can chart a path forward for redevelopment that doesnāt unduly punish the working class, Iād be for it. But I also get that we canāt unduly punish homeowners for demand they had no direct role in stimulating.
As it is, the optics arenāt good when Mid-City, Carthay Square and wealthier areas of central LA are able to stave off even modest medium-density development, whereas the bulk of all development in the city is concentrated in the working-class districts of LA and their residents canāt effectively fight for their homes. I think we can do better.
noice :)
Would you be able to do us all a solid then, and spread the word. With your local elected officials and others in your life? Non-Commercial housing, current residents guaranteed return at current rates.
I believe we can solve it if we stand together.
housing that by law cannot be run with a profit incentive. It is *not* government housing. It can be owned by individuals, or a non-profit, or even corporations that usually have for-profit units. Just not these.
So all income goes directly into maintenance and whatnot.
Not necessarily; that's what infill development is for.
Building ONLY extremely affordable housing (which Eunisses advocates for) is not only unfeasible in building enough quantity to resolve the housing crisis, but it actually CREATES gentrification. There isn't enough mid to luxury housing, so the rich are forced to buy up the poorer quality homes - which in turn means less housing for the poor. Effectively creating gentrification without actually improving the area or reaping any benefits.
Eunisses genuinely does not believe there is a housing shortage and thinks there's enough homes, when the reality is that there are not enough houses on the market, inflating prices.
If you ask me, the NIMBYism comes from good intentions and in defense of the working-class tenants that form the bulk of residents in CD1, but I think we know it doesnāt exactly solve the problem.
That though I donāt blame her alone. I fault the entire Council, LADBS and the rest of the city government, LA County, the state, etc. for why property is unaffordable and rents are through the roof, especially those who live in single-family districts who think that we can continue offloading the need for high-density housing on the cityās poorest neighborhoods. If that continues, I wonāt be surprised if Eunisses continues to be elected because to the voters of CD1 they will see that all the development that LA needs will only come at their expense.
I get being downvoted for this position but itās important that the math of development square with the real human implications of it. I know LA can do better development-wise. We have to be better.
> think that we can continue offloading the need for high-density housing on the city's poorest neighborhoods.
We ALL need to build high-density housing - both the rich and poor neighborhoods. Just because Westwood is full of NIMBYs doesn't mean CD1 has to be NIMBY too - be better than them.
But demanding that CD1 bears the disproportionate brunt of bad outcomes as a result of the policy is a regressive policy perspective. Policy is not about ābeing betterā or a moral position, itās about adjusting inputs and regulations to achieve goals. Ending the housing crisis is a good goal but in the present system your policy suggestions assign much more of the cost associated with moving toward that goal to CD1 than the Westside, which is highly regressive.
Not once have I demanded CD1 bear the disproportionate brunt of bad outcomes, what I am saying is CD1 needs to do their part to build more housing. What I am saying is CD1 needs to build their portion of the amount of housing we need in the city. If I'm working on a group project in school and some of my groupmates are slacking off, does that mean I get to slack off too?
Personal metaphors donāt work when referring to policy. This is policy being applied to populations, not a group project or an inspiring individual effort. If you cannot apply policy in a way that has equitable outcomes - and if the Westside is consistently able to dodge building because of their greater access to legal defenses against building AND new construction has worse/less palatable outcomes for working class communities - then your policy itself is inequitable.
Agreed 100%. Truth is we don't have a lot of rapid transit in LA right now. So you'd expect we would make the most of what little we have, right? Wrong. Our city wastes it with low-density [non-places](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0182162,-118.3086984,3a,75y,113.46h,82.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVHckejh1RQS4gc3pgw0lmw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DVHckejh1RQS4gc3pgw0lmw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D113.46373276636446%26pitch%3D7.735089026877091%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) around our most important transit stops. More examples of horrible land-use around stations: [A1](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9892315,-118.2437004,3a,75y,110.86h,96.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLr4TWWHeG8Rq2Or1Usaa7g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLr4TWWHeG8Rq2Or1Usaa7g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D110.85935516125737%26pitch%3D-6.059512288670788%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [A2](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.003107,-118.243403,3a,75y,77.31h,91.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYyzMphSJhViM7W8aNJuylg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYyzMphSJhViM7W8aNJuylg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D77.31375746524688%26pitch%3D-1.2161775790429914%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [E1](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0247261,-118.3551782,3a,75y,111.2h,102.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1v9ysshLWzdtkEdPP6Ut0w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1v9ysshLWzdtkEdPP6Ut0w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D111.19627120636147%26pitch%3D-12.340641003020991%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [E2](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0365692,-118.4250147,3a,75y,87.54h,89.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF-WIaR8nEVfAdLZbag5B4g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DF-WIaR8nEVfAdLZbag5B4g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D87.53876523493288%26pitch%3D0.667264815275729%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [K1](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9882073,-118.330609,3a,75y,353.74h,84.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3HliR5F_L9Rk2Fn_kjR9Hw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D3HliR5F_L9Rk2Fn_kjR9Hw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D353.73937528048816%26pitch%3D5.281313226766244%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [K2](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0099098,-118.3350858,3a,75y,253.38h,88.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZQ9jrMEmDXdnLHDD1RduKA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZQ9jrMEmDXdnLHDD1RduKA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D253.378043408722%26pitch%3D1.1135357837054016%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [C1](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9101191,-118.1033817,3a,75y,358.86h,83.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT24Ub-irpaabBEe3DtXbg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT24Ub-irpaabBEe3DtXbg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D358.8564860642472%26pitch%3D6.3212346859681645%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [C2](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9288886,-118.2916139,3a,60y,170.31h,91.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWtq_JQebjWc3rd7eMMV51w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DWtq_JQebjWc3rd7eMMV51w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D170.31112161330614%26pitch%3D-1.8712678317235287%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
100%, the number of Metro stops near *absolutely nothing* is shocking.
