Editorials on Mayor Villaraigosa's $5 Billion Housing Plan
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's ambitious 5 year, $5,000,000,000 Housing Plan has garner some interesting responses in print publications big and small.From the big soon to be small LA Times, "A foundation, at least".
It is easy -- too easy -- to be underwhelmed by the housing plan released this week by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Much of it we have seen before: streamline the development process, encourage denser housing near transit stops, build permanent supportive housing to get the chronically homeless off the streets. Great ideas, if only they would be fully implemented. **Even controversial elements such as "mixed-income housing" -- a mandate that all new developments include "affordable" units -- come with few particulars and leave the nuts-and-bolts discussions for later.(**Nice of the Times to point out Ed Reyes's contribution to the Mayor's plan).
Jumping over the Santa Monica Mountains, we get this from Ron Kaye's old stomping grounds at the Daily News, "The mayor's plan for affordable housing has curious timing".
WHILE a worried nation waited for Congress to save the mortgage-mangled U.S. economy with $700 billion in Wall Street relief this week, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was already moving on with his five-year, $5 billion answer to the city's affordable-housing woes.
This interesting timing raises one important question: Is Antonio crazy-smart, or just crazy? (Ahh, crazy and smart??)
Back in Downtown LA we have the news story and editorial, "Mixed-Income Ordinance Needs Work" from the Downtown News.
From the editorial,
It is too early for this page to take a stance on whether to support or oppose the Mixed-Income Ordinance, as what the Council will ultimately vote on - if it even gets that far - will almost certainly be far different from what has been presented to date (the basics calls for requiring 12.5%-22.5% of units in large projects to be set aside for low- to moderate-income households, or developers could pay to have the units constructed elsewhere). What we do urge, however, is that Villaraigosa and those pushing the proposal proceed very carefully and consult with all sides. We also urge that they keep a keen focus on the happenings and situation in Downtown Los Angeles. This community has seen far more residential development than any other part of the city in the past decade, and there are still dozens of housing projects proposed for the area. Thus, any ordinance requiring affordable units would have a particularly heavy impact in Downtown. (One should also take into consideration that the current administration at City Hall has issues with developing a "END GAME" on a vast variety of initiatives, can one remember the Million Tree Initiative??)
Then we finish with this from the "Downtown Garment and Citizen", "Villaraigosa Housing Proposal: Billions of Dollars and Too Little Sense".
The Garment & Citizen appreciates Villaraigosa’s willingness to step up to a challenge. We like politicians who want the spotlight when the going gets tough. We also appreciate Villaraigosa’s political instincts, which are usually well-honed.
We must, however, respectfully inform the mayor that he has gone tone deaf on this one.
Our nation is currently amid a crisis wrought by a lot of folks who talked in vague terms about the financial aspects of housing, and a bunch more who didn’t listen closely enough. We have a bunch of elected officials trying to figure out what to do about our problems, and it’s a safe bet that many of them still can’t explain how Wall Street’s exotic financial instruments figure into the misery. We have a big chunk of our corporate class that used to revel in the sharp edges of the free market but now await government rescue.
Now is not the time to launch a $5 billion proposal that relies on “tax-credit equity” for even a single bit of its funding. Not unless you are willing and able to explain the meaning of tax-credit equity, and how it benefits taxpayers. Nor is this the proper climate for putting 20% down on a $5 billion proposal and “leveraging” the rest of the funding. (Sounds right on to me...)
Your comments greatly appreciated.........
Labels: daily news, Downtown Garment and Citizen, la downtown news, LA Times, mayor antonio villaraigosa
Posted by Red Spot in CD 14 @ 10/06/2008 09:37:00 AM
11 Comments:
Can we play "find the unrelated post to this thread game"??
KEEP ON TOPIC!!
P.S. I did not delete you, just move you to a related thread. Happy searching....
Tony is really running out of ideas in getting ready for the governors race.
The money involved here might be a tad too much of a problem to get his plan going, and that is worth a whole separate discussion.
The idea of mixed housing already is a problem by its very nature. Most people move in order to get a better place to live. The mixed part of the housing idea means that other residents not able to handle market prices and conventional housing arrangements will be in the mix. You will have the people (poor, etc.) as the built-in neighbors that the mixed housing plans will incorporate, and by that feature alone, you are going to make these places harder for developers to sell than if they were “exclusive” or located in “better” neighborhoods. From what I have observed, most people will move in order to get some distance between their homes and those of the people with such demographics.
Even those downtown lofts have had the collateral effect of motivating the city to deal with the previously neglected homeless so that the areas around these projects were not tainted by the presence of that part of downtown city life. Some areas still are not homeless-free, but that economic impact of their presence seems to be what really gets city hall to move more than the actual plight of the homeless.
The last big push to move out the homeless was right before the 1984 Olympics here when all the foliage along freeways and onramps were effectively removed. Whole areas were denuded of the lush greenery that earlier allowed encampments to exist, out of view for the large part. Now that job is nearly complete with the further removal of plant life and replacement by cement and river rock, apparently to conserve water and maintenance but clearly making outdoor camping an uninviting option for many homeless persons.
Developers call the shots around city hall, in case you haven't noticed. This mixed housing plan Tony proposes might make their sales take a little dip that would certainly cut into profits and with that potential, you now have their attention. The only way this idea would fly from a developer's standpoint is if there is going to be more money, and the certainty of more money, for them to take away from the game when it's all over. Tax credits, subsidies, and other incentives, as well as, obviously will be needed. And look to the city generously granting a lot of variances from existing codes. All will be important if developers will support such plans. The Grand Avenue project comes to mind when giveaways and concessions in development are mentioned.
Another thought on the difficulty of pulling this off. People and groups have been trying for years to get homeless people back into homes. That's a steep hill to climb now, given the state of the economy, but there always was a part of that group who would not even want to or couldn't adapt to accepting even temporary shelter offered them. There's also plenty who would like a better place to live and just don't have the money or means to really make much money. Maybe that’s the real hurdle for the future that most want to ignore. The continued importation of more poor into the economy from other countries hasn’t helped matters, either.
Even educated people with housing now may themselves be in need of housing in the near future because of the current economy. And things look like they will be getting more severe as time goes on.
Tony's plan is only a plan and I say it is unworkable for these and many other reasons. It was something that his group came up with to boost his visibility in political circles. It has. He looks totally out of touch with this city and the country. He’s been responsible for a creating a lot of the problem conditions, too, both by his actions and by his failures to take action. His motives are always suspect, and on that, he never disappoints.
From the confines of CD-14.
I wish Sarah palin was the Mayor of Los Angeles she ran the city of Wallista so beautifully.
And Sarah Palin is a lot better looking than the midget mayor, I say we make Sarah Palin a write-in candidate for Mayor L.A.
Can you please just provide links to the stories and your commentary instead of posting the entire story? It makes it difficult to scroll.
Whose housing plan is more corrupt, Villaraigosa or Obama?
Whre's Jack Hoff?
Wet Spot you ARE off topic.
SHAME ON YOU TONY VILLLAR YOU HOMEWRECKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Boy. Thanks for starting our very own mini version of Fannie Mae. Let's loan money to people that cannot afford a mortgage and have the city guarantee them. Get your head out of your A** Tony. We aren't voting for ANY stinkin' bonds either. Be a man and start laying off all the lazy city workers.
7:29, I was hoping you would suggest that the city start by laying off the lazy Council and Mayor. Not many of us have respect for the electeds, and would sooner fire them by ballot.
READ SB 1818 IT REALLY SUCKS!!!THANKS TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND WHERE WAS COUNCILWOMAN JANIS HAHN?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home