Gentrification and it's Discontents

As I noted in my last blog post, the world is swiftly changing from a previously rural/ suburban cheap energy form of living to a more urban expensive energy form of living. I don’t think it’s possible to comment on the morality of this change (we are simply changing one form of living for another) but how we respond to this change will define our immediate existence. At this moment in time, will our community invest in the lower-cost forms of transportation and save ourselves time and energy or will our community ignore the coming change and continue to do the things we’ve always done?

The Mid-Century City is ending, so far we’ve done a somewhat good job of responding to this change. Measure R was passed in 2008, the Street Car was passed in this past election and Measure J barely failed in this election (albeit, it failed with a 66% approval vote, this is more due to Proposition 13 Constitutional Requirements than voter apathy).  The one thing that hasn’t changed in the City is the reluctance of some residents to support higher density or mixed use development along transit lines.

Here’s a relevant article:

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/12/more_expo_development_hate_pols_attack_sepulveda_mixeduser.php

NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard-ism) is a common critique of people who are rabidly anti-development. NIMBYs are the bane of developers, they are usually, but not exclusively, higher-status established property owners who live near sites of prospective development. In the case of the Expo Line, the Cheviot Hills HOA, Rancho Park HOA, and the Beverly Hills HOA have all sued the Expo Line stating that the Expo Line light rail did not adequately address traffic mediation in their Environmental Impact Report (the fact that the HOAs are suing an environmentally clean Light Rail’s EIR is ironic in itself). Their goals is to sue the Expo Line into oblivion, there’s no other reason for these law suits.     

There’s no way to measure NIMBY-ism. At times it feel random, the Gold Line in Pasadena (a similar wealthy inner-suburb) face little opposition from local home owners while the Expo Line is facing huge resistance. It’s also not something the wealthy have an exclusive hold upon, the residents of Inglewood successfully blocked a Walmart from buying the vacant Great Western Forum and building a new superstore (while Mass Transit and Walmart are about as related as Cats and Dogs, I think, the main take away is that both deals are ground up developments of under-utilized space).

Tracing the root cause of NIMBY-ism is incredibly difficult to identify, each issue is local, and hence, not given to polls or testing. From what I can tell the root causes of NIMBY-ism are twofold:

-Home Owners trying to protect property values by limited supply of higher density housing (condo buildings and multi-family apartments). This does not extend to development of additional Single Family Residences (your typical house).

-Residents trying to protect the ‘Character’ of a neighborhood.

Taken together both of these causes are insidious and point to a larger problem in our culture.

Due to our history, home owners tend to be older people. Often times, in Los Angeles, these people are first or second generation owners in a neighborhood. They managed to purchase their property when it was relatively cheap against what it costs today. Case in point, I’m a first generation owner in Downtown. My condo is a part of the first wave of residential properties that went to market. In 40 years, my property will be very expensive. But today, it’s cheap compared to the rest of the city. One way to keep your property value high or to maintain the ‘character’ of your neighborhood is to practice supply-side restrictions on new housing. No new houses, no new developments means that in an expanding market your property or development can be sold at a premium. This is insidious because it acts a market prohibitor against new buyers who tend to be 1. Young 2. Not white. I point you to Beverly Hills’ opposition to the westside Subway as a case in point, their opposition to the subway is tainted in racist and classist terms

Conversely,  this same is true of development in lower income areas. Their fear is gentrification, article in point:

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/12/la_has_approved_huge_the_village_at_usc_retaildorm_project.php

New development will bring in ‘upperly’ mobile white folk who will drive the poor from their rented homes (side note: this is a reason to promote home ownership for the poor, it allows everyone to benefit from gentrification from equity appreciation).

Opposition to development is not new, it will continue. I think it’ll be important to focus opposition on things that need opposing (walmarts) and promoting things that improve the city (light rail). In a democracy everyone can voice their opinion, right or wrong. The voters will have to choose the right course of action.