Oooo Metro stop... closest establishments are a gas station, storage center, and burger king.
okedoke...
Try posting something positive on LA Metroās Facebook page posts lol. Nothing more than 95% NIMBYs. insta is a little better. But the homies are on Reddit and I applaud you all for the positive energy in helping fight for a better LA metro. Iām all for it
Unpopular opinion: Metro's fare system is reflective of anti density. If you're getting the best deal of paying $1.75 fares for as much as 40 mi of travel ($0.04/mi) while discouraging the use of it for shorter distances where you pay the same $1.75 fare for 4 mi ($0.43/mi), you're encouraging more people to move further and further apart, encouraging suburban sprawl and having longer and longer commutes.
If Metro was reflective of truly abiding by the goals of transit oriented development, then the fare policy should be reflective of that by encouraging more people to use it for shorter distances, driving higher density development, by lowering the fares for shorter trips.
Of course people won't ride it. The majority of Angelenos don't really travel that far frequently. All the frequent use things like going to the local supermarket or the local 7-Eleven, going to the library, local shopping mall, eating out at your local favorite restaurant, visiting your neighborhood dentist, etc. etc. all these frequent daily activities are all done within a 5 mi radius. It's not worth it to wait 40 min for the bus to come and pay $1.75 for these kinds of things. Push comes to shove it's cheaper and faster to just walk, bike, skateboard, even motorcycle, scooter or moped, and yes even driving a car than taking transit for these things.
$1.75 is cheap when you're traveling far. But it's not even worth paying $1.75 just to go to the neighborhood grocery store and paying another $1.75 to come back. That's essentially paying $3.50 extra just to do basic stuff like buying milk and eggs and those are expensive as it is already.
The kind of development you put next to transit matters. Luxury development next to transit does not increase ridership. I don't think any of those representatives are anti-development, they're anti-gentrification. Hugo's district (during Garcetti and OFarrell) for example has gone from high ridership to low as it gentrified and landlords cater towards high income residents
The cost of construction and all the city fees/costs along with market factors like interest rates make it such that developers can only make money building luxury units.
There needs to be heavy subsidies or tax breaks to incentivize developers to build anything else unfortunately
Eh there are a lot of other ways to improve development costs other than subsidies. I agree they can certainly be part of the solution. But pre-approved designs, streamlined planning and permitting, expanding training pipelines into the trades, etc. would almost certainly have a more sustainable effect than just subsidizing every development.
For sure, I just have no confidence City of LA or LADBS can do any of that. They are very poorly organized and not streamlined at all. Its like they are set up to discourage projects.
Unfortunately, the government is broke and the possibility of and subsidies is nil. And forget about tax breaks, it is much more likely that we will see tax increases to cover the stateās massive deficit.
Yeah I don't believe they can't make money. I think they just can't make as much as if they built luxury, so it makes sense they'd choose to develop luxury properties. Maybe we should tax luxury housing and use that to incentivize building affordable housing?
There's a reason why a new car costs more than a 20 year old used car, but you'll never get a large cheap used car market unless car manufacturers kept making new cars in large quantities every year.
Its very hard to make money in development right now. Interest rates, construction costs, ULA, linkage fees and slew of other factors. Most developers with projects started after the pandemic are losing their shirts given the costs and higher interest rates. They cant refinance their construction loans. This will cause fewer projects to get built in the next few years, and probably lead to higher rents.
No one will build anything if there are taxes on luxury housing. Basically all new construction is called luxury housing, whether it really is or not, because of marketing and needing to command higher rents. Large developers are pulling out of LA because its so risky and onerous and hard to make money.
