Is the State Density Bonus Driving Demolition of Rent Controlled Apartments?

As reported in the Los Angeles Times on September 27, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has stirred debate on the key issue of whether the City is doing enough to protect rent controlled apartments from demolition when developers want to build luxury apartments and condominiums. The problem is real - Los Angeles is losing rent controlled apartments almost as fast as it is building new affordable apartments.

But Yaroslavsky has missed the mark by naming the City's density bonus proposal as the culprit. The proposed density bonus law did not spawn the condo conversion craze over the past six years which was caused by larger market forces. In fact, the City has not yet passed an ordinance, even though it has held eight public hearings. With no ordinance there are no clear rules, leaving developers in limbo and making use of the density bonus difficult at best.

However, Yaroslavsky's point that the City should not give incentives, in the form of density bonuses, to developers whose projects will actually reduce the number of affordable homes is valid, and should be adopted. His point is in line with the state density bonus law (SB 1818 ) and we maintain that limiting incentives to situations when there will be a net gain of affordable housing is good public policy.

There are three proposals under review in City Hall that would effectively limit the escalating wave of demolitions and conversions, but Yaroslavsky conspicuously fails to mention them. These proposals -- backed by a broad coalition of tenant, community, nonprofit developers, and labor groups -- would protect the city's now-dwindling inventory of rent-controlled apartments that have become the primary source of housing for the city's low- and moderate-wage workforce. These three proposals are moving at glacial speed through City Hall and could certainly use a boost from a powerful politician such as Yaroslavsky.

Renters groups and housing advocates are pushing the Mayor and Council to do three things: 1) Enforce the existing law that limits condo conversions when vacancy rates are below 5% [this law has been on the books for over 25 years]; 2) Draft an ordinance to limit demolitions as the City Council has directed; and 3) Protect residential hotels across the city from conversion to luxury lofts. If the City only heeds Yaroslavsky's call without moving on these three proposals, then the problem will continue virtually unabated.

Although there are still some loose ends, the City's density bonus proposal has been hammered out in numerous public hearings to emerge as a thoughtful approach - not just a bunch of compromises. The proposal on the table takes seriously the underlying intent of SB 1818-to increase the number of new affordable homes built. It takes seriously the City's General Plan, by following the big picture plan of locating new homes and businesses near transit so people have a viable alternative to driving and getting stuck in traffic. It also takes seriously the preservation of single family neighborhoods by limiting height increases when new developments border them. It could take more seriously the threat of fueling the fire on demolitions and conversions by incorporating Yaroslavsky's idea of a "no net-loss" of affordable homes.

A close examination of Yaroslavsky's proposal to City Hall reveals a long list of where the new housing should not be built. What is lacking is a vision of where to build what Los Angeles sorely needs-- more homes affordable to secretaries, nurses, day care workers, janitors, security guards, teachers and retail clerks. This is a serious issue that needs the attention of everyone who cares about the future of Los Angeles. In the next seven years, Los Angeles will need to build 113,000 new residences just to keep pace with our growing population - not to move homeless people into dignified apartments, not to help workers who double up with other families to make the rent - just to keep pace with our growing population. The challenge before us is agreeing on where to build those homes, especially the affordable ones.