The City of Los Angeles' Housing Element Plan was up for revision
on yesterday's LA City Council Agenda. First of all, CM Tom LaBong
totally blew it from a Brown Act angle and pressure could be put
on Council to reconsider the item if some folks were not happy
with the outcome. (See replay/a complete ZD recap coming later
today.)
But this is about some of the questions raised by ZD during his
public comment. And thanks to the LA Daily Blog reader who
submitted this following analysis for all of you who read this
blog. (This is that highbrow stuff that others are better to step
in and analyze, so here it is people.)
Housing element: Net Gain or Loss as a Result of Development/
Conversion
Vacancy Rate: 4.4% as of March 2008
IN 1998 Avg: 6.2%
IN 2008 Avg: 4.4%
A 30 percent (in last 10 Years) drop in the city's Vacancy Rate
due to the Net Loss as a Result of Development, and not
complying with the 1:1 ration.
In addition the cost of rent has gone up 30-40 percent. The only
units that have not experienced this increase are tenants who have
live in their rent controlled unit prior to the rush to buy up
property in Los Angeles. When tenants who live in rent controlled
units move out, that unit rent increases in par with non rent
controlled units.
When Council Members and the Mayor were enticing Developers
and Realtorswith SWEET HONEY DEALS, these investors and developers
(the Wolves) entered the Los Angeles market buying up residential
property, converting residential property and building luxury
and other such housing projects as the Grand Avenue Project these
groups got together (Developers, Realtors and the like) to profit
fast without consideration of the interest of the City of Los
Angeles and Angelinos.
They justified the increase in rent as Market Rate, which sounded
good and at first no one noticed but now that this scheme has
affected your constituents in a major way--the Tidal Wave came
quietly and has pounced all over the people and affecting the
ability of this city to sustain itself; unless you are part of
the Rich members who got it like that.
For example, in 1986 after a corporation purchased a 32
residential building for an average price of 122K per unit
including the land for which it was built, all but one tenant
moved out within 12 months because none of the tenants could
afford the rent increase. Hence, i.e. the Market Rate, to
increase rent 30-40% is not based on community development, nor
did these investors consider the average wage.
Gasoline, food, and new taxes are the straws that are breaking
the backs of 90-95% of all Angelino's. The real heavy load
that has crushed the sprit of Angelino's is the cost of Rent.
In turn, without funds by the average wage earner to buy goods
and services from retailers in the local community Sales Revenue
to the City is down.
Leslie Ayres
(NOTE: Leslie sent this to Councilmembers with the name included,
so I'm not breaking anonymity -- and I want credit to go the the
community member who provided this info. Thanks Leslie! Always
good stuff!)
ZUMA DOGG WILL BE DOING A BIG THREAD ABOUT THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE
HOUSING POLICY HERE AT LADAILYBLOG.COM AND THE OVERALL PICTURE
RELATING TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT PLAN. THIS IS A GOOD STARTER!
SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INSIDE SCOOP ON THE SHADINESS TO:
ZumaDogg@Mayor09.com
ZUMATIMES.com
Posts