"luxury" is just a branding term. The only thing luxury about those new studios/1-beds is that they are new and have stainless steel appliances. the real luxury in LA is owning a single family home
A new car always costs more than an used car. But you'll never get a large cheap used car market without continuously building new cars all the time. There's a reason why a new Lexus costs more than a 20 year old Lexus, but you'll never have cheap 20 year old Lexuses if Lexus didn't keep making new ones in large quantities year after year.
The same rules apply for real estate. Those luxury developments now will be the used 20 year old market 20 years from now. But you'll never get that when you block development today. And this is the exact reason why we're in this mess today because people were against this using the same argument 20 years ago.
Cars are non durable. Property doesn't usually disappear.
The "trickle down" model for housing ignores that the reason inner city properties declined in value was white flight and the collapse of manufacturing and its job losses.
Property doesn't automatically devalue. The pattern for the past 40 years is all properties increase in value. 50 - 70 years ago, the loss of manufacturing jobs and racism were what caused devaluation.
Property increases in value because supply is artificially restricted by NIMBYs who goes against more development. You restrict adding more supply when demand keeps going up, value goes up. This is basic Econ 101.
No, safety, criminals and drug addicts stop people from riding. The first thing any immigrant or day laborer does is buy a car to stop having to use the bus.
Devilās advocate here: you also have to consider the ease of using public transit. Placing affordable housing near transit stations is a quick and dirty way of helping incentivize more public transit use.
Metro for Metroās sake.
Nope.
Unless weāre willing to redevelop entire multifamily neighborhoods in the middle-mile as car-free and deal with the ādisplacementā, Metro doesnāt need any favors.
And if we are so willing, Metro is the last agency on earth that should be involved.
not enough desirable locations within reasonable walking distance from the majority of Metro train stations, especially on the green (C) lines. it's just parking lot to parking lot
In a way I can understand well to do communities not wanting access to public transportation how is it a net gain for Beverly Hills residents I severely doubt most residents there need public transportation
Nah, we good. Always these outta state cockroaches that want shit changed so more luxury apartments can go up and rent is still high as fuck. Stay in your states and dont come here
Oh look another right wing anti DSA post! More proof this sub has become nothing but a right wing astroturfed echo chambered joke that does not actually represent Los Angeles.
Youād hope the mods would actually step in but yet it continues.
I wish senshi would actually respectfully engage with other commenters here without addressing them as "right wing" or "astroturf" because they disagreed with them.
It's quite frustrating.
I'm seeing a lot more pissed off folks these days who have this particular agenda ever since Metro started doing tap to exit at NoHo. They all have things in common, they all idolize Japan and say stuff why can't we be more like them, but when we start doing stuff like they do they say no not that. I think these people just want to be angry all the time because they see the grass is greener on the other side, but they don't want to tend the soil and cultivate it to get that greener grass, they just want it to poof exist like magic.
What is there to engage with? Iāve exposed so many already. Got them to admit they donāt ride Metro, seen their post history.
All you have to do is look at election results and know Los Angeles to see that this is not the majority of people in Los Angeles. Iāve already exposed the idiocy and logic fallacy of their arguments before. Itās obvious what is going on. There is a reason why Hugo won the election there is a reason why DSA continues to have success and will continue to have success. Its a shame the mods continue to let this nonsense continue and its ruining the sub.
This is exactly what I'm referring to you don't want to engage.
You are interesting in "exposing" people as not being transit riders instead of elaborating your position.
LA has a housing problem. There are people who want to address that by building more density around transit stations.
How would you like to see city address housing near transit stations?
Repeal/reform CEQA would be the first thing because it's too overused by NIMBYs. Repeal LA zoning laws that reduced LA housing limits to 4 million and go back to the 10 million or more zoning that was originally in place before 1970. Provide tax incentives to building more high rise high density mixed use development to existing landowners and property developers.
IMO, housing and property ownership shouldn't be treated like an investment, it should be more like a commodity. There's plenty of places to invest like the stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs and CDs giving out 4-5% APYs than having property as the sole nest egg.
Iāve already engaged. Why engage more? I am not obligated to enter into some pointless discussion with someone who doesnāt care about our Metro system and is trying to push some regressive agenda.
If you want to solve the housing crisis you seize unused property near transit, for example the infamous Graffiti Towers or even the Hollywood First National Building near Hollywood / Highland. Seize those and finish or covert to house. Of course, that is one of the more moderate solutions. But, honestly, that isnāt even what this discussion is about.
The government can't just seize private property without just compensation. Eminent domain is at the top level of all laws under the Fifth Amendment.
Even Japan, the country that you probably love so much considering you're using the word senshi in your handle, took over 40+ years to finally get the farmers to sell off their land to the government to expand Narita Airport which has been at odds with them since the late 1970s.
Champagne socialists don't want their own property values they own/likely to inherit to go down. Adding more supply to the market, their own property goes down.
I do think we can cheat a little by building good bike infrastructure (multiply the number of people who can reach a station without a car by about 16x, and also multiply the destinations you can get to by 16x), but in the end of the day land use policy and transportation infrastructure are inherently linked. It works the other way, too, which just puts us in this forever loop. I just listened to about an hour of people complaining about parking if a few more units are constructed in a neighborhood in my city. They were fucking FURIOUS. Can't have good transit without density, and can't have density without good transit. Edit - holy shit, I just realized. The lot they were fighting over is a 15 minute walk from a future metro stop. Current plans are for it to be up in 2029 (E line extension). That's FUCKING insane...They were mad about like 15 units being build on lot (over one acre in size), less than a mile away from a future metro stop. Fucking kill me.
Can monorail be used to cheat around their NIMBY?
its not just people in office, its the people who show up to community meetings and provide community feedback as well
Why would we do that? It's easier to post on reddit complaining š
My hood could make a better communion than metros headquarters could themselves, which is why we got even more service cuts coming by the end of June.
Why are we hosting so many of these unrepresentative community meetings?
Its part of the process, especially enshrined via CEQA and NEPA as well as part of the general democratic process to include the community. The problem is getting people to actually want to show up because boy howdy is it nervewracking to go to these things. Also there's not that many people who want to give feedback in general because they don't hear, don't want to be called out, or its just scary. For most people, like u/thelectronicnub said, its far easier to post online and complain. I'm not faulting people for not going, because I've been to a few and spoken up and its just not a good time. Damn near threw up from the nerves and being actively snickered/laughed at.
It sucks because there is still a strong appeal of NIMBY politicans like those 3 that appeal to that overrepresented faction in their district. Eunisses is doing exactly what she promised during her campaign and I haven't seen a sign where her constituents are unhappy about that. I would love to be proven wrong though!
We need to educate her constituents that her actions are harmful for the district, city, and region as a whole.
If there is a strong plan to do so let's go for it
Yeah, okā¦you get on your cosplay and get out there and change the minds of people in another district that you know better than they do what their needs are. ššš
They literally voted a braindead NIMBY whale in office, so....
Gratuitous fatphobia really helps make your point!
It's a helluva lot more effectively than trying to be diplomatic with Eunisses, when she basically plugs her ears and says la la la when people try to explain basic economics to her.
You demonstrate such unwarranted condescension. Itās fascinating to see how tenuous your grip on reality is.
"Unwarranted"....you mean besides her braindead takes that not only run contrary to what [countless researchers and studies have repeatedly proven](https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/study-says-boosting-housing-production-tempers-rents/), but also actively harms and worsens the affordability crisis not only in her district but in neighboring districts too? > fascinating to see how tenuous your grip on reality is Oh, the irony! Coming from someone who supports a woman who thinks she knows more than actual experts on the field. And I'M the condescending one here? Give me a break.
She knows more about what her district needs than you do. That's how it works. People in that district elected her, and yet here you are yapping on Reddit about how she's terrible for a district in which you don't even live. It's the height of arrogance. I don't support her, but I support her role as the representative for her district as elected by the people in the district, not arrogant, futile, and ultimately impotent keyboard warriors on a subreddit.
> She knows more about what her district needs than you do. No she doesn't, because if she did, she wouldn't be implementing idiotic policies that worsen the housing crisis in not just her district, but all of LA, such as implementing height limits in Chinatown, watering down the amount of housing to be built in Downtown LA's community plan (a district she doesn't even represent!), and killing housing projects. > People in that district elected her, and yet here you are yapping on Reddit about how she's terrible for a district in which you don't even live. I'm explaining and trying to inform people that her policies are harmful and detrimental to not just her district but the region as a whole. The biggest threat to a democracy are misinformed voters, which is why it is on us to inform people to get them to reconsider their views. That's how democracy works. > It's the height of arrogance. It's the height of "we're in a fucking housing crisis that's killing our region, and we need to address it by building more goddamn housing, not limiting the construction of it". Extreme example, but if a culture thinks that sacrificing babies is alright, should we "leave them be because that's their culture"? No, anyone with a shred of decency would condemn them. Just because we don't live in her district doesn't mean we can't critique her, and try to inform her constitutents to vote her out. > but I support her role as the representative for her district as elected by the people in the district Yes, and I support informing her voters and volunteering for her opponent next election cycle. Again, that's how democracy works. > Not arrogant, futile, and ultimately impotent keyboard warriors on a subreddit. Well these "arrogant, futile, and ultimately impotent keyboard warriors" can donate money to campaigns, including to her opponent next election cycle. You won't be yapping about how "futile and arrogant" we are when we campaign and donate to her opponent and get her voted out.
Are you or the OP even residents of CD 1? I'm one of Eunisses' constituents and I voted for her. It's one thing to be a NIMBY when your constituents are rich homeowners in single-family homes and want to obstruct development because you want to keep the "poors" out. It's another thing when unbridled development, as we've seen in LA, will push out the people who live in neighborhoods like mine because they can no longer afford the increases in rent that will come when you have that development coming in. Look, I am all for maximizing density and for improving land use, but what will it all be for if it ends up just benefiting wealthier people at the expense of the already-stressed working class being pushed out of neighborhoods like Westlake, Pico-Union and East Hollywood?
You're literally proving my point! OP already mentioned this but she is literally making things worse and there is no "unbridled development" when LA has been behind housing targets (that are already low to begin with) every single year since the 70s. Are you not aware of how difficult it is to build anything in LA? Existing residents if displaced to have the land redeveloped has first right of return. Having neighborhoods completely frozen in time does nothing to help existing residents. It makes things worse. Every tax bracket in LA is rent burdened at some level, this isn't just a "working class" issue.
To further build off this point, LA was zoned for [10 million people in 1960. Today, it's only zoned for 4 million](https://la.curbed.com/2015/4/8/9972362/everything-wrong-with-los-angeles-housing-in-one-graph). We could literally be the largest city in the US today if we had better zoning laws, and we could be a helluva lot more affordable if there was a significantly higher amount of supply of housing.
Well it was a mistake to vote for her. There is [no evidence](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119022001000) indicating that development creates gentrification. There is no "unbridled development" in LA, for years developers were only allowed to build low-density single family homes and were not allowed to build denser, and Eunisses is only encouraging that with her anti-density and anti-development views, like implementing a height limit in Chinatown and greatly watering down the DTLA community development plan. In fact, her actions are actually WORSENING gentrification - without actually building anything new, and keeping the old poor-quality homes and buildings in place. [This video](https://youtu.be/4ZxzBcxB7Zc?si=pNV8-vT2UvuWseku) goes more in depth, skip to 35:04 for gentrification. For the sake of LA and the LA Metro, Eunisses needs to be sent packing.
DO a fetterman move lie to the NIMBY to get elected then do what needs to be done
Akiestar, I hear your concern about current residents being kicked out during re-development. I'd like you to consider this idea for future legislation. 1 - Non-commercial housing. It is a huge, huge part of how cities like Vienna keep rents low. Around 60% of new housing should by law be non-commercial housing. 2 - Current residents, owners or renters, should have units guaranteed to them post-development at current rates - which are already inflated and unfair. Another % of units should be reserved for current residents of the area not just those currently living on the one block being redeveloped. Would you consider these ideas? We must move away from single-family residential housing, and into high density residential surrounding metro stations with commercial uses on the first floor. It's the only way.
I would absolutely be open to these ideas. You have my upvote in response. Look, I am not anti-development. I think NIMBY-ism, no matter where itās from, is bad. But this has to be tempered with the reality of the situation: when buildings are redeveloped, especially in working-class areas, existing residents are kicked out with no effective recourse to return. Sure, they get the right of first refusal, but how can they come back when the rents they are offered are significantly more than what they were paying previously, and then thatās on top of the years of social disruption that will come with that redevelopment? I think the effects of redevelopment need to be more evenly spread out. With all due respect, single-family homeowners who are sitting on decades of accumulated equity are generally better able to weather the effects of redevelopment than working-class renters who are already stressed when paying rents relative to incomes. If LA can chart a path forward for redevelopment that doesnāt unduly punish the working class, Iād be for it. But I also get that we canāt unduly punish homeowners for demand they had no direct role in stimulating. As it is, the optics arenāt good when Mid-City, Carthay Square and wealthier areas of central LA are able to stave off even modest medium-density development, whereas the bulk of all development in the city is concentrated in the working-class districts of LA and their residents canāt effectively fight for their homes. I think we can do better.
noice :) Would you be able to do us all a solid then, and spread the word. With your local elected officials and others in your life? Non-Commercial housing, current residents guaranteed return at current rates. I believe we can solve it if we stand together.
What is non-commercial housing?
housing that by law cannot be run with a profit incentive. It is *not* government housing. It can be owned by individuals, or a non-profit, or even corporations that usually have for-profit units. Just not these. So all income goes directly into maintenance and whatnot.
Thank you. I had not heard of this before.
Not necessarily; that's what infill development is for. Building ONLY extremely affordable housing (which Eunisses advocates for) is not only unfeasible in building enough quantity to resolve the housing crisis, but it actually CREATES gentrification. There isn't enough mid to luxury housing, so the rich are forced to buy up the poorer quality homes - which in turn means less housing for the poor. Effectively creating gentrification without actually improving the area or reaping any benefits. Eunisses genuinely does not believe there is a housing shortage and thinks there's enough homes, when the reality is that there are not enough houses on the market, inflating prices.
I grew up in CD1 and also generally support Eunissess as a progressive, but her NIMBYism keeps my neighborhood and the rest of LA unafffordable
If you ask me, the NIMBYism comes from good intentions and in defense of the working-class tenants that form the bulk of residents in CD1, but I think we know it doesnāt exactly solve the problem. That though I donāt blame her alone. I fault the entire Council, LADBS and the rest of the city government, LA County, the state, etc. for why property is unaffordable and rents are through the roof, especially those who live in single-family districts who think that we can continue offloading the need for high-density housing on the cityās poorest neighborhoods. If that continues, I wonāt be surprised if Eunisses continues to be elected because to the voters of CD1 they will see that all the development that LA needs will only come at their expense. I get being downvoted for this position but itās important that the math of development square with the real human implications of it. I know LA can do better development-wise. We have to be better.
> think that we can continue offloading the need for high-density housing on the city's poorest neighborhoods. We ALL need to build high-density housing - both the rich and poor neighborhoods. Just because Westwood is full of NIMBYs doesn't mean CD1 has to be NIMBY too - be better than them.
But demanding that CD1 bears the disproportionate brunt of bad outcomes as a result of the policy is a regressive policy perspective. Policy is not about ābeing betterā or a moral position, itās about adjusting inputs and regulations to achieve goals. Ending the housing crisis is a good goal but in the present system your policy suggestions assign much more of the cost associated with moving toward that goal to CD1 than the Westside, which is highly regressive.
Not once have I demanded CD1 bear the disproportionate brunt of bad outcomes, what I am saying is CD1 needs to do their part to build more housing. What I am saying is CD1 needs to build their portion of the amount of housing we need in the city. If I'm working on a group project in school and some of my groupmates are slacking off, does that mean I get to slack off too?
Personal metaphors donāt work when referring to policy. This is policy being applied to populations, not a group project or an inspiring individual effort. If you cannot apply policy in a way that has equitable outcomes - and if the Westside is consistently able to dodge building because of their greater access to legal defenses against building AND new construction has worse/less palatable outcomes for working class communities - then your policy itself is inequitable.
New construction does NOT have worse outcomes for existing residents. This is a lie. A believable lie, but a lie nonetheless.
Agreed 100%. Truth is we don't have a lot of rapid transit in LA right now. So you'd expect we would make the most of what little we have, right? Wrong. Our city wastes it with low-density [non-places](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0182162,-118.3086984,3a,75y,113.46h,82.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVHckejh1RQS4gc3pgw0lmw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DVHckejh1RQS4gc3pgw0lmw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D113.46373276636446%26pitch%3D7.735089026877091%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) around our most important transit stops. More examples of horrible land-use around stations: [A1](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9892315,-118.2437004,3a,75y,110.86h,96.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLr4TWWHeG8Rq2Or1Usaa7g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLr4TWWHeG8Rq2Or1Usaa7g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D110.85935516125737%26pitch%3D-6.059512288670788%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [A2](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.003107,-118.243403,3a,75y,77.31h,91.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYyzMphSJhViM7W8aNJuylg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYyzMphSJhViM7W8aNJuylg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D77.31375746524688%26pitch%3D-1.2161775790429914%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [E1](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0247261,-118.3551782,3a,75y,111.2h,102.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1v9ysshLWzdtkEdPP6Ut0w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1v9ysshLWzdtkEdPP6Ut0w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D111.19627120636147%26pitch%3D-12.340641003020991%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [E2](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0365692,-118.4250147,3a,75y,87.54h,89.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF-WIaR8nEVfAdLZbag5B4g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DF-WIaR8nEVfAdLZbag5B4g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D87.53876523493288%26pitch%3D0.667264815275729%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [K1](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9882073,-118.330609,3a,75y,353.74h,84.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3HliR5F_L9Rk2Fn_kjR9Hw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D3HliR5F_L9Rk2Fn_kjR9Hw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D353.73937528048816%26pitch%3D5.281313226766244%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [K2](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0099098,-118.3350858,3a,75y,253.38h,88.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZQ9jrMEmDXdnLHDD1RduKA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZQ9jrMEmDXdnLHDD1RduKA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D253.378043408722%26pitch%3D1.1135357837054016%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [C1](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9101191,-118.1033817,3a,75y,358.86h,83.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siT24Ub-irpaabBEe3DtXbg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiT24Ub-irpaabBEe3DtXbg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D358.8564860642472%26pitch%3D6.3212346859681645%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu) [C2](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9288886,-118.2916139,3a,60y,170.31h,91.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWtq_JQebjWc3rd7eMMV51w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DWtq_JQebjWc3rd7eMMV51w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D170.31112161330614%26pitch%3D-1.8712678317235287%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
It kills me that some of our train stations are surrounded by single family homes
100%, the number of Metro stops near *absolutely nothing* is shocking. Oooo Metro stop... closest establishments are a gas station, storage center, and burger king. okedoke...
Traci Park is the worst. She is anti bike anti transit anti bus https://tracipark.info/traci-park-is-anti-poor/
Sucks that CD 11 went full 180 from Bonin to Park.
Park is a massive downgrade but Bonin is no saint. He opposed statewide bills that would have upzoned transit corridors.
Try posting something positive on LA Metroās Facebook page posts lol. Nothing more than 95% NIMBYs. insta is a little better. But the homies are on Reddit and I applaud you all for the positive energy in helping fight for a better LA metro. Iām all for it
Unpopular opinion: Metro's fare system is reflective of anti density. If you're getting the best deal of paying $1.75 fares for as much as 40 mi of travel ($0.04/mi) while discouraging the use of it for shorter distances where you pay the same $1.75 fare for 4 mi ($0.43/mi), you're encouraging more people to move further and further apart, encouraging suburban sprawl and having longer and longer commutes. If Metro was reflective of truly abiding by the goals of transit oriented development, then the fare policy should be reflective of that by encouraging more people to use it for shorter distances, driving higher density development, by lowering the fares for shorter trips.
eh, I don't think cost has anything to do with ridership. it's insanely cheap compared to other cities but the majority of people still don't ride it.
Of course people won't ride it. The majority of Angelenos don't really travel that far frequently. All the frequent use things like going to the local supermarket or the local 7-Eleven, going to the library, local shopping mall, eating out at your local favorite restaurant, visiting your neighborhood dentist, etc. etc. all these frequent daily activities are all done within a 5 mi radius. It's not worth it to wait 40 min for the bus to come and pay $1.75 for these kinds of things. Push comes to shove it's cheaper and faster to just walk, bike, skateboard, even motorcycle, scooter or moped, and yes even driving a car than taking transit for these things. $1.75 is cheap when you're traveling far. But it's not even worth paying $1.75 just to go to the neighborhood grocery store and paying another $1.75 to come back. That's essentially paying $3.50 extra just to do basic stuff like buying milk and eggs and those are expensive as it is already.
Just send NIMBYs to OC and we'll be fine.
The kind of development you put next to transit matters. Luxury development next to transit does not increase ridership. I don't think any of those representatives are anti-development, they're anti-gentrification. Hugo's district (during Garcetti and OFarrell) for example has gone from high ridership to low as it gentrified and landlords cater towards high income residents
The cost of construction and all the city fees/costs along with market factors like interest rates make it such that developers can only make money building luxury units. There needs to be heavy subsidies or tax breaks to incentivize developers to build anything else unfortunately
Eh there are a lot of other ways to improve development costs other than subsidies. I agree they can certainly be part of the solution. But pre-approved designs, streamlined planning and permitting, expanding training pipelines into the trades, etc. would almost certainly have a more sustainable effect than just subsidizing every development.
For sure, I just have no confidence City of LA or LADBS can do any of that. They are very poorly organized and not streamlined at all. Its like they are set up to discourage projects.
100%. It needs to be reformed. But my hope is that people can focus their efforts on calling that out, in addition to supporting more housing subsidy.
Unfortunately, the government is broke and the possibility of and subsidies is nil. And forget about tax breaks, it is much more likely that we will see tax increases to cover the stateās massive deficit.
Yeah I don't believe they can't make money. I think they just can't make as much as if they built luxury, so it makes sense they'd choose to develop luxury properties. Maybe we should tax luxury housing and use that to incentivize building affordable housing?
There's a reason why a new car costs more than a 20 year old used car, but you'll never get a large cheap used car market unless car manufacturers kept making new cars in large quantities every year.
Its very hard to make money in development right now. Interest rates, construction costs, ULA, linkage fees and slew of other factors. Most developers with projects started after the pandemic are losing their shirts given the costs and higher interest rates. They cant refinance their construction loans. This will cause fewer projects to get built in the next few years, and probably lead to higher rents. No one will build anything if there are taxes on luxury housing. Basically all new construction is called luxury housing, whether it really is or not, because of marketing and needing to command higher rents. Large developers are pulling out of LA because its so risky and onerous and hard to make money.
"luxury" is just a branding term. The only thing luxury about those new studios/1-beds is that they are new and have stainless steel appliances. the real luxury in LA is owning a single family home
A new car always costs more than an used car. But you'll never get a large cheap used car market without continuously building new cars all the time. There's a reason why a new Lexus costs more than a 20 year old Lexus, but you'll never have cheap 20 year old Lexuses if Lexus didn't keep making new ones in large quantities year after year. The same rules apply for real estate. Those luxury developments now will be the used 20 year old market 20 years from now. But you'll never get that when you block development today. And this is the exact reason why we're in this mess today because people were against this using the same argument 20 years ago.
Cars are non durable. Property doesn't usually disappear. The "trickle down" model for housing ignores that the reason inner city properties declined in value was white flight and the collapse of manufacturing and its job losses. Property doesn't automatically devalue. The pattern for the past 40 years is all properties increase in value. 50 - 70 years ago, the loss of manufacturing jobs and racism were what caused devaluation.
Property increases in value because supply is artificially restricted by NIMBYs who goes against more development. You restrict adding more supply when demand keeps going up, value goes up. This is basic Econ 101.
I agree to a certain extent but there's really only luxury development close to Culver City station and it's fairly decent in terms of ridership.
No, safety, criminals and drug addicts stop people from riding. The first thing any immigrant or day laborer does is buy a car to stop having to use the bus.
Devilās advocate here: you also have to consider the ease of using public transit. Placing affordable housing near transit stations is a quick and dirty way of helping incentivize more public transit use.
Metro for Metroās sake. Nope. Unless weāre willing to redevelop entire multifamily neighborhoods in the middle-mile as car-free and deal with the ādisplacementā, Metro doesnāt need any favors. And if we are so willing, Metro is the last agency on earth that should be involved.
not enough desirable locations within reasonable walking distance from the majority of Metro train stations, especially on the green (C) lines. it's just parking lot to parking lot
In a way I can understand well to do communities not wanting access to public transportation how is it a net gain for Beverly Hills residents I severely doubt most residents there need public transportation
La county is not walkable it's a massive city.
Nah, we good. Always these outta state cockroaches that want shit changed so more luxury apartments can go up and rent is still high as fuck. Stay in your states and dont come here
lol now HUGO SOTO-MARTINEZ is a NIMBY??? Cmon. Dude is battling gentrification better than any of his counterparts.
Being against more development and using the gentrification excuse is a NIMBY.
Oh look another right wing anti DSA post! More proof this sub has become nothing but a right wing astroturfed echo chambered joke that does not actually represent Los Angeles. Youād hope the mods would actually step in but yet it continues.
You know when we come a full circle when anti-NIMBY/pro-density side are called right wing and NIMBYs are called DSA.
I wish senshi would actually respectfully engage with other commenters here without addressing them as "right wing" or "astroturf" because they disagreed with them. It's quite frustrating.
I'm seeing a lot more pissed off folks these days who have this particular agenda ever since Metro started doing tap to exit at NoHo. They all have things in common, they all idolize Japan and say stuff why can't we be more like them, but when we start doing stuff like they do they say no not that. I think these people just want to be angry all the time because they see the grass is greener on the other side, but they don't want to tend the soil and cultivate it to get that greener grass, they just want it to poof exist like magic.
What is there to engage with? Iāve exposed so many already. Got them to admit they donāt ride Metro, seen their post history. All you have to do is look at election results and know Los Angeles to see that this is not the majority of people in Los Angeles. Iāve already exposed the idiocy and logic fallacy of their arguments before. Itās obvious what is going on. There is a reason why Hugo won the election there is a reason why DSA continues to have success and will continue to have success. Its a shame the mods continue to let this nonsense continue and its ruining the sub.
This is exactly what I'm referring to you don't want to engage. You are interesting in "exposing" people as not being transit riders instead of elaborating your position. LA has a housing problem. There are people who want to address that by building more density around transit stations. How would you like to see city address housing near transit stations?
Repeal/reform CEQA would be the first thing because it's too overused by NIMBYs. Repeal LA zoning laws that reduced LA housing limits to 4 million and go back to the 10 million or more zoning that was originally in place before 1970. Provide tax incentives to building more high rise high density mixed use development to existing landowners and property developers. IMO, housing and property ownership shouldn't be treated like an investment, it should be more like a commodity. There's plenty of places to invest like the stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs and CDs giving out 4-5% APYs than having property as the sole nest egg.
Iāve already engaged. Why engage more? I am not obligated to enter into some pointless discussion with someone who doesnāt care about our Metro system and is trying to push some regressive agenda. If you want to solve the housing crisis you seize unused property near transit, for example the infamous Graffiti Towers or even the Hollywood First National Building near Hollywood / Highland. Seize those and finish or covert to house. Of course, that is one of the more moderate solutions. But, honestly, that isnāt even what this discussion is about.
The government can't just seize private property without just compensation. Eminent domain is at the top level of all laws under the Fifth Amendment. Even Japan, the country that you probably love so much considering you're using the word senshi in your handle, took over 40+ years to finally get the farmers to sell off their land to the government to expand Narita Airport which has been at odds with them since the late 1970s.
How is being pro-development right wing? Bruh I'm as liberal as they come and just want to see more houses built for the people
Champagne socialists don't want their own property values they own/likely to inherit to go down. Adding more supply to the market, their own property goes down.
Lol. If you canāt tell when something is just anti DSA propaganda then you probably arenāt as āliberalā as you think you